The national debt, a better way and changes

By Published by The Editorial Board

Published: September 9, 2008

We must address this problem now

To the editor:

The recent, excellent and well-attended congressional issues forum was remiss in not addressing the $9.5 trillion national debt, which is a major security issue since 26 percent is owned by foreign governments — and 47 percent of that by China. Being due $562 billion, no wonder China felt comfortable in “jokingly” warning us not to pursue certain international trade changes! This threatens our national security.

The current debt is $36,000 per person and is growing at an average of $500 billion per year — or $2.78 trillion between 2003 and 2007. That is more debt that our nation incurred from 1791 until 1990 — nearly 200 years.

Add to this the $59 trillion underfunding of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc., and the total is nearly $70 trillion. I pity all those under the age of 60. Their prospects are dismal. In fact, if not resolved, they and this nation could suffer the loss of its security, our way of life and perhaps more. Think: Without foreign loans, we could not fund our current war for security.

In 2002, the United States was looking at a $1.28 trillion surplus, but the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts benefiting the top 2 percent of incomes ($1 million plus) moved the United States to an $850 billion deficit, a swing of $2.13 trillion to the negative! The tax cuts and the federal budget deficit should have been on the forum’s agenda.

Persons running for the House or Senate must address this issue, and not gloss over the crisis by stating to cheers that they will preserve the tax cuts. Many in the audience do not realize that there is no tax relief on incomes less than $1 million per year. For a candidate to infer that 98 percent of the population benefits is deceptive and is harmful to the national interest — and could be horrific.

JAMES W. HARPER III

To the editor:

Watching the Bush administration treat Iraq like its private AMT for the past seven years, and now faced with the possibility of watching McCain and Palin “bring the pain,” I’m starting to think there needs to be a better way of selecting a president.

Maybe it’s time for a national presidential lottery — a random picking of a president based on only three criteria: You have to be a citizen, you can’t be a felon and you’ve got to be at least 36.

With our technology, we could easily put everyone who meets the criteria in a big electronic fish bowl and draw a winner.

I know some people will say we already have a lottery. They look at Sarah Palin and say, “She’s kind of random. There doesn’t seem to be much reasoning behind her selection.”

But I think those people miss the point. Palin wasn’t picked randomly. McCain must have thought it out, or at least thought about it.

Really, we need to get beyond all of this and work on putting in a national lottery.

The biggest advantage is the odds are we wouldn’t get some politico pit bull raring to chew off the leg of any Democrat that gets in her way, and we wouldn’t get some fuzzy-headed geezer like McCain who unleashed her.

Instead, we’d get some average, random American (like me) who, I’m sure, would do as good a job as McCain or Palin as president without all of the hateful posturing and silly name calling.

JOHN GUZLOWSKI

To the editor:

Concerning Medicaid for the younger generation and Medicare for the elderly, I think the Medicaid waiting period is outrageous and should be reduced. Our community needs help with this.

Also, I feel Medicare should be offered at a low cost or for free. The elderly have paved the way for our society to become what it is today.

Let’s think about these issues when they are discussed in Congress — and when we are questioning who to vote for.

TRAVIS WHITEHEAD

Danville