Clinton’s Deficit Plan

Congratulations to President Clinton and the House Democrats (“House, in Cliffhanger, Passes Clinton’s Deficit-Cutting Plan,” May 28). Someone has to start paying down the Republican debt. It has again been made clear that no Republican politician has the courage to face up to the issue. The fact that they apparently expect to be rewarded for their irresponsibility speaks volumes about the decline of America’s public morals.

DEAN HISER

Orange

* It was quite a spectacle to see the Democrats on the House floor, one after another, claiming that it was such an agonizing decision to vote for the Clinton tax plan. These were the same phonies who ran around high-fiving and jumping up and down and cheering when the final vote was cast to pass the largest tax increase in American history.

These hypocrites and the President proclaim they won, but the sad reality is that the American people have lost!

PHIL FERRARO

Downey

* In 1962, President Kennedy called for tax rate reductions to spur the economy and raise government revenues. In 1981, President Reagan called for the same. In both instances, the economy grew and government revenues soared. President Clinton should study the history of this nation and abandon his plan for tax rate increases.

RANDY R. WALLEN

Playa del Rey

* With all the moaning and groaning about the Clinton tax bill which has been reported by the media of late, I thought the taxes were going to be something to really worry about. When I analyzed the chart (“Where the Clinton Tax Bill Would Hit,” May 28), I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry.

During the 12 years of the Republican administrations the taxes for those earning over $200,000 were drastically reduced. At the same time the taxes for everyone else went up, but not enough to cover the shortfall caused by the high spending and the large tax reduction given to the very wealthy. A huge debt was incurred.

Now Clinton is trying to pay off that debt and rectify the unfairness of the tax policies created by Reagan and Bush. It makes me fighting mad to hear the people who had a huge tax advantage for 12 years making such strident complaints because they’re now being asked to pay their fair share of taxes.

The middle-class members of the U.S. population are willing to make sacrifices to correct the problems we have as a result of our huge debt. Those who are in the top fifth of the nation’s income brackets need to be as patriotic as their less-well-off neighbors.

RUTH McGREW

Palos Verdes Estates

* In response to “Energy Tax Hits Consumer More Than Oil Firms,” May 27: Your reporter dissected the battle over the President’s energy tax in precise terms. He also pointed out its central flaw. It is a battle over energy policy masquerading as a fiscal battle. The Congress in all its machinations and the President in his are really unwitting mediators between the true combatants--the energy producers and consumers.

What I believe the President does understand is that the production of energy and the costs of its use have got to be managed wisely for the country to survive. A comprehensive energy agenda recognizes the need for a realignment of the real costs of energy as a means to support the nation’s goals. I wish the debate could have been put in that context; the “shocking new taxes” tactic is getting old.

For the two real combatants it just means bad news. The energy producers make less money; we pay more for gas. It’s no surprise that Congress and the President are having a hard time getting anybody to like this.

JOSEPH KLEINMAN

Los Angeles

* Haven’t Democrats or Republicans or the press read Al Gore’s “Earth in the Balance”? The “energy tax” wasn’t proposed just to reduce the deficit or the debt or to create jobs, and not just to reduce our oil imports.

Why haven’t Clinton and congressional leaders explained what Gore eloquently writes: The planet can’t survive another century of burning coal and petroleum and wood. The vast majority of scientific opinion agrees that our grandchildren are likely to inherit submerged coastal cities, and deserts where crops now feed us, unless our generation is persuaded to stop releasing carbon dioxide into our air. Why isn’t Gore preaching his own gospel?

The primary rationale for the BTU tax is to create an economic incentive to conserve, and to invest in subsidies for development of renewable solar and geothermal energy sources.

ROBERT HANSEN

MARGARET HANSEN

Carpinteria