In the “In My View” article of Tuesday, April 23, I was surprised to see Robert Zeis make the statement that he had tried “to appeal to people’s intelligence” in writing the article.

I was surprised because in none of the four topics did he address some of the most pertinent details.

For example:

Taxes: Many European countries have top tax rates of much higher than 40 percent.

A flat tax isn’t much of a bargain for the poor if needed services have to be cut because of lower tax revenues.

Crime and Punishment: The reason why there are so many more prisoners is not mentioned. In other words, why are more prisons the best way to reduce crime?

Immigration: How is illegal immigration to be managed? Why is his idea of not giving benefits to illegal immigrants better than other ideas?

What about children of illegal immigrants who are born in this country?

Jobs and Wages: What about inflation? At an annual rate of 3 percent, (starting at $3.35 in 1980) the minimum wage should have been raised to $4.64 in 1991, and $5.38 today, just to stay at the same wage level.

This 3 percent is arbitrary, but it serves to show what can happen to purchasing power over time. Would a lower “training wage” for the first 90 days of employment be a good idea?

By ignoring these points I have mentioned, Mr. Zeis does no more than insult this Republican’s intelligence and fail to make his points in a convincing manner.

I am also annoyed by the Liberal/Conservative, Right/Left rhetoric that is used.

In my experience, most people are interested in ideas that will work well, without considering if the idea conforms with the party line.

In summary: You cannot convince someone of the rightness of your argument by omitting inconvenient facts.

Steve Meyer

Ames resident