Where's the outrage over increasing the deficit?
By
-
To the editor:
In his farewell address, President Eisenhower said: As we peer into society's future, we – you and I, and our government – must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.
His advice has been again ignored, as it has largely been since the election of the great communicator. Late Thursday night (12-16-10), the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill 277-148 extending Bush-era tax cuts to all, including the very richest, Americans, thus extending the era of what Herbert Walker Bush once termed voodoo economics prior to his signing on to the madness for personal gain.
Although there have been people in government who have been worried about mounting deficits since the explosion of the national debt via a combination of increased spending and tax cuts, primarily for the rich, during the Reagan administration, the prevailing attitude in Washington and across the country was best expressed by then Vice President Dick Cheney's response to then Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's concern that mounting deficits during G.W. Bush's presidency had the country careening toward a fiscal crisis. Vice President Cheney reportedly said, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter."
Fiscal responsibility has not seemed to matter to any administration since 1980 except that of Bill Clinton, the only president to submit a balanced budget in modern times and who actually left a budget surplus when leaving office. Given unfunded tax cuts, unfunded programs such as the prescription drug plan, the unfunded no child left behind mandate and two unfunded wars, at least one of which was totally unnecessary, the surplus was quickly turned into a unprecedented deficit. The National debt more than doubled under the leadership of G.W. Bush, as it did under Reagan and President Obama is well on his way to having it at least doubled on his watch.
The United States has historically raised taxes to pay for wars, until the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan during which taxes were actually lowered and the cost of the war totally passed on to future generations. In 1932, to pay for efforts to end the great depression the top tax rate was 63%. During and after WWII the highest rate was increased to 94% to help pay for the war. The top rate remained above 80% until 1964 when it was reduced to 70% and was over 90% during the "happy days" when Eisenhower was president and the countries infrastructure was being built. Sort of defies basis for Reaganomics, that high top rates will stifle the economy, doesn't it. The top rate remained at 70% until the Reagan tax cut in 1982 lowered it to 50% and his second cut lowered it briefly to 28% which, combined with drastically increased spending, lead to doubling of the national debt. On President Clinton's watch the top bracket was increased to 39% which, combined with a substantial decrease in government spending lead to an actual budget surplus. It should also be noted that while Clinton was president over 22 million jobs were created and we had the longest period of economic expansion in the countries history. Also sort of defies the basis of Reagoniics doesn't it. Bush's tax cut in 2003 lowered the top rate to 35% which, combined with a Reaganesque increase in spending again doubled the national debt. Its interesting to note that on Bush's watch there were not enough jobs created to compensate for population growth. How much proof do we need that Reaganomics didn't work and that Eisenhoweromics and Clintonomics did?
It can be argued that extending the Bush Tax cuts will create jobs and stimulate the economy but, since they didn't do so while in effect so far, why would they do so now? Another part of the cave in to the Party of Wall street is a one-year, 2 percentage point reduction in employees' Social Security payroll taxes, lowering the rate from 6.2% to 4.2%, at a cost of $120 billion. When, for the first time, pay outs by social security are exceeding revenue due to the recession, is this the time to further cut revenue?
About the only portion of the agreement I can support is the extension of unemployment benefits but would prefer that the government act as an employer of last resort, having people do work that needs to be done, or making payments interest-free loans rather than hand outs.
I would like to think that things will change when tea party supported representatives are seated in January but, given the fact that there has been no opposition to this latest horrendous increase of the national debt from a party that's primary concern was supposed to be balancing the budget, I'm not optimistic. Even if these new representatives do address the deficit, I fear that they will do the equivalent of turning off the ignition of a car traveling at top speed on the expressway, thus locking the steering and causing a calamity, by shutting the government down. We need thoughtful leadership to put the country back on solid financial footing, not representatives reacting to an angry, ignorant mob.
Sincerely,
Charles Leach
Lynchburg[[In-content Ad]]
In his farewell address, President Eisenhower said: As we peer into society's future, we – you and I, and our government – must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.
His advice has been again ignored, as it has largely been since the election of the great communicator. Late Thursday night (12-16-10), the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill 277-148 extending Bush-era tax cuts to all, including the very richest, Americans, thus extending the era of what Herbert Walker Bush once termed voodoo economics prior to his signing on to the madness for personal gain.
Although there have been people in government who have been worried about mounting deficits since the explosion of the national debt via a combination of increased spending and tax cuts, primarily for the rich, during the Reagan administration, the prevailing attitude in Washington and across the country was best expressed by then Vice President Dick Cheney's response to then Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's concern that mounting deficits during G.W. Bush's presidency had the country careening toward a fiscal crisis. Vice President Cheney reportedly said, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter."
Fiscal responsibility has not seemed to matter to any administration since 1980 except that of Bill Clinton, the only president to submit a balanced budget in modern times and who actually left a budget surplus when leaving office. Given unfunded tax cuts, unfunded programs such as the prescription drug plan, the unfunded no child left behind mandate and two unfunded wars, at least one of which was totally unnecessary, the surplus was quickly turned into a unprecedented deficit. The National debt more than doubled under the leadership of G.W. Bush, as it did under Reagan and President Obama is well on his way to having it at least doubled on his watch.
The United States has historically raised taxes to pay for wars, until the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan during which taxes were actually lowered and the cost of the war totally passed on to future generations. In 1932, to pay for efforts to end the great depression the top tax rate was 63%. During and after WWII the highest rate was increased to 94% to help pay for the war. The top rate remained above 80% until 1964 when it was reduced to 70% and was over 90% during the "happy days" when Eisenhower was president and the countries infrastructure was being built. Sort of defies basis for Reaganomics, that high top rates will stifle the economy, doesn't it. The top rate remained at 70% until the Reagan tax cut in 1982 lowered it to 50% and his second cut lowered it briefly to 28% which, combined with drastically increased spending, lead to doubling of the national debt. On President Clinton's watch the top bracket was increased to 39% which, combined with a substantial decrease in government spending lead to an actual budget surplus. It should also be noted that while Clinton was president over 22 million jobs were created and we had the longest period of economic expansion in the countries history. Also sort of defies the basis of Reagoniics doesn't it. Bush's tax cut in 2003 lowered the top rate to 35% which, combined with a Reaganesque increase in spending again doubled the national debt. Its interesting to note that on Bush's watch there were not enough jobs created to compensate for population growth. How much proof do we need that Reaganomics didn't work and that Eisenhoweromics and Clintonomics did?
It can be argued that extending the Bush Tax cuts will create jobs and stimulate the economy but, since they didn't do so while in effect so far, why would they do so now? Another part of the cave in to the Party of Wall street is a one-year, 2 percentage point reduction in employees' Social Security payroll taxes, lowering the rate from 6.2% to 4.2%, at a cost of $120 billion. When, for the first time, pay outs by social security are exceeding revenue due to the recession, is this the time to further cut revenue?
About the only portion of the agreement I can support is the extension of unemployment benefits but would prefer that the government act as an employer of last resort, having people do work that needs to be done, or making payments interest-free loans rather than hand outs.
I would like to think that things will change when tea party supported representatives are seated in January but, given the fact that there has been no opposition to this latest horrendous increase of the national debt from a party that's primary concern was supposed to be balancing the budget, I'm not optimistic. Even if these new representatives do address the deficit, I fear that they will do the equivalent of turning off the ignition of a car traveling at top speed on the expressway, thus locking the steering and causing a calamity, by shutting the government down. We need thoughtful leadership to put the country back on solid financial footing, not representatives reacting to an angry, ignorant mob.
Sincerely,
Charles Leach
Lynchburg[[In-content Ad]]