Tuesday, December 7,2010 -Thomasville Times - 5 OPINION Thomasville Times MICHAEL B. STARN Publisher mstarn@hpe.com • LYNN WAGNER Advertising Director lwagner@hpe.com LISA M. WALL Editor editor@tvilletimes.com • ZACH KEPLEY Sports Editor tvillesports@yahoo.com Scandalous suggestion jrom debt commission VIEWPOINT LINDA CHAVEZ Syndicated Columnist As if the collapse in the housing market had not done enough damage to the US. economy, the president’s debt commission is now proposing changes that could take the In dustry off life support. Among the recommendations in the commission’s 65-page report is one to eliminate the tax deduc tion for mortgage interest on homes over $500,000 (the cur rent limit is $1 million) and re strict it to primary residence only The recommendation would also eliminate interest deductibility for home equity loans (which are currently capped at $100,000). The effect of these changes would be to immediately reduce the value of aU homes by as much as 15 percent. Here’s why Homeowners currently are allowed to take an itemized deduction for the Interest they pay on their home mortgages. With conventional loans, most of the payments in early years go to pay interest on the loan, with only a tiny fraction going to principal. Although most home purchasers may not think of it this way, when they buy the house under our current tax system, they’ve invested not only m a place to live but also in buying an asset. The value of that asset win be determined by its future appreciation — or in recent years, its depreciation — but also in the value of the tax deduction they receive on the mortgage Interest. Under the current tax code, ' homeowners get a large tax break. A family that pays a $3,000 mortgage payment each month wUl likely get at least a $2,300 per month deduction m the early years of owning the home. Depend ing on the individual’s tax bracket, the deduction can result m a signlflcant savings in taxes owed. Of course! this is why the debt commission wants to take away this ben efit. But to do so would have unintended consequences. namely lowering the current value of home real estate. As Carlos Bonilla wrote recently for the American Action Forum, a center-right policy group, “Absent the deduction we can expect that housing prices wUl fall by the present value of that stream of tax savings that is m force today” Homebuyers don’t get the tax deduction for nothing — they’ve actu ally paid for it in the cost of , the house they purchased. It has simply been capital ized over the years they wUl be paying their mortgage. He estimates the present value of those deductions on a $625,000 home to be worth more than $72,000 in today’s dollars. Take away the de duction, and the house is now worth only $553,000. In other words, we’ve reduced its value by almost 12 percent. This would result in an enormous blow to the 60 percent of Americans who presently own their homes. We’ve already experienced double-digit home value declines in the past few years; do we really want to see them drop another 10-15 percent instantly because of a change m tax policy? There is also a fundamen tal question of fairness. ' Individuals who purchased homes under the assumption that they could deduct inter est up to $1 mUllon should not now be told that because the government can’t control its own spending, the rules have changed. What would we think if a bank decided it should retroactively change Interest rates or increase the principal on a loan because it wasn’t making enough money on its Investment? Proposals to eliminate the deductibility of home mort gage Interest have been float ing for years — the idea was considered and dropped dur ing President Reagan’s 1985 tax overhaul and has been brought up periodically ever since. But the only conditions that would make any such pro posal feasible would be a low, flat tax in which aU deduc tions were eliminated — and even then, it would only make sense when the real estate market had fuUy recovered. Linda Chavez is the author of "An Unlikely Conservative: The Transformation of an Ex-Liberal. ” To find out more about Linda Chavez, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com. Get Connected! www.tvilletimes.coiii ‘Don’t ask, Don’t teU’ on way out VIEWPOINT DEBRA SAUNDERS Syndicated Columnist On Tuesday, Defense Secre tary Robert Gates released a long-awaited Pentagon work ing-group report on the re peal of the “don’t ask, don’t teU” policy enacted under President BUI Clinton. Most troops, the review found, would not object to a repeal. Some troops made strong arguments in favor of repeal. As one service member noted, “We need aU avaUable men and women who are wUling to serve their coimtry no matter what their sexual orientation is.” Another said, “We shouldn’t turn people away because of things they do in their private life.” One gay service mem ber noted that a repeal would “take a knife out of my back.” Amen to that. They have our back; we should remove the knife pointing at theirs. Besides, I have to agree with the gay service mem ber who predicted, “If it is repealed, everyone wiU look around their spaces to see if anyone speaks up. They’U hear crickets for a whUe. A few flamboyant guys and tough girls wlU join to rock the boat and make a scene. Their actions and bad choice? probably wiU get them kicked out. After a little time has gone by, then a few of us wUl speak up. And instead of a deluge of panic and violence ... there’U be a ripple on the water’s sur face that dissipates quicker than you can watch.” That doesn’t mean that there won’t be problems. As Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., noted during Thursday’s Senate Armed Services Com mittee hearing, the review also found that 58 percent of Marines in combat units and 48 percent of Army combat troops feared that repealing “don’t ask, don’t teU” would have a negative or a very neg ative impact on the ability of their units to work together. America is at war and Wash ington has to address the concerns of combat troops. “Morale wins battles,” said Joe Davis, spokesman for the Veterans of Foreign Wars, which opposes a repeal. Like McCain, Davis objects to the fact that the Pentagon review never polled troops on whether they wanted to end the policy “I wish that the question was asked point- blank — repeal, yes or no.” The Department of De fense, for its part, is very aware that civilians control the military, not the other way around. Hence, its resis tance to poUing troops. But I must pass on Davis’ observa tion that although most civil ians favor ending “don’t ask, don’t tell,” most civilians have not enlisted. “You’re telling someone else what to do, but you would never ever consider joining the military That’s pretty hypocritical in my humble opinion,” he said with military precision. WhUe he understands societal change, Davis added, “The military is about the team; repeal is about the individual.” Fair enough, but there are practical reasons why McCain, the VFW and others who question the wisdom of repeal might want to get behind this document. Two words: “judicial fiat.” As Gates warned, either Washington can repeal “don’t ask, don’t teU” or the courts can do it for Washington. If the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco decides the matter — in the wake of a federal judge’s nUing suspending the policy — you probably can kiss goodbye recommenda tions designed to protect troops who have religious or moral objections to end ing “don’t ask, don’t teU.” The panel, for example, understood that troops might oppose repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell” out of the fear that it wUl be “only a matter of time before the mUitary cen sors the religious expression of chaplains and marginaliz es denominations that teach what the Bible says about homosexual behavior.” Hav ing seen San Francisco pols go after religious groups, I understand that fear. The report made clear that a repeal should not try to control how mUitary per sonnel think: “In the event of repeal, we cannot and should not expect individual Service members to change their personal religious or moral beliefs about homo sexuality, but we do expect every Service member to treat aU others with dignity and respect, consistent with core values that already exist in each Service.” Treat everyone with re spect. It’s common sense. The working group also recommended against creat ing a “protected class” for gays and lesbians. Aubrey Sarvis of the pro-repeal group, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, told me he is on board with that language. We’re “not seeking any special privi leges,” he said. “AU they’re asking is to be who they are without losing their jobs.” Republicans have resisted aUowing a vote in the lame- duck Congress. As Sarvis admitted, “It’s no secret, one of the reasons we’re push ing for the lame-duck, it’s only going to get tougher in the new Congress.” But if repeal faUs, Sarvis promised, “We wUl continue with our aUies.” And then he mentioned the Ninth US. Cir cuit Court of Appeals, which wUl rule on a September de cision by US. District Judge Virginia PhUlips of River side, Calif., that found the policy to be unconstitutional. Everyone knows that “don’t ask, don’t tell" eventually will be repealed. It’s only a matter of time. So the question is: Will it be repealed by people who care about the military and the rights of dissent ers, or will it be repealed by an arrogant judge with a political agenda? That is the choice before the Senate. E-mail'Debra J. Saunders at dsautiders@sfchronicle. com. To find out more about Debra J. Saunders, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com. LEHERS TO THE EDITOR All letters should include name, address and daytime phone number. Anonymous letters will not be printed. Letters should be no more than 400 words, unless otherwise approved by editor. Limited to one letter every 30 days. All letters are subject to editing. EMAIL; Editor@tvilletimes.com FAX: 888-3632 MAIL: Letters to the Editor Thomasville Times 210 Church Ave. High Point, N.C. 27262 EDITORIALS All unsigned editorials are the consensus of Editor Lisa Wall and Sports Editor Zach Kepley

Page Text

This is the computer-generated OCR text representation of this newspaper page. It may be empty, if no text could be automatically recognized. This data is also available in Plain Text and XML formats.

Return to page view