We’ve evolved into an entitlement society
To the editor:
In a recent letter to the editor, Daniel Olivier took letter writer Jerry Fink to task for bemoaning the fact that he was forced to participate in Medicare and Social Security. Mr. Olivier asked if Mr. Fink knew "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that he could or would have saved that money himself or if he "could have invested money better than the government."
But do any of us know "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that the government will be able to honor all the obligations that it has undertaken with Medicare and Social Security?
From all reports that I have seen, both of these programs are headed for bankruptcy in the near future unless significant changes are made. What changes? The options are limited, one being that current wage earners can be taxed more to support the current group of retirees. But then what will be left when the current wage earners retire? Should their future be sacrificed so that I can continue to receive my current retirement check?
As to Mr. Olivier's point on the government investing the money taken for Medicare and Social Security, there was no investment. The government spent it on other things. It is long gone and, in order to meet the commitment it made to Mr. Fink when it took his money, Washington must tax today's wage earner. Although it was not intended to be such, it has all evolved into a very Ponzi-like scheme that cannot be continued indefinitely.
The America of today has become a very entitlement-oriented society. In the middle of the past century, when I was growing up, self-sufficiency, integrity, individual responsibility and hard work were considered the pillars of adulthood. It seems that this is no longer the case, and these attributes have been replaced by the belief that society (i.e., fellow citizens) should take care of everyone's "needs."
All of this makes me very sad for my grandchildren.
John Welch
Henderson
Blame Reagan
To the editor:
I must have been asleep for 40 years, or someone has. These Tea Partiers yell and scream about the Democrats "spending" and running up the national debt. Where were they in 1980, when Ronald Reagan inherited the richest nation in the world as a lending nation, and in about two short years spent us into the largest debt of any industrialized nation?
This continued until Bill Clinton balanced the budget and even started paying off the national debt. George W. Bush then proceeded to spend like a drunken sailor and increased the national debt by trillions. These were those people alluded to by the Tea Party dodos. Where have they been?
Gerald Phillips
Las Vegas
No meddling
To the editor:
Having grown up in Chicago, I noticed the recent article that stated President Hamid Karzai threatened to join the Taliban if foreigners (Americans) don't stop "meddling in Afghanistan's affairs."
In Chicago, it was quite common for authorities -- police, prosecutors, FBI -- to receive warnings from the "outfit" to stop meddling in their affairs.
It seems "swimming with the fishes" is yet a political slogan.
DUANE GETTY
HENDERSON
Party of No
To the editor:
After reading the April 11 Viewpoints section and the commentaries by Sherman Frederick, Charles Krauthammer and Dick Morris, it became clear that the party of "No" can only complain about all the things wrong in this country, but offer no solutions for the problems.
It seems if you consider yourself Republican or conservative, you need someone to do your thinking for you, like these writers or the clowns on Fox and loudmouths on talk radio.
The Republican Party has had control in Washington several times in the past 50 years. They could have eliminated the IRS and started a graduated national sales tax covering everything -- no loopholes, everyone pays some tax. They could have passed a law covering campaign contributions -- $5 maximum contribution, from any source. If you want to spend more to run for office, dig into your own pocket.
They could have passed term limits -- one term, two terms, period. They could have passed a law making those who leave a branch of government wait at least five years before becoming a lobbyist.
Wouldn't this have eliminated most of the complaints the party of "No" has with our present Washington dilemma?
FRANK MOHLER
LAS VEGAS
Not freeloading
To the editor:
Publisher Sherman Frederick is concerned that 47 percent of American taxpayers pay no federal income taxes ("Tax man comes for half of us," Sunday column). He could feel better about our tax system if he would focus on all the taxes those 47 percent pay: payroll taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, registration fees.
If you took all of these taxes and fees and divided that figure by their gross annual income -- let's say $30,000 -- you'd find they pay a hefty percentage of their income toward keeping our republic functioning. This percentage would be a far, far greater percentage of their gross income than that of someone who earns $500,000, even adding federal income taxes.
To those in high-income brackets, other taxes are relatively insignificant. If Mr. Frederick acknowledged this, he'd feel a lot better.
I pay $3,000 in federal tax on $42,000 gross income. I have no dependents. I wouldn't begrudge for a second a family man with my income having no federal tax bill. His total taxes as a percentage of gross income more than compensates.
A freeloader he ain't.
ROY GROSSNER
LAS VEGAS
