President Bush's new budget exudes red ink like no other budget ever. It calls for an expenditure of $2.4-trillion with a deficit of $521-billion. The Medicare prescription plan was the icing on the cake with a revised 10-year expense of $530-billion.
When Bush came into office he was faced with a 10-year surplus projected at $5.6-trillion from the Clinton administration. If the tax cuts expire, there is a 10-year projected deficit now of $2.4-trillion and if the tax cuts don't expire the projected 10-year deficit is $5-trillion.
According to Sen. Kent Conrad of the Senate Budget Committee, President Bush is the most fiscally irresponsible president in the history of the United States. He is taking every penny of the Social Security surplus. Bush has an unrealistic plan to cut deficits in half by 2009, when in reality, with his raiding of Medicare and Social Security, the deficit will be over $600-billion the year before all the baby boomers retire.
Can you say that your future looks better now than when President Bush took office? I think that is a resounding "no."
-- Larry Dunn, Orange Park
Budget won't help veterans
Re: Budget boosts military, security, Feb. 3.
Thank you, Mr. President.
On behalf of all veterans, I would like to take this opportunity to thank President Bush for taking such good care of us vets.
If the president's budget is passed as submitted, it will, among other things, increase the cost to veterans for their prescriptions by more than double. Two years ago, the cost more than tripled.
This would be a total increase of more than 700 percent over three years. Yeah! Thanks a lot, George!
-- Conrad P. Lombardo, St. Petersburg
Different standards for corporations
Why would the Bush administration refuse to permit states to help people save money by purchasing medicine from Canada? Drugs are as much as 50 percent cheaper there because of government price controls, but importing prescription drugs is banned by federal law.
Meanwhile, the U.S. government lets the rich, wealthy corporations move their companies to foreign countries so they can increase their income by hiring cheaper labor overseas and avoid paying taxes to the U.S. government. By doing this they are putting many people out of work in this country.
Looks to me like this is a double standard. No wonder our country is going down the tube.
-- Patricia De Jong, Seminole
Bush has accomplished little at home
Bush's budget proposal is already on Mars.
I really can't comprehend how President Bush will even begin to reduce the budget deficit. His present tax cuts will reduce federal revenue by $936-billion over the next 10 years and he plans more. His Medicare prescription drug plan will cost billions more than projected. Sen. Kent Conrad stated that the federal government would spend $991,000 more per minute than it takes in under Bush's plan. Even Rep. C.W. Bill Young is in awe over Bush's budget proposal. Also, we read in the paper almost daily, how corporate America is reducing the American workforce by shipping their jobs overseas.
Remember voters! This is Bush's last term if re-elected and he knows this. He has accomplished little domestically and has further plans to cut or strictly limit domestic programs.
He has been an excellent president - if money, health care, education, insurance and job security are of no concern.
-- Jack Burlakos, Kenneth City
An objectionable "analysis'
I object to the headline Bush banks on America's fears appearing on the front page of Tuesday's paper. This is clearly an opinion worthy of a Democrat staffer, not an "analysis" by a reporter from the New York Times as described. The New York Times has recently proven itself less than a reliable centrist source, and to put such a headline from such a source on your front page as "news" is wrong.
As a political centrist, it is difficult to get a balanced view from the papers available in Tampa Bay, but until recently your paper seemed to be doing the best job.
-- Bill Drent, Palm Harbor
Vote for a better future
Former President Reagan asked Americans this question: Are you better off now than you were four year ago?
We should ask this question: Will our children be better off eight years from now?
Should you answer that question honestly you can then cast your vote, depending upon whether or not your vote will be counted. Thomas Friedman paints a very colorful picture of our future in the hands of George W. Bush in his Feb. 3 column, Bush's budgets of mass destruction. The new budget is enough to make the hair on one's arms stand on end.
A careful vote in November is an absolute necessity. Everyone of voting age should remember that and make it a concerted effort to make their lives better in the next four years.
-- Judith M. Stevens, Clearwater
Bush is working to make us safer
Here it is only February in a presidential election year and we've heard nothing from the Democrats except how poorly George W. Bush is supposedly handling the economy and the war against terrorism.
The 9/11 tragedy was in the making years before it happened. There were many warning shots fired during the Clinton administration about which nothing was done.
Let's hope we hear from the candidates as to what solutions, if any, they have for ridding the world of terrorism. Quite frankly, I don't think they have any or they would include them as part of their campaign.
As long as President Bush continues to attempt to make our great country (and the rest of the world) a safer place to live by facing up to terrorists, he'll have my vote in November.
-- Robert Vollmer, Spring Hill
An indefensible war strategy
In 1949, the United States War Department was reorganized and renamed appropriately, the U.S. Department of Defense. Let us not turn back time. We can successfully defend this country, while not making (pre-emptive) war.
To do so, we need worldwide allies, an outstanding intelligence community and a flexible, well-equipped military, which shall be used only as a last resort and when a concise, finite objective is established and when a clear plan of action has been determined.
George Bush seemingly single-handedly has re-established the War Department, alienated our allies, failed to make our intelligence community credible and has failed to provide our military with the financial support that they need to do the job required of them. Nor has he developed a concise plan to resolve the situation in Iraq, which is deteriorating to near civil war - something our troops are certainly not prepared to deal with.
-- Lauren Alex Scott, Clearwater
Buck should stop on Bush's desk
President Truman had a sign on his desk, one of his mottoes, saying: "The buck stops here." In his farewell address to the American people in January 1953, Truman referred to this concept very specifically in asserting that "The president - whoever he is - has to decide. He can't pass the buck to anybody. No one else can do the deciding for him. That's his job."
The incumbent president, contrary to the majority judgment of the civilized world as expressed at the United Nations, declared and pursued war against Iraq. For whatever reasons, his clearly expressed and emphasized justification was the dogmatic assertion that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and thereby constituted a threat to the United States. At great monetary cost and after painstaking exploration, his chosen agent has declared that weapons of mass destruction simply do not exist.
In some countries and cultures, governmental or business executives guilty of such egregious errors of judgment commit suicide or at least resign from office. An apology would be in order, but the very least we should expect of our president is an acknowledgment that he was wrong, recognition that, yes, as Harry Truman said, the buck does, indeed, stop at the Oval Office.
-- Seymour S. Bluestone, Clearwater
Think of our children first
Re: Wedded blitz, editorial, Jan. 28.
How can President Bush spend $1.5-billion to promote marriage? Our state's Healthy Kids Program is suffering, and many families are already stressed with their children's medical needs. Does he honestly think that those families not getting their medical needs met could actually go to marriage counseling because of the stress and difficulties facing them?
I don't think President Bush has the first clue what it feels like to make too much money for Medicaid services and not enough to have employee health benefits. Come on - open your eyes, Mr. President. Think of our children's future, and put that money where it belongs - in the Healthy Kids Program, because without that there is no future for the children or possibly our world.
-- Linda Ross, St. Petersburg
Damaging stereotypes
Re: Placing value on learning will save our kids, by Bill Maxwell, Jan. 28.
I guess Bill Maxwell doesn't drive on the same streets I do. Usually, when driving through predominantly black, predominantly poor neighborhoods on my way to a substitute teaching assignment, I see those same children; but standing with them in the dark are their parents.
Then again, the students on his route may attend schools that do not have enough books for the students to take home.
Most certainly, Maxwell understands the damage that racial stereotypes generate. His unrelenting slander of St. Petersburg's black population is despicable.
-- Judy Robinson, St. Petersburg
Parents are vital to education
Bill Maxwell's column was "right on the mark" as far as the lack of interest of black parents in their children's education. I would like to add to his thoughts that this same rationale is true about poor or low-income white parents. This is not only a black problem.
Having been a teacher, supervisor, and director in three school districts and working in special education, regular education, and early intervention programs, I agree with what Maxwell is talking about. Parents do not realize how important they are in working with their young children and giving them a "head start."
Experience and education are important in every child's life, so parents should seek help in order to maximize their child's potential.
-- Mary J. Mostertz, Tampa
Share your opinions
We invite readers to write to us. Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731. They can be sent by fax to 727 893-8675 or through our Web site at: http://www.sptimes.com/letters/
They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Please include a handwritten signature when possible.
Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length. We regret that not all letters can be published.
