Letters
What I learned from Michael

On July 29, 2005, my son Michael would have turned 5 years old. My husband, Adam, and I would be preparing for kindergarten, saving our pennies for college, and dreaming about our future astronaut, army general or president-in-waiting. But Michael was born with a chromosome disorder called trisomy 13, and he lost his fight for life only four short days later.

Now, instead of his birthday, we are celebrating the fifth anniversary of Michael’s Feat, the charity named in his memory and dedicated to helping local families of seriously ill newborns. I approach this anniversary filled with sadness in his absence, and pride in his legacy. But what have I learned from these past five years?

I’ve learned to be grateful. I am grateful for a supportive family and parents who held me up when I no longer could. I am grateful for the three healthy children who followed Michael, and who continue to reflect his beauty and courage in their smiles.

I am grateful for the best set of friends that any person was ever worthy enough to have. The Board of Directors of Michael’s Feat continues with undiminished enthusiasm, the passion of a parent, and the heart of a heavyweight champion. I am grateful for the businessman and woman who gave of their money and time to help realize the dream of a shattered family.

I’ve learned to be grateful for the stranger who reads about this small cause, drops an e-mail of encouragement, and keeps my spirits up when the children are crying and the bills are mounting. I’m grateful for the public officials who recognize the cause in proclamations and by their presence. I’m grateful for local journalists who report on our successes, and spend many hours with us helping to retell Michael’s story and the reason behind this cause.

But most of all, I am grateful for Michael. In four short days, he taught a lifetime’s worth. Never give in — not for anything, great or small, large or petty. Life is worth fighting for. Hope is not defined by how long you are here, but rather, by what you leave behind.

On July 30 from 1 to 5 p.m., at the picnic grounds behind St. Clement’s Church in Matawan, Michael’s Feat will host the fifth anniversary family barbecue.

Dana and Adam Puharic

Michael’s Feat

www.michaelsfeat.org

Reader says ‘property tax is inherently unfair’

Recent opinion page articles in a local daily newspaper by Sen. Joseph Kyrillos and John Meyerle (New Jersey Coalition for Property Tax Reform) again reveal the gross misunderstanding these leaders have of the fundamental problem with property taxes. What they seem to fail to see is that it is inherently unfair — no matter what the level of taxation. So, their solutions do not address that fact.

Mr. Meyerle’s group claims to want to reform and bring fairness to the property tax. But its proposed cure, the SMART bill, fails in its stated purpose: making property taxes fair for us all. Any plan that leaves in place the property tax is inherently misguided. Lowering how much one pays does not address the fairness issue. A tax should be based upon one’s ability to pay.

Granted, some at the very lowest rungs of the income ladder will find some relief under the SMART plan. But as one moves up that ladder, many will still be burdened with property taxes. Even if they are lessened in degree for a few years — if left in place — it is guaranteed they will eventually be increased.

Unfortunately, Sen. Kyrillos has raised the now familiar canard about the proposed property tax convention. The claim is that if spending is not addressed, then the convention is one-sided and insufficient. These objectors miss the point: the issue is tax fairness, not just degree of taxation.

If the convention is allowed to address spending as well as the narrow focus of how and whom to tax, there will be the inevitable result that taxpayer “relief” will be dependent upon achieving so-called cost savings. And when those savings do not materialize or, even if they do, when they are reversed a few short years later, those most adversely affected by the property tax will be back in the same boat.

If fairness is achieved through basing it upon ability to pay, then no matter how much spending is or is not contained, it will not affect those who need relief the most. But if a percentage of relief is dependent upon cost savings, reality and experience prove a thorough solution will never be achieved. The issue of fairness is about a tax burden unfairly assessed and not about how low we can make an unfair burden so nobody complains. Fairness is a principle, not pragmatics.

Another mistaken assumption by those against the convention is that because it does not address spending, then spending cannot or will not be addressed? Why not? Hold a special session in Trenton and take care of it today. What prevents you? Or hold a separate convention to address those matters. They are not the same issue.

The property tax is inherently unfair. This is because it has nothing to do with one’s ability to pay. Any relief is not equitable and fair if it allows the property tax to remain in place, no matter how low. Smart people would know it is that simple. Politicians? That’s another matter.

John Hendrickson

Middletown