Bush takes budget to nation, Feb. 28.
President Bush has told us that his favorite philosopher is Jesus. He -- Bush, not Jesus -- has proposed a $1.6-trillion tax cut that, in terms of dollars saved, greatly favors the richest among us.
Regarding this, I asked myself a question that Bush, as a Christian, must surely have asked himself before determining how best to deal with our unique surplus: What would Jesus do? As I recall, Jesus was not among, nor desired to be among, the very rich. In fact, I believe he spent some time with those in the lowest tax brackets -- ministering to them, healing them, caring for them. I believe he would find a way to use this surplus to bring comfort to those who suffer poverty and hunger, who are sick and without hope. I also believe he would find few such candidates for the surplus among the richest 1 percent President Bush has targeted.
Finally, I believe it likely that Jesus would storm the Capitol and cast out our 21st century version of the money-changers.
-- Richard Downing, Hudson
Looking for some money back
George W. Bush wouldn't need to devote time and energy to make a case for tax cuts if just a few Southern Democrats showed the independence from the party's liberal leadership that Georgia's Sen. Zell Miller does. Bush proposes to return to taxpayers less than a third of the expected tax surplus, yet most Democrat politicians ridicule even that as "irresponsible" and "favoring the wealthy."
Government officials did nothing to earn the surplus; they collected it from me under threat of imprisonment. Why should Sens. Bob Graham, Bill Nelson and others keep in Washington more of my tax money than needed? Am I the last Democrat who doesn't like to be overcharged?
-- Henry Gotsch, Tampa
Where is the compassion?
Re: President Bush's proposed tax plan.
It is a known fact that for more than 20 years the rich have gotten richer and the poor have gotten poorer in this country.
The president's proposed tax plan only serves to perpetuate this fact, which will only lead to further class distinctions. History tells us in the long run that when this occurs in any society, it is doomed to fail.
Where is the so-called compassion for those less fortunate? It is certainly not contained within the Bush tax plan.
-- William J. Fraser, Clearwater
Study Social Security first
Re: "We are making progress," Feb. 28.
In President Bush's address to a joint session of Congress, he states, "Everyone in this chamber knows that Social Security is not prepared to fully fund their retirement. And we only have a couple of years to get prepared." He further notes that a presidential commission to reform Social Security will be established.
I submit that the members of Congress should wait for the findings of this commission before voting on whether to give away money in the form of tax cuts. The money that they "refund" to taxpayers, even those in the higher income tax brackets who stand to gain a greater "refund" than the vast majority of us taxpayers, may very well be money that is needed to fund our retirement. Let's hope our legislators have the wisdom not to put the cart before the horse.
-- Ellen A. Rhoades, Oldsmar
Deficits came from excess spending
Re: Budget numbers don't add up, Democrats say, Feb. 28.
The Times chose to report Sen. Bill Nelson's remark that President Bush's tax plan will wreck the economy, as well as Nelson's reference to President Reagan's 1981 tax cut as being "so large it drove us into deficit spending." Those last words are they key: What drove us to deficit spending was the Democratic Congress' almost unrestrained spending, not the tax cut.
You notice the Democrats think that tax cuts ought to be linked to revenue "triggers." Why not link spending to revenue triggers?
-- Ernest Lane, New Port Richey
Another way to boost the economy
Need more money pumped into the economy?
Instead of the proposed large tax cut, how about allowing young adults to buy into Medicare for a third of what their private health insurance costs?
It would not be a drain on Medicare because with regular checkups, serious illnesses could be prevented or at least caught in their early stages. This would save on large medical bills.
For the average family, there would be more money left to spend on necessities than there would be from a tax cut -- which should be used to pay down the national debt.
-- Gus and Paula Xenakis, Holiday
Eliminate the death tax
The very rich are saying they don't want the "death tax" eliminated. They can squirm out of it one way or another, or the estate can pay and still have millions for the heirs.
It's the middle class who should be concerned. Don't believe the statistics being thrown around; they are all past tense. The concern is for the future.
If you project forward to an expected demise, own a home, have some investments or a small business, your "estate" will likely be penalized under current law.
Families shouldn't have to spend to find partial escape routes or have to liquidate prematurely. This tax should be eliminated.
Passing on wealth stimulates the economy and, in many cases, assures continuity of businesses, farms and other enterprises.
-- Herman A. Nater, Tarpon Springs
Dialogue is a better defense
As we approach the anniversaryof the Oklahoma City bombing, we should remember that this terrorist attack was not carried out by an "Arab" from one of the so-called "rogue states" but by a clean, crew-cutted American patriot, trained and educated by the Department of Defense. His high-tech bomb was not delivered by a missile but a Ryder truck loaded with mainly agricultural fertilizer that didn't take a rocket scientist to fabricate.
We've also just learned that one of the modern-day superspies is not a sinister-looking Russian KGB agent but a church-going, middle-class, straight-as-a-stick 27-year veteran of the FBI (Senior FBI agent charged as spy, Feb. 21).
A $310-billion defense budget will never protect us from these attacks. If any foreign state or group wants to carry out an attack, it need not launch high-tech missiles but can carry them here in a suitcase or send them by mail.
The way to prevent such attacks is for our country to reach out to these "rogue states" and engage them in some kind of constructive dialogue. There must be some reason that these nations are antagonistic toward us. Let us at least discuss it with them and, secondly, stop intimidating the entire world with our high-tech arsenal, which I'm sure no one appreciates.
-- Patrick Murray, St. Petersburg
Let Clinton be Democrats' albatross
Re: Democrats should cut Clinton loose, Feb. 27.
I agree with Bob Herbert's comments except the concept that the Democratic Party should be able to be free of Bill Clinton. It was well documented that Bill was a liar, womanizer and draft-dodger when the Democratic Party ran and elected him twice. The Democrats staunchly defended him when the honorable thing to do was rid the country of him through impeachment. Democratic legislators like Maxine Waters, Charles Rangel, Henry Waxman, Ted Kennedy and all their ilk clung to him like a life raft when he was dragging the country through the muck and the mire.
When Clinton's sexual escapades were the joke of the international community, the Democrats were still singing his praises. Now that Herbert rightly describes Clinton as "terminally unethical and vulgar," he thinks the Democratic Party should ostracize him and cut him loose.
No way! Bill Clinton should be hung around the neck of the Democratic Party like the albatross he is until Armageddon.
-- Lynn O'Keefe, Largo
Pardon power isn't limited
Re: Clinton's mess, editorial, Feb. 23.
I was disappointed by this editorial. It struck me as uncharacteristically poorly written and inaccurate. Your assertion, in paragraph two, that "there is a proper process by which presidential pardons and commutations are considered" comes across as pedantic and pretentious. It is also untrue.
The founding fathers established that the president's power in this regard should be unabridged. The U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 2, states that: "The president . . . shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment." Accordingly, under the Constitution, it is within the president's discretion to determine how best to fulfill this charter.
Further, when, in the final paragraph, you claimed to speak for the public, you failed to represent at least one disenfranchised citizen's point of view. President Clinton did not violate my trust. He exercised his authority as he saw fit. A true example of a violation of the public trust occurred when Gov. Jeb Bush, Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris and five members of the U.S. Supreme Court installed the current president over the will of the electorate.
-- Douglas Dear, 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 e-mail to letters@sptimes.com or by fax to (727) 893-8675.
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.
Back to Opinion
© 2006 • All Rights Reserved • Tampa Bay Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111
