Mail Bag

Americans Should Be Outraged

The Daily Cougar received this letter, and I thought you’d all like to see it.

Originally, we were going to print it as a guest commentary, but it wouldn’t fit…

Please share your thoughts in the comment section.

To the editor:

I am a Christian. I am a conservative democrat. I support and voted for Barack Obama. I voted for George H. W. Bush on his first term. I did not vote for George W. Bush in 2000 or in 2004.
The Republican Party should be ashamed of its actions since the election of Barack Obama and before. Their strategy to “Take back America” has slowed the economic recovery and has created an environment that has the potential to shut down the workings of the federal government. For that behavior and its associated consequences, Americans should be outraged.
At the end of the Clinton administration, the country enjoyed a $280 billion budget surplus. The Republican Party controlled both the House and the Senate from 2000 until 2007. By the end of the Bush administration, the budget surplus had disappeared, replaced by a deficit of $357 billion, a $637 billion turnaround. At the end of the Clinton administration, the national debt was $5.7 trillion. By the time President Obama was inaugurated, the debt had grown more than 75% to $10 trillion, the biggest increase under any president in U.S. history.
At what point did Republicans legitimately become fiscally conservative and intimately concerned about the national debt? When did that happen? When have republicans ever demonstrated this behavior? Historically, Republicans have never demonstrated any commitment towards reducing the national debt. During the Bush presidency, Republicans pushed through a $1.3 trillion tax cut program while the war in Iraq cost more than $3 trillion and more than 4,000 American lives, while no weapons of mass destruction were ever found.
Since 1945, the three presidencies that contributed most to the national debt are George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, in that order. All Republicans. The three presidencies that contributed most to reduce the national debt were Franklin D Roosevelt, Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower. Behind them were Bill Clinton and Kennedy/Johnson. All democrats.
Today, republicans want to renew the Bush tax cuts and make them permanent, which would add more than $3 trillion to the deficit by 2020, while President Obama’s plan to extend cuts for all but the richest Americans would add $2 trillion. Keep in mind, the fiscal year 2011 budget proposed by the Obama administration assumes that all the tax cuts will be extended
A study by the nonpartisan Pew Fiscal Analysis Initiative, examined the tax cut options, calculating their costs, with interest and effects on the national debt;
•       Making the tax cuts permanent for all taxpayers would cost $3.1 trillion over the next 10 years and inflate the national debt to 82 percent of GDP. This would be the highest level since 1948 in the aftermath of WWII and well above the average-debt-to-GDP ratio of the last 50 years of 37 percent.
•       Limiting the extension to the individuals making less then $200,000 and married couples earning less than $250,000 would cost about $2.3 trillion over the next ten years. Absent of any offsets, this proposal would inflate the national debt to 78 percent of the GDP by 2020.
•       Extending the tax cuts for all taxpayers for two years would cost $558 billion over the next ten years and increase the national debt to 70 percent of the GDP by 2020.
•       If the tax cuts were allowed to expire at the end of 2010, the debt –to-GDP ration would rise, reaching 68 percent by 2020.
The PEW Report examines a number of ways to offset the expense to extend the Bush tax cuts;
•       Elimination of U.S. international development and humanitarian aid over the next ten years would free up $307 billion (12 percent of the cost of a full extension of the tax cuts).
•       A 3 year freeze in non-security discretionary spending (programs other than defense and related programs) proposed in the administration’s 2011 budget would cover 10 percent of a full extension and 13 percent of the cost of extending the tax cuts to earners below $250,000. Freezing all discretionary spending, including defense spending would offset less than half the cost of extending the tax cuts for all taxpayers.
•       Reducing projected Social Security payments by 10 percent over the next 10 years would pay for half of the offset if the cuts were extends to earners under $250,000. The offset would cover 36 percent of extending all tax cuts.
The PEW report notes that the stimulative effect of extending tax cuts is ambiguous and would depend on how the tax cuts are financed. Financing tax cuts with deficits can crowd out capital investments and could work to further dampen the economy.
The recently published “Pledge to America” contained no specifics on how Republicans intend to balance the budget or reduce the national debt. Why would taxpayers believe the republicans pledge when they have never followed through in any previous administrations?
The PEW report concluded that a full extension of the tax cuts without offsets would add significantly to the deficit and raise the federal debt in 2020 to the highest levels in 60 years. Even the limited extensions proposed by the Obama administration would lead to increases in the debt unless offset by spending reductions. A two year extension of the tax cuts with a sunset in 2012 would result in a 2020 debt level only slightly higher than with no extensions.
At the beginning of the Obama presidency, instead of taking an “all hands on deck” approach to confronting a declining economy and the increased levels of unemployment, republicans decided to enact a strategy designed to place republicans back in control of congress in 2010 and the presidency in 2012. This is to be accomplished by opposing any and all legislation proposed by the democratically controlled congress and by the White House. The republican strategy meant that the republicans in the House and Senate would essentially “check out” from being engaged in any planning and implementation of any programs designed to provide a bridge between the declining economy and its recovery. Americans should be outraged, considering the fact that it was the republican controlled congress and presidency from 2000 to 2008 which took the country to the brink of the worst economic disaster since the great depression. In response, republicans simply stood on the sidelines and tossed grenades at everything the current administration has attempted to slow the effects that were already in progress before Obama took over. The Republican Party should be ashamed and voters should hold them accountable.
Today, the economy is recovering, albeit very slowly. The American automobile industry is recovering, with the assistance of the government, having saved thousands of jobs. Over time, taxpayers will earn money from the bail out of the auto industry. Just as the declining economy preceded the ramp up in unemployment, the unemployment levels will decline as the economy continues to improve. Democrats, republicans and economists know this.
The amount of TARP money paid back to the federal government has surpassed the amount that remains outstanding. Through the end of May, 2010, $194 billion in TARP money had been repaid, compared with $190 billion in TARP still owed to the government. The completion of the U.S. Treasury Department’s sale of 1.5 billion shares of Citigroup, which provided $6.2 billion in gross proceeds to taxpayers, was the deal that put repayments ahead of outstanding TARP money.
The Treasury estimated that TARP will end up costing taxpayers $105 billion, compared with August’s estimate of $341 billion.
In a recent article in the Katy Sun (Katy is a suburb, west of Houston) (October 14, 2010 – Vol. 17, No. 40), Republican Representative Pete Olson wrote “Houston received $1.69 billion of the $862 billion stimulus package, which according to reports created 1,953 jobs. That is $865,335 per job”. This statement is completely disingenuous. What Representative Olson purposely failed to mention was that much of the stimulus funds have yet to be spent. He did not mention that the state has until 2012 to spend the funds. For instance, $180 million was allocated to build the northwest section of Grand Parkway Highway 99, from I-10 to I-45. This section of highway has not yet been built. Mr. Olson’s statement was disingenuous and factually untrue. In fact, several projects, identified as “shovel ready” were not shovel ready at all.
Claims that such projects were standing by and “ready to go” were made by the nation’s mayors and governors, who met several times with Mr. Obama, and by advocacy groups, who were anxious for their chance at a big pot of money.
Republicans, keeping to their strategy to condemn everything done by President Obama to stimulate the economy, repeatedly criticized the cost of the bill. However, at the same time, republicans leveraged every opportunity to take credit for its successes.  “With Ohio’s unemployment rate the highest it’s been in 25 years, I’m pleased that federal officials stepped in to order Ohio to use all of its construction dollars for shovel-ready projects that will create much-needed jobs,” Representative John A. Boehner, the Republican leader from Ohio, said in a statement in June 2009. Americans truly should be outraged.
Republicans also want to repeal the health care reform law, which would add $455 billion to the federal deficit over the next ten years. During the course of the development of the Health Care Reform Bill, Republicans and lobbyists disingenuously characterized the bill as one that would implement “death panels” and the like, knowing that these things were not true. They described the debate around universal health care as “government controlled health care”. Now that the legislation has been signed into law, republicans are campaigning on the premise that they will repeal the legislation. The reality is that the legislation is not perfect, but is designed to provide access to health care for 30 million Americans who did not have access before. Rather than work to repeal the legislation, Congress should work together to improve it.
Republicans disingenuously characterized “government run health care” as unfavorable, costly, and inefficient. I was raised in the military. My health care was provided by the government until I graduated from college. I would take “government run health care” over my current health care plan in terms of cost and quality of care any day of the week. My current civilian plan, provided by my employer, has increased premiums every year. The insurance premiums for the plan year 2011 increased 25% over 2010. Americans should be outraged.
The emergence of the Tea Party is dangerous. It is no secret that many of the Tea Party candidates are not qualified to effectively function in Congress, except to vote no for everything that amounts to any increase in government spending, regulation or oversight.  What concerns many Americans about the Tea Party is that they have no real meaningful platform. The Tea Party started out as an extension of the Republican Party, and still is, but in recent months has put up several candidates that replaced republican incumbents in the primaries who would have had better chances at being elected in the mid terms over their democrat counterparts. The current crop of Tea Party candidates may have given democrats a renewed opportunity to hold majorities in the House and the Senate.
I certainly understand the frustrations of all Americans as it pertains to the economy. I am upset as well. But Tea Partiers are upset by more than just the economy. Tea Partiers, like the Republican Party, oppose immigration reform and the idea of providing immigrants a path to citizenship. The real concern for both Tea Partiers and the Republican Party, is that providing illegal immigrants (Hispanics) with citizenship, would significantly increase the number of Americans who are more likely to vote democratic. Tea Partiers and republicans are concerned that whites will no longer be the majority. So, out of fear and to offset the threat, Tea Partiers and the Republican Party advocate amending our Constitution, suspending the citizenship of children born in the United States whose parents are illegal immigrants. This clearly un-American and goes against the founding principles of this country. It is ironic how the very people pushing this idea, describe the president as being “Un-American”. Americans should be outraged.
For many years, the American farming, construction and manufacturing industries profited from illegal immigration. Economists agree that even though they are in the United States illegally, overall the illegal immigrant population contributes more to the economy than they cost in terms of dollars. Now that illegal immigrants are asking for rights and access to health care, the answer for Republicans and Tea Partiers is to deport them. In other words, illegal immigrants have outlived their usefulness. Americans should be outraged.
Republicans voted against extending unemployment benefits for Americans. What should happen to these people and why should they be stripped of their dignity because they are unfortunate to have been laid off their jobs as a function of a sluggish economy that materialized during a Republican administration? It simply makes no sense. Americans should be outraged.
I would argue that all Americans believe that abortion, as a form of birth control, is immoral. The Republican Party’s stance on abortion is confusing. Republicans advocate making abortions illegal, however some Republican “Right to Lifers” believe abortion should be illegal, except in cases where the mother’s life is in danger and in cases of rape or incest. This is a hypocritical position. It suggests that the life of an unborn child is less valued if the conception resulted from rape or incest. A true right to lifer would not distinguish between how the embryo was conceived. Tea Partiers seem to support making abortions illegal, even in cases of rape and incest, which is a true right to life position. But, there is no chance that voters will support legislation that forces a rape or incest victim to carry their pregnancy to term. It is simply not going to happen.
Republicans and Tea Partiers do not support the rights of gay Americans. Senator John McCain carried through on a threat to lead a filibuster of the administration’s attempts to repeal “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”, setting back Barack Obama’s pledge to overturn the 17 year-old policy that says gay people can be dismissed from the military if they reveal their sexual orientation.
Being a conservative democrat, I support the rights of gay Americans. I support providing gays the same rights as all Americans, short of marriage.
The Bible is clear that homosexuality is a sin. Scriptures also teach Christians that we are to demonstrate the love of Jesus Christ to everyone. We are all born in sin and we all commit sin. The Bible does not rate which sin is more or less sinful than another. Sin is sin. We should embrace homosexuals, not condemn them. The recent rash of suicides among young people who suffered from bullying as a result of their sexual preference should cause us all to take a second look at how we address the issue of homosexuality. The Republican position is clearly unrighteous and clearly against Christian teachings.
For the hypocritical behavior of the Republican Party, Americans should be outraged.

Signed,

David Williams
Project Engineer
a former student / alumni

Leave a Comment