To the editor:
Does anyone recall when President Bill Clinton (a Democrat) and House Speaker Newt Gingrich (a Republican) worked together to achieve a balanced budget at a time where the money spent by the government was no more than the amount of money taken in by taxes? A time when the borrowing limit did not need to be increased?
So America had a balanced budget and was capable of paying down the national debt (via interest and principal payments). What happened? Did President Barack Obama single-handedly destroy that balanced budget where income matched expenditures?
Actually, no. The balanced budget was torpedoed by President George W. Bush and a Republican Congress. They first passed a tax cut, then waged two wars off the books, meaning the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan were not counted against the budget. They then passed additional legislation allowing the government to spend money without passing anything that would result in matching income (i.e., taxes). Thus, the Treasury was required to borrow money to pay for legislation passed by Congress, and Congress had to increase the borrowing limit.
So, when Barack Obama became president, the balance sheet was already messed up. Even if President Obama introduced nothing at all, the budget would still be unbalanced. That’s right, by introducing nothing at all, President Obama would still be facing an unbalanced budget, and the U.S. would have to increase the borrowing limit. Rep. Paul Ryan introduced what many consider a very conservative budget plan. But his plan doesn’t close the budget deficit until 2023. Congress would still have to increase the borrowing limit for another 10 years.
Yes, we have a serious problem here. Clearly, there are no easy solutions. But it’s abundantly clear that there must be some sort of increase in the amount of money coming into the Treasury, or we will never eliminate the massive debt that we owe. I’m sorry to say this, but in order to begin to solve the problem, income must exceed outgo. We can eliminate some of the tax loopholes that favor large corporations, but that still won’t be enough. If we continue to spend more than we take in, the borrowing must continue and the national debt will continue to grow.
To the editor:
Regarding Rick Ainsworth’s letter (“Apply term limits to bureaucrats, too,” Tuesday Review-Journal), term limits have already proved unworkable and unable to achieve desired results. Try to find a previous president or politician who’s not a millionaire. Campaign finance reform is what politicians truly fear, which is why we do not have it. Look at Sen. John McCain’s fruitless efforts, or watch last week’s report on “60 Minutes.”
Mr. Ainsworth is naive to believe limiting the terms of politicians prevents them from following through on the favors they owe for the donations they received in their original run for office. Once in office, a politician is immediately requesting money for the next campaign and feathering the nest for retirement on some corporation’s board of directors. Or becoming a lobbyist or going to work for some foundation. Sen. Jim DeMint actually quit office to join the The Heritage Foundation.
One day after registering to run for office, I began receiving friendly phone calls. Virtually every politician and retired military general stays in Washington, D.C. If you want to clean up politics, demand campaign finance reform.
Obamacare a success?
To the editor:
President Barack Obama and his administration believe the rollout of the Obamacare exchange is a success. Really? Much like failing education is a success. When schools don’t do well, they receive more funds to hire more teachers, build more buildings and therefore increase monies into the teacher union accounts. The same is true, or will be true, of Obamacare.
The Affordable Care Act is designed for failure. What’s currently online is in effect a paper application form, with which the applicant might be accepted into one or another insurance program requiring more paper forms to complete. When this program collapses under its own weight, then the Obama administration, to make things easier for everyone, will implement a single-payer system. No extra forms, no problems, everyone will be enrolled.
At that point, there will be complete government control over everyone’s life. Doctors, hospitals, all providers will work for the government. As any thinking person knows, this president’s idea of a great country is one in which the population is controlled through only one source, the White House. Our elected representatives must stop worrying about being rehired by the voters and instead work on returning government to the people, rather than giving it away to the executive branch.
To the editor:
Just how bad is the Obamacare rollout? CGI is a questionable Canadian company responsible for the new federal exchange website. So much for American jobs. Would you hire a company that couldn’t perform for the Canadian government and lost its contract? The Obama administration did. In this age of deficits, would you give somebody a no-bid contract? The Obama administration did.
Millions of lines of code will have to be rewritten in order to fix healthcare.gov. Does that sound like small glitches? To me, it sounds like incompetence, starting in the White House — a fish rotting from the head down. Maybe the stink will wake up some of these liberals, but I doubt it. They know what’s best for you — more than you do.
CHARLES W. MITCHELL
NORTH LAS VEGAS