Taking issue with the facts (03/02/2009)

To the editor:

This will be my only response to Mr. Glen Priest's letter to the editor from (Feb. 21). It seems Mr. Priest has challenged my opinions by insinuating I'm a fool rather than offer data of substantial value. I accept the criticism of my opinions, but name-calling is petty and not conducive to intellectual dialogue. I recommend "How to Win Friends and Influence People" by Dale Carnegie. It is both educational and entertaining.

Mr. Priest did a wonderful job of gathering several sources of data to refute the claims of Ronald Reagan. He broadened my horizons and gave me some further insight into his presidency. Reagan may not have been so good at cutting government spending as I had believed, but we cannot be shortsighted to the effects of his administration's choices. Simply looking at the time duration of two presidents while in office does nothing to investigate the long-term effects of their decisions.

During Reagan's tenure he cut the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 percent, and created 20 million jobs. However, Mr. Priest is correct when saying Reagan didn't cut spending. The increased spending created a $1.5 trillion deficit in the 1980's, however, that correlates almost exactly to the amount of money invested by his administration to fight the Cold War. The Cold War was won by America, and like World War II worth the expense. By winning the Cold War, the U.S. was able to reduce defense spending by approximately $100 billion each year, which helped with the deficit reductions of the 1990's.

I enjoyed the way it was put by James Pethokoukis "Bush vs. Clinton: The Economic Verdict" in U.S. News and World Reports, April 2007. Quote, "When Bill Clinton became president in 1993, he was dealt the greatest hand since Phil Jackson became coach of the Chicago Bulls with probable future hall-of-famers Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen already on the team. The U.S. economy was already expanding, and the disintegration of the Soviet Union seemingly meant that defense spending could come down - which encouraged Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan to cut interest rates. Then Clinton got a Republican Congress in 1995 that was also eager to bring the budget into balance."

I still contend that World War II put people back in the factories. Had it not been for WWII and the employment of people to make war goods, the spending spree would have failed miserably.

I never referred to Social Security and Medicare as programs that write bad checks, or reflect losses in the market. My point is the programs are broke (beyond the ability to lose money in a market) and only survive due to increased government spending with money government doesn't have. Many people will receive benefits of both programs and will have never contributed, while others will contribute and never get the benefits.

If I wasn't taxed for both programs, I would never need to see Social Security. I could save much more than it will potentially give me. The problem is some people are too flagrant with their finances and do not practice fiscal responsibility, save for retirement, or a rainy day. Thus, the burden falls upon the responsible taxpayer to "bail" them out. 

Keep an eye out for socialized healthcare. It doesn't work in Canada, why would it here?  How long do you think your company will keep insurance when they know you can receive government healthcare?  What happens when you're 60, paid into the program for 30 years, and you need a heart transplant?  Well sadly, giving the heart to an equally in need 20-year-old (who hasn't paid in yet), offers the government the best chance for revenue in the future. Who do you think receives the available heart?

We will make it through this recession, but at what cost to personal freedom and our pocketbooks?  Politicians are using fear to push their socialist agenda, and people of my generation are being footed with the bill. John McCain said it best when he referred to it as "generational theft". I ask, would you rather the government borrows $10,520 from your household or give $10,520 to your household?  FYI, government just borrowed it, and it's now our job to pay it back.

Matt Minnich

Portland[[In-content Ad]]