Tax Cuts and Iraq Spending Add Up to Deficits

Re “Record Red Ink Is Projected for 2004,” Aug. 27: “The Bush administration has argued that the best way to reduce the deficit is to boost economic growth, which would increase the flow of tax revenue.” Duh! We just decreased the tax revenue by reducing the amount of taxes paid by high-income earners. To quote that old saw, “You can fool some of the people some of the time....”

Zona Pease

Burbank

*

Why is your article on the federal deficit on Page A22, while the story on Louisiana’s “suffering” because of France’s “fecklessness” in not supporting the Iraqi invasion is on Page A1? Who decides what is in the greater public interest?

You are running down the television news road of reportage.

Phil Isaacs

Los Angeles

*

The headlines certainly don’t show it, and neither President Bush nor any of the Democratic candidates seem willing to address it with the volume it deserves. Namely, the burden we are taking on to the tune of well over one-half trillion (that’s trillion, with a “t”) dollars needed to pay for our adventure in Iraq.

The deficits we are taking on will sink us. I fear for the economic future of my children.

Isaac Hirschbein

La Mesa

*

Since Bush seems to have all this money to spend on Iraq, perhaps while he’s got his checkbook out he could write a few to fund U.S. education, health care, and let’s not forget the power grid. The Republicans are always complaining about the “tax-and-spend” Democrats. Perhaps the Democrats should now be referring to “spend-and-spend more” Republicans.

Les Hartzman

Sherman Oaks