Supreme Court wrong on new LGBTQ+ ruling

In the recent case of Mahmoud v. Taylor, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that parents can opt out of public school lessons that include books with LGBTQ+ themes. The court decided that exposure to books that included LGBTQ+ characters violated the religious rights of parents who objected to them.

I think the case was wrongly decided. Practically, “opt outs” are so disruptive for teachers that it is most likely that schools will stop lessons on any books with LGBTQ characters. From my perspective, that amounts to the court sanctioning bigotry and not protecting religious freedom.

Plaintiffs objected to a book depicting a prince who fell in love with a knight. The parents of the characters in the book were filled with “joy” at their union. Another book depicted a child who felt they were not the gender they were assigned at birth; the character’s parents still loved them.

We are not a theocracy; marriage equality is the law of the land and it is not a crime to be a transgender person. The books merely acknowledge that all people are not heterosexual and those who aren’t have a variety of life experiences, including loving families.

It appears the plaintiffs do not want their children to be exposed to a reality that does not comport with their views on gender and marriage equality. The court’s decision isolates children from learning about views other than their parents’ — which is not the purpose of public education. Public schools strive to prepare children to live peacefully in a democracy of differing viewpoints. This decision makes that work harder.

— Ruth Dell, Tiburon

More money won’t solve the homelessness crisis

I read John Bischoff’s assertions that the key to addressing homelessness is funding in his recently published letter to the editor.

I did a quick review of San Francisco’s attempts to address the unhoused. Since 2016-17, San Francisco has spent over $2.8 billion to address this issue. Frankly, I can’t see any real changes to the circumstances where people live in tents on sidewalks and other areas when I go to the city.

That works out to about $57,000 per homeless person. How’s that “fight against homelessness” going for those city officials? Sadly, the knee-jerk reaction to any problem is to throw money at it. Well, not so fast. Can’t we learn from the actions of San Francisco?

I don’t agree that property taxes are a place to go for this problem. Many people in Marin (me included) are retired and have a fiscal obligation of over five figures a year already. I can’t see the correlation between my choices, work history, decisions and some arbitrary burden Bischoff appears to think I am now responsible for.

It’s the same problem we are facing daily. We need to prioritize the resources we have now. The answer is seldom more taxation. I offer San Francisco as evidence thereof.

— Joseph Brooke, Point Reyes Station

Targets of immigration raids seem very political

I am writing in regard to the article by the New York Times republished in the IJ on June 15 with the headline “Trump shifts focus of deportations; raids slow on farms, hotels and eateries.”

I suspect the shift happened because President Donald Trump’s rich friends in “Big Agriculture,” as well as the hotel and restaurant industry, whined to him about the obvious: Those businesses are staffed overwhelmingly by immigrants and raids by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers were bad for their bottom line.

It seems clear to me that there is no actual concern about the impact on the immigrants themselves or their families.

With those industries off the table (at least temporarily), I am concerned that the administration will beef up the targeting of hospitals, care and rehabilitation facilities, nursing homes and ride-share drivers to reach the apparent daily quota for arrests.

— John Redfield Brooks, Fairfax

Medicaid cuts put vulnerable people at risk

My wife and I have a 35-year-old severely disabled daughter named Flannery Weil. She lives in San Rafael and receives primary care from the federally qualified health center there. As a way of giving back for the incredible work they have done for her, I have served on the board of Marin Community Clinics for the past seven years.

I understand that under the Senate version of President Donald Trump’s “billionaire’s budget,” MCC and 1,400 other health centers nationwide are losing 30% of their total Medicaid and block grant funding. Millions of Americans will lose access to health care. I suspect people are going to die. It’s that simple.

Our daughter was born with cerebral palsy. She is nonverbal and quadriplegic. She requires round-the-clock assistance. Flannery is supported by the regional center system, with funding that comes in large measure indirectly from Medicaid. I do not know what these cuts will mean for her existence exactly, but I know they will be disastrous, one way or another. I think it is all to provide large tax cuts to the already massively wealthy.

— Martin Weil, San Rafael

Understanding US tax structure is important

I read Jim Martin’s letter published June 29 with interest. I think he misconstrues the complaints against wealth disparity with the actual amount paid in taxes.

Our tax system is progressive, meaning wealthy people pay more money in income taxes than less wealthy people. This system of taxation seems fair and makes sense because one cannot collect income taxes from someone with no income.

Data from the Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan policy nonprofit organization, shows that the top 10% of earners have seven times the annual disposable income ($466,678) as median earners ($68,417) and 26 times the disposable income of the bottom 10% ($18,157).

This is an example of wealth disparity. It also reports that the adjusted gross income for the top 1% has increased from 17.4% to 22.4% while the AGI for the bottom 50% has decreased from 14.4% to 11.5%. Disparity is increasing.

In a 2022 article published by the Economic Policy Institute, Joah Bevins and Asha Banjee report that as wealth inequality increases overall economic growth decreases. This should concern everyone.

The above examples appear to form the basis of the complaints Martin finds objectionable. It is not unreasonable to suggest that the wealthy pay more in taxes given that we have a progressive tax system. It’s a question of fairness.

I agree with Martin that Congress should revise the tax code, but it has “kicked the can” down the road many times. Given the current polarization of our electorate, I fear it will be a long time before we elect representatives who will come together to write the appropriate legislation to address this complex economic issue.

— Mark Darlington, Novato

Trump’s tax bill will be remembered in infamy

I am writing in regard to the letter published July 2 by Peter H. Behr Jr. with the headline “Supporting tax proposal doesn’t mean hating poor.”

Behr asserts, correctly, that the so-called “Big Beautiful Bill” is not a tax cut, per se, but simply a continuation of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. But that assertion ignores how devastating the 2017 act was to the nation’s fiscal health in the first place, adding trillions to the deficit and national debt.

The supercharged, trickle-down growth that some Republicans promised for decades never materialized. Rather than doing the responsible thing and allowing those cuts to expire, I think this new bill recklessly compounds an already unsustainable financial trajectory.

I trust that Behr doesn’t hate the poor (though it seems like too many in the GOP do) even though he likes President Donald Trump’s extended tax cuts. But that ignores the callous indifference to those less fortunate who will lose out on health care and food benefits (among other things) that is baked into this bill.

I suspect this will go down as the most catastrophic bill to come out of Congress in my lifetime. I hope that those who voted for it are held to account.

— John Redfield Brooks, Fairfax