Letters to the Editor - Dec. 26

December 26, 2010

Tax cut extension is a post-election bailout of politicians

To the editor:

Clearly having learned nothing from our recent experience of bailing out failed businesses and failed business ideas, our political leaders from both sides have joined together to cobble a new combo of stimulus and bailout disguised as a simple extension of the Bush tax cuts. However, this bill is nothing more than a post-election bailout of politicians.

I, for one, think that we are overtaxed. However, now is not the time to resolve that issue. It has never been a good business plan for our government to try to provide both guns and butter at the same time. (I recall that during one year of the Vietnam War, I paid a 10 percent tax surcharge.) 

As long as we are compelled to fight a war against terror and spend as a single nation more than the entire rest of the world combined does on defense, we are required to find a way to pay for it. Our military pays the price of this war with blood and our economy needs to pay the cost in dollars that are not borrowed. If our freedom is worth defending, it is worth paying for, and if we do not pay the cost from current nonborrowed taxes, we eventually will lose our freedom to hyperinflation and high interest rates that will destroy our economy completely.


It might feel good to have a few more dollars in your pocket today, and when you spend those dollars, you will not make the Chinese manufacturers happy and more wealthy, but I can assure you that it is a failed idea to pay for everything with borrowed money. More dollars in your pocket will help out a few retailers and foreign manufacturers. However the true price of not allowing taxes to rise might well be your freedom. And this stimulus will not create any jobs in the United States.

We do need to get to the place where we can radically reduce taxes. However, that time would be after we pay off our national debt and get government spending under control.

Rodney Pearson Sr.


Hope from midterm election is already fading

To the editor:

Sen. Harry Reid was outraged by President Obama negotiating with Senate Republicans, bypassing him.

In my civics classes some decades ago, the president is to present matters of budget to the Congress (the House), where debate is to take place and details ironed out. Once a common agreement is reached by both houses, it then goes back to the president for approval or veto.

Reid reacted by clearly stating that he is never going to give any president, even Obama, more power than the Constitution provides. Regardless of the outcome, President Obama was wrong.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi refused to even vote on this bill. She, too, felt slighted by the actions of the president and would not fold to his pressure. She was against continuing the Bush tax cuts (now the Obama tax cuts) for those in the highest income brackets. It is too bad that so few people stood with Reid and Pelosi.

Republicans showed their true stripes when they said no pork and then included and voted for pork. Cutting the pork must start with someone. Obviously, it is not with these folks.

Two good things happened — the extension of unemployment benefits and the reduction of the FICA payroll tax. But this should have been coupled with a lifting of the cap.

The government is like a homeowner who can't make a mortgage payment. Not facing the issue head-on, the government is sticking our collective head in the sand. The deficit is one issue that time will not heal. They have pushed the issue out to the next round of elections, when actions will be driven by politics rather than logic and reasoned thinking.

It took only 45 days to see any hope that came out of the last election fade.

Cliff Lane

Black Rock

Do we have a choice when we go to the voting booth?

To the editor:

This letter is in response to a Sunday, Nov. 14, letter to the editor by G.F. Miller ("Party doesn't matter: Government can't get it right," page A9).

Well done. You've summed the situation up very well, and your analogy is appropriate. Respectfully, however, you might have taken your critique one step further and considered the reasons for the situation that we find ourselves in.

Here I offer one possible explanation: The Constitution of the United States was not meant to function in a two-party system. Procure and read a copy of the Constitution. Is there a provision for political parties? There is not. Furthermore, our revered first president, as he left public office, warned against the existence of political parties and the damage they might do to the government that our Constitution provided for.

We were meant to have a government composed of reasonable individuals who could solve, ably and responsibly, the problems that confronted their nation. It assumed that this government would be composed of individuals whose loyalty was to their country and not to their party. They would discuss the issues and formulate the best course of action.

The Constitution did not, however, mean for us to be governed by two mutually antagonistic gangs of mercenary, elitist officials who would serve their term for two to six years, during which they enact unnecessary programs and initiate unwanted wars, officials who wash the red ink from their hands at the end of their terms and ask the permission of the electorate for an additional two to six years in which to continue to do precisely the same thing. As you pointed out so well, we're quite happy to give them the next two to six years. And the two to six years after that.

They've been buying our votes for years. They've been doing it with borrowed money, our money, knowing full well that at some point, the bill will come due and we'll have to cough up to cover it. Think about that next time you're in the voting booth. Do we really have a choice?

Steve Rouzer

Owings Mills, Md.

The Herald-Mail Articles