Breaking Tampa Bay, Florida and national news and weather from Tampa Bay Online and The Tampa Tribune | TBO.com
Saturday, Apr 19, 2014
Opinion

Sanctioning the system

Staff
Published:   |   Updated: March 18, 2013 at 06:16 PM

Regarding "Five things Democrats don't want to tell you" (Views, Oct. 14) in which the author writes, "Next week it's the Republicans' turn." Allow me to be the first to point out the things that count regarding what the Democrats don't want you to know also hold true for Republicans.

The Tribune highlighted one of the many issues that applies to both parties: "Given the federal government's predilection for spending every dime that comes in (and more), the awful truth is that the government will have to trickle down the income ladder to scoop up the revenue needed to reduce the deficit."

Let me be so bold as to address why there is no fundamental difference as it regards the eventual destruction of our economy by the two parties and why Bloomberg's Caroline Baum needn't bother writing the second column. Her points are:

"The president doesn't create jobs." This is generally true regarding jobs that count. But when a president starts a war there is no doubt that the jobs related to the military-industrial complex will increase. I suspect Mitt Romney will create more jobs there. Buy stock in the body-bag companies. But creating jobs with tax dollars is like drawing your own blood for your transfusion.

"Middle-class taxes are going up." When you spend more than you earn taxes are going up unless, of course, the Federal Reserve prints money, gives it to their banker friends and they lend it to the government so it can continue to pay its debt. Whose money is it that they are issuing into existence with nothing to back it, and how does this affect the money in your wallet? Think inflation.

'"Forward" is really backward." When a country's imports are greater than its exports, it's going backward. When government spending exceeds taxes to pay for that spending, we are going backward. If Baum would do just a little research she would find that Reagan increased the national debt by almost 200 percent, Bush (43) increased it from about $5 trillion to almost $11 trillion, around 100 percent. The formula goes like this: Taxing less, spending more = increasing the debt.

"Medicare, not Granny, is going over the cliff." Actually, Granny is on Medicare. When it goes over the cliff so will granny. There are two baskets, payers and receivers; right now they're about equal. Romney wants to remove some of the payers' money from the basket; this will mean there will not be enough for the receivers, and taxpayers will have to make up the difference. But there are a lot of people taking money from the basket who paid no money into the basket — they call it expanded benefits. A good start would be to stop that practice in order to keep the Ponzi scheme going a little longer.

"A Volt in every driveway?" The best intentions of government rarely work; neither does government intervention in the private sector. An example is the Bush (43) economic stimulus plan that offered up to a $100,000 tax credit to people who bought large, gas-guzzling SUVs. Now the government is trying to compensate by taking us in the other direction.

There should be a constitutional amendment addressing the separation of business and state just as there is separation of church and state. The election is bought and paid for by special interests; when you vote for either of the men in the two-party monopoly, you are sanctioning the system. When we have suffered enough there will likely be a third-party candidate who believes the Constitution isn't just a piece of paper, say, someone like Ron Paul. Or perhaps Rand Paul will come to the realization the Republican Party cannot be salvaged and become a third-party candidate.

Henry Pierson

Odessa

Comments