We the People Own Our Government
Re “A Void in Fiscal Leadership,” editorial, Aug. 14: Why do you refer to tax cuts as a “cost” to the government? The wealth and income of the people are their property, not the government’s. You mention nothing about cutting spending. If the federal government focused its efforts on its constitutional responsibilities, like defense, foreign policy, justice, immigration and monetary policy, we would not have to be taxed so much and our federal government would be much more efficient.
Instead, the federal government wastes “our” money, as well as its efforts, on social programs such as Social Security, Medicare, welfare and education that have nothing to do with its constitutional responsibilities or the protection of people’s rights. It is because of this governmental irresponsibility that this country was attacked in September.
Carl Beury
Los Angeles
*
So, our president still wants to repeal the estate or, as he like to call it, “death” tax. Surely it is neither of the above, but an inheritance tax. Accepting the fact that the government needs X number of dollars to operate, can someone explain to me why the man who makes his money by hard work should pick up the slack left by the layabout son of a plutocrat (who makes his money by sitting on his rear end)?
Zena Thorpe
Chatsworth
*
In his Aug. 15 column (“Aloofness Puts Bush on Right Side of History”), James Pinkerton states that Bill Clinton “must also be blamed for the corrupt activities of a corporate few, wheedling and deedling on his watch.”
What Pinkerton conveniently omitted was the fact that the Newt Gingrich-led, Republican-dominated House overrode a presidential veto of the law permitting gross misconduct in reporting income and loss by these same corporations. I would encourage Pinkerton to do his homework and editorialize a little more accurately.
Tom Hamman
Huntington Beach
*
Pinkerton omits one important example of presidential aloofness during an economic crisis: Herbert Hoover. And look where that left us: the Great Depression. Contrast that with the bold steps taken by his successor: Franklin Roosevelt. Maybe Bush is not so much aloof as dense and lacking in basic historical knowledge.
Ettore Piraino
Claremont