Budget Blues: Are Critics Crying Wolf or Foul?

Robert Scheer’s “An Orgy of Defense Spending” (Commentary, Feb. 5) claims that an increase in the Defense Department budget from $331 billion this year to $451 billion in 2007 will result in “an economically hobbled United States, unable to solve its major domestic problems . . . its enormous wealth sacrificed at the altar of military hardware.” It’s amazing to see all of this angst and panic for an increase over five years of only $120 billion, which is less than 6% of the 2003 federal budget of $2.13 trillion.

Scheer derides the capabilities of intelligence agencies that “lost the trail of terrorists who easily found cover with lap dancers in strip joints.” His solution: “The bottom line is that we need sharper agents, not more expensive equipment.” If the CIA, et al., are already getting the sharpest people who can be found (or as sharp as will join them), then the only way to improve our intelligence gathering is to get better equipment.

I am disappointed that Scheer finds it necessary to resort to fantasizing about a war on three fronts. That may be what Scheer thinks is meant by the president’s “axis of evil,” but no administration spokesperson nor any serious analysts on either side of the aisle has said that. There are a lot of good reasons to criticize the major planned defense buildup, but hysteria serves only to get the critic ignored as just another liberal lunatic.

Chuck Messall

Laguna Beach

*

Who says Republicans don’t favor welfare? Look no further than President Bush.

His economic stimulus program is welfare for large corporations. His tax cut proposals are welfare for the rich. His proposed defense spending is welfare for the defense industry. A “Star Wars” missile defense, which we don’t need and which wouldn’t work if we had it, is welfare for the aerospace industry.

But in the interests of the economy, keeping people like Tom DeLay, Dick Armey, Phil Gramm and Trent Lott in office keeps them off welfare.

Jerry Buck

Sherman Oaks

*

Your poll question pitting tax cuts against Social Security (Feb. 5) assumes that a pool of money exists somewhere earmarked for Social Security and that these funds would be “spent” on a tax cut. Bunk. The Social Security trust fund is a scam. Its “assets” are IOUs the government issues to itself. Money comes into Social Security, which then lends it to the general fund by buying bonds, where it promptly gets spent.

When we boomers retire, the government will have no extra funds in reserve. Our children will get stuck with the bill in the form of giant tax increases. Were Social Security a corporate pension fund, politicians would be holding hearings and spouting sound bites denouncing such a Ponzi scheme.

Jim Bass

Thousand Oaks

*

I’m confused. What am I missing? If the payroll taxes that fund Social Security and Medicare are generating excess revenue and we are told that we need a tax cut to stimulate the economy, why not just reduce those taxes? What is being proposed are tax cuts weighted more toward higher-income people, leaving the payroll taxes intact. The policy of shifting the tax burden of running this country more toward middle- and lower-income people should be discussed more.

Steve Dowty

Placerville, Calif.