Photo by Dena Mellick

We accept letters to the editor. Letters to the editor are opinions of the authors of the letter, not Decaturish.com. Everyone has an equal opportunity to submit a letter to the editor. So if you read something here and don’t like it, don’t jump on our case. Write a letter of your own. All letters must be signed and are typically 400 to 800 words in length. We reserve the right to edit letters for length and content. To send your letter to the editor, email it to [email protected].

[adsanity id=27331 align=aligncenter /]

Dear Decaturish,

In response to: https://decaturish.com/2016/10/dear-decaturish-vote-yes-on-amendment-2/

Ballot Question 2 seeks to dedicate sin taxes on strip clubs for a specific use; supporters are hoping that you will not consider the boring aspects of how state government works.

Consider three reasons why you should vote “no” on Question 2:

1.  You cannot legislate morality. As Chris Rock so eloquently stated in his 1999 hit, “No Sex (In the Champagne Room)” – you won’t find sex in strip clubs.  You will find it in hotels.

However, during the last legislative session, the General Assembly earmarked a hotel/motel occupancy tax of $5 / night for transportation.

So, our legislators decided to tax businesses they don’t like.  All of the needs Robin Roberts listed in her letter to the editor have been met by the enabling legislation.  With a “no” vote, the sin tax will still be collected; however, a “yes” vote will not correlate to a decline in sex trafficking.  .

2.  Voting yes will not guarantee sufficient funding levels.  As Renee Unterman opined to the Gwinnett Forum, “do we really want to leave that up to the politics of annual appropriations?” Yes – y’all have one constitutionally mandated job: To pass a budget. Voting “no” removes legislative prerogative, forces our elected officials to justify their decisions, and ensures accountability.

3.  Mandated funding is treated as a funding ceiling, and not a floor. In Renee Unterman’s letter to the Gwinnett forum on 10/28, she wrote, “… I would respectfully suggest that sometimes even a principle held for good reason should be overridden…” If legislators treated dedicated funding as a floor, and not a ceiling, then they wouldn’t need to override their principles. Just because a fund is mandated, doesn’t mean the appropriation question has been answered.

I urge you to vote “no” on Question 2; contrary to supporters’ assertions, “yes” voters do not occupy moral high ground.

– Jack McClure

[adsanity id=9849 align=aligncenter /]