Letters to the Editor

Good Evening,

With regard to the article which appeared in the Sept. 10th edition of the Rockland Times where singles are getting a raw deal so to speak… I have one better on this article…

My daughter died recently at age 50. She was never married nor did she have children. She was single…

When a child dies and was never married and has no children, the parents of the deceased have to step up to the plate so to speak. Both living parents must take charge. Both signatures are mandatory at the funeral home… This is a fact.

Now this is “y gripe,” to add to the raw deal singles are getting and only because she was single…

The government does not bestow the burial allotment of $255.00 to the parents… If my daughter was married, her husband would get the $255.00… You read that right… Married… Single, no allotment. If she was married, her husband would get the allotment. Can you believe that? 

Hello?

I have never heard of anything so ridiculous in my life.

I look at it this way, my daughter is leaving a lot of money to the government, as she was not old enough to collect her social security… So the government made a great deal on my daughter’s contribution. Who is getting her social?

Congressman Lawler will be hearing from me…

Who made up this ruling? Singles don’t get the burial allotment of $255.00. And one other thing, this $255.00 has been on the books for many, many years. Still the same amount, no increase.

Single at death… and still getting screwed.

I would like a response as I find this unbelievable!

Thank you,
K.R.

Sparkill

***

September 11th, 25th Anniversary

By Maryanne Brancatelli

To my Grandchildren,

Your dad was just a teen,

but we remember it well.

Twenty-five years ago today,

America went through Hell.

Even though you weren’t born yet,

and time has passed us by,

the memories of  9 -11

Should be learned about, and never die.

So today on September 11 take a moment,

whether you remember or not…..

to HONOR all of those we lost,

and many who still cry in their hearts.

***

Rockland’s Smallest Businesses Need a One-Page AI Rule

By Dr. Gleb Tsipursky

Rockland County’s Small Business Registry specifically recognizes local firms with nine or fewer employees. Those are exactly the businesses that can least afford scattered AI experimentation.

Culture Amp’s AI at Work benchmark found that 85% of employees said their organization encourages AI experimentation, while only 58% said leaders clearly explain how AI supports company goals.

A tiny business does not need an AI committee. It needs a one-page rule: which problem the tool is solving, who checks the result, what information stays out of the system, and what measurable improvement would justify keeping it.

Rockland already promotes practical technology literacy, including AI classes for older residents. Local employers should apply the same practical spirit at work.

The goal is not more AI activity. It is a small number of useful workflows that owners and employees can explain clearly.

Gleb Tsipursky, PhD, a behavioral scientist, CEO of Disaster Avoidance Experts, and author of The Psychology of AI Adoption at Work: From Resistance to Results (Georgetown University Press, 2026). https://disasteravoidanceexperts.com/aibook

***

Mike Lawler placed a back-page ad in the River Journal this month to highlight six of his accomplishments (online at https://riverjournalonline.com/print-issues/read-the-september-2026-river-journal/316286/).

The last one – “ALWAYS FIGHTING for families in the Hudson Valley” – can be debunked right away. He couldn’t have been fighting all that hard when he’s voted to cut people’s health care and education, make it easier to pollute air and water, send men and women into new wars, create and fund an agency whose tactics have led to gross civil rights violations, and maneuver tax dollars into billionaire pockets. He’s really channeling Pinocchio with this one.

But two of his other claims need more attention, and I asked some of my tax buddies to make sure I got this right:

Lawler first says he’s “LED the bipartisan fight that quadrupled the SALT deduction from $10,000 to $40,000, easing the property tax burden on Westchester families.” His accomplishment is no great shakes here. He conveniently ignores that the $10K SALT cap was installed by his own party in 2017 and was set to sunset at the end of 2025. Nor does he want us to remember that the OBBBA, which he voted for and which passed without a single Democratic vote, raised the cap to $40K only temporarily, reverting to $10K in 2030. Put Lawler back in office and he’s sure to tell us in 2029 that he’s just the right man to help us out again. It’s a standard Republican game plan: reduce taxes permanently for corporations and the very rich, and give only temporary, token bits of relief to the rest of us.

More significantly, when SALT is capped, homeowners are much more likely than renters to feel the impact. That’s because hefty property taxes, combined with state and local taxes, can push their eligible SALT deductions above the cap. It’s homeowners who complain about the leftover amount they can’t deduct, not renters.

The SALT cap may have little or no effect on some other homeowners, like people with co-ops or STAR reductions. In many cases, these taxpayers come out better taking the standard deduction. They’d need substantial additional deductions – like large medical bills, charitable donations, mortgage interest, or gambling losses – to make itemizing worthwhile. Only then would the SALT deduction actually make a difference.

Keep in mind too that New York never adopted the federal SALT cap enacted in 2017. Since the rules in effect prior to 2018 generally still apply in this state, the cap has no effect on NYS returns no matter how large or small the federal cap is.

Placing this overblown claim so prominently at the very top of the list draws attention away from all the other egregious Trump tax and spending policies that affect everyone, and in particular the families who don’t have money to spare.

To Lawler’s third point, that he “CREATED the new $12,000 senior tax deduction that offsets taxes on Social Security benefits for nearly all seniors,” it’s really a whopper to say that the $12K deduction benefits nearly all of these people, because of course it doesn’t. Apart from the real error here – that it offsets Social Security benefits, when it reduces taxable income as a whole – the full $12,000 only applies to married seniors filing jointly when they both qualify. It’s half that amount for eligible seniors filing single and for surviving spouses, and not even allowed for married seniors filing separately or taxpayers using ITINs.

To be even clearer on this point, the full $6K deduction is only available to the seniors mentioned above with a modified adjusted gross income up to $75K; it phases out above that amount and disappears entirely at $175K. For couples filing jointly, $12K is available up to $150K, disappearing entirely at $250K. Those figures matter in relatively affluent counties. Westchester, Rockland and Putnam have among the highest median household incomes in the state for the general population, with median incomes for specifically senior households fluctuating from year to year but remaining within the same range. This suggests there are a substantial number of older taxpayers for whom this deduction is reduced or entirely unavailable.

Given that these amounts are deductions, not money in hand, they don’t do anything for lower-income seniors who have no tax liability to reduce. There are plenty of these people in District 17.

So much for Lawler’s claim that “nearly all seniors” benefited from the $12K deduction. And we shouldn’t get too comfortable with it either, since it expires at the end of 2028 – even sooner than the temporary expansion of the SALT cap.

I think Lawler’s ad is transparently simplistic. He’s counting on us not remembering much about the historical record, and knowing even less about the details of the tax code.

What he’ll never take credit for is the broader economic pain Trump inflicts on NY-17 residents. One could well ask who in their right mind would even want to.

Julie Woodward

Croton-on-Hudson