Sen. Cranston on Using Peace Dividend for National Needs
I found Cranston’s spending plan outlined in his article convenient given the fact that the same Congressional Budget Office source that he cited for calculating the $375 billion peace dividend has recently revised its estimate of the savings and loan bailout to approximately the same amount.
How can Cranston in good conscious propose spending that money elsewhere? Unless I am sadly mistaken, Cranston has already spent the peace dividend by voting for the savings and loan bailout bill in 1989. Furthermore, it is still uncertain whether Cranston played a part in creating the savings and loan crisis necessitating the bailout, i.e., the Lincoln Savings fiasco.
Cranston’s attitude toward spending that which he doesn’t have, or in this case that which he hopes he will have, before paying off old debts is symptomatic of contemporary politicians. If an individual handled his personal finances in this manner, that person would eventually wind up on welfare or in jail.
So why do we elect fiscally irresponsible men and women to political office who don’t believe in paying their debts? God only knows.
Please, Sen. Cranston, step aside and let someone represent Californians in Washington who can balance a checkbook.
CHARLES A. HICKEY
Glendale
Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter
Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond. In your inbox three times per week.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
