Restricting leaders’ ability to conduct business just not a good idea [UPDATED]Published 9:44am Thursday, September 6, 2012 Updated 11:47am Thursday, September 6, 2012
Thank you for your editorial on Aug. 19, with those great words of wisdom: “Don’t count on ads to inform on issues.”mirror
One partisan group appeals for money to campaign for a constitutional amendment to limit government spending. Placing the people we select to conduct necessary government business in a constitutional straight-jacket would never be sound fiscal policy.
Some expenditures, such as those for defense, must be made even if we have to borrow as a matter of survival. Government has only one ultimate source of funds-we, the people.
Gathering funds through taxation is a slow process usually accompanied by much controversy. Emergency needs for extra funds can arise suddenly. Therefore, congress must always have the option to borrow money to cope with critical emergencies that rise which demand action before all the money to pay for our response can be gathered.
Such a crisis rose in the 1940′s with the rise of Hitler and his allies. We were as unprepared for war as were those countries Hitler’s armies overran quickly.
Vast sums were needed immediately to arm ourselves and assist our allies-far more than could be collected immediately as taxes. We borrowed.
Can you imagine what a disaster it would have been if our government had been restricted by our Constitution thereby allowing Hitler more time to achieve his objectives?
Everyone, other than those who have special interests, are opposed to unnecessary spending. However, we have a 14 trillion dollar deficit today and it is growing.
Our national situation can be compared to that of a family with an annual income that barely covers their regular family needs plus enough to make a minimum payment on their credit card debt which is between four and five times larger than their total annual income. What do they do? Do they stop feeding and clothing the children so they can pay more to get rid of that debt?
There is no way we can eliminate our $14 trillion deficit and continue to function only by cuts in spending without raising taxes.
Unless we take action beforehand, those automatic cuts scheduled for January 2013 will be the equivalent of not feeding the children. Tom Hintgen’s article (same page Aug. 19, 2012) has the right solution to the problem of the 14 trillion deficit, namely, an income sur-tax on a sliding scale based on ability to pay.
More taxes will produce loud groans but we must bite the bullet for sake of long term prosperity and survival. Regardless of what they promise, no politician has a magic wand to give us more jobs and wipe out that deficit without pain.
Whoever wins the November election will have to cope with the fall-out of the massive drought that our nation is experiencing which will inevitably raise food prices, cause more job losses, and increase need for food stamps, and other help for those whose income has shriveled or vanished.
We live in a very hostile world with a multitude of enemies waiting to attempt to grab our wealth.
I am an 88-year-old World War II and Korean War veteran who spent 22 years on active duty in the U.S. Army so I know something about warfare. Fail to do the research and provide the needs of our armed forces will inevitably lead to defeat.
We dare not cut defense spending which is one of the largest items on our national budget. Funding for education is involved in this too.
No nation in our world has been able to enjoy a high literacy rate without fully funded public education. We provide that through high school but in today’s society a college education has become the equivalent of what a high school education was when I was young.
To continue to hold the technological supremacy we now possess over our enemies, it is essential that our talented youth have the necessary help to achieve the necessary higher education.
We have to stop making college more expensive and instead provide students with something that is the equivalent of the GI bill which made it possible for me to earn my doctorate.
Also, let us never cut support for our elderly. Unless we die early, we all get there. Privatize social security and Medicare? Any voucher payment that might we offered would have to be too small to cover insurance cost or it would save nothing for the government. We who are elderly have too many ailments to be able to buy cheap insurance.
I have learned from personal experience that relying on private insurance is not all that great. Medicare has never provided coverage for Long Term Care. So, years back my late wife and I bought companion long term care policies. We faithfully paid premiums on them for years.
My wife never needed the coverage — cancer claimed her quickly.
I am now in an Assisted Living Facility not by choice but out of necessity. The company that now owns my policy, not the one I bought it from, is stonewalling on paying any benefits.
They acknowledge that I do need aid in two Activities of Daily Living (ADL’s) which is all that the state of Minnesota currently allows insurance companies to demand in current policies to trigger benefits.
However, my policy was purchased before Minnesota passed this law to curb the practice of insurance companies writing policies with a top priority of insuring company profitability rather than on the welfare of purchasers.
Therefore, until my health further declines, I have to pay from my limited resources, without help from the policy that I paid premiums on for years. The super spend-cutters allow Social Security and Medicare to continue for me and everyone over 55, but remember we all go past 55 if we do not die sooner. Do we really want to treat our future elderly in this way?
In closing I remind all, that the U.S. government has only one ultimate source of income–that is us, the people. The only real question for us to decide is how we will pay what we owe in a manner that is fair and equitable to every one of our people while preserving our free society.
I personally, will never vote for anyone who advocates any form of privatization of Medicare or Social Security, tries to eliminate Medicaid or food stamps for the less fortunate or will not open up their past income tax records to reveal whether or not they have paid their fair share of taxes.
I urge every other free American eligible to vote to do likewise in our own self-interest.
Arthur J. L. Meether