From Andrew Villeneuve’s title (Sept. 17), I had hoped for some bi-partisan sanity on the federal spending problem, however, even independent leaning voters were likely as disappointed as I.
His propensity for playing loose with facts about the past will not help our electorate to pick better stewards of our government purse.
First, Andrew describes Iraq and Afghanistan as “Bush’s error,” however, nearly all the Democrats voted to go to war. Even while Democrat-controlled, Congress has still consistently chosen to increase funding for the “War on Terror” in those two countries. Even though I support reducing our military presence abroad, I doubt our troops in the Middle East are making our domestic air and water supplies “dirtier” than a 9/11-style domestic act of terrorism would. Honestly, Andrew’s statement that getting into Afghanistan and Iraq … “led to dirtier air and water,” doesn’t hold water.
Second, with a short trip to www.treasureydirect.gov, we discover that from Sept. 30, 2008 to Sept. 30, 2009, the “debt outstanding” increased by nearly $2 trillion. That is more than 300 percent worse than the Republican Congress’ worst deficit in 2002. Note that Democrats took full control of spending programs in 2006. Our current leadership makes even “Neo-Cons” and “RINOs” look like tightwads. Yes, the Republican majorities spent too much on ALL federal programs from 2001 to 2005, and those psuedo-Republicans have either switched to the Democratic party to continue their spending spree, or have given up seeking office in 2010.
Andrew is correct that Congress needs to stop borrowing, however, he further claims that “We as individuals cannot spend our dollars as wisely as we can through government.” By his logic, government ought be able to spend the money of future generations now, better than those individuals would. Currently, 35 percent to 50 percent of productive citizens’ earnings are taken in some type of tax. Perhaps government should take 90 percent and leave us “unwise” citizens with only 10 percent to fritter away on entertainment or whatever. Oh wait, Canada, and social-democratic countries in Europe already do that! Andrew can move there, or he can always donate the other 50 percent of his paycheck to the government, since he thinks that “does more good” than with his favorite charity.
If Andrew believes China spends nine times less on military, then I have some beach front property in Arizona to sell him. China isn’t going to tell the truth about its military spending to anybody, much less where you can read about it. Maybe our military budget is almost as much as the rest of the world’s combined, if you take out China and Russia, but the real problem is that the rest of the world depends too much on us to defend them from radical dictators in the Middle East, North Korea, and, yes, even Russia.
Ironically, even if we completely defunded the federal military 100 percent, we would still have more than a half-trillion-dollar deficit as long as the Reid/Pelosi/ Obama trifecta retains unchecked money borrowing and printing power (see www.GPOaccess.gov).
Most of the electorate knows that our current Democrat-controlled Congress will not stop passing “stimulus” pork-filled bills until we go the way of Greece, until the American taxpayer raises up in November and votes all the ear-mark/stimulus-loving incumbents out of office, without regard to what letter is behind their name. But Reid, Pelosi and Patty Murray will be a very good start.
Timothy Ganstrom, Bothell
