Spending rise caused deficits in the '80sAs I was reading...

the Forum

April 29, 1993

Spending rise caused deficits in the '80s

As I was reading Robert Kuttner's column "Gouging the Rich?" (April 23), I glanced down and read he was a regular writer on economic issues; after reading that, I assumed he writes about economics and knows nothing about them.

Why? Mr. Kuttner writes that the tax cut of 1981 was sold on the premise that it would increase tax revenues and that we would have a surplus by 1984; and all this was a grand lie and was only implemented to reduce the taxes of the "rich.`

Mr. Kuttner either does not know what he is writing about or he is outright lying. In 1983 total tax income was $617,766,000; 1990 total tax income was $1,031,462,000, an increase of 66 percent or an average increase of 8.2 percent per year. (Source: U.S. Department of Labor). The real culprit was the budget side. In 1983 the budget was $745,706,000, and by 1990 it was $1,257,850,000,000, an increase of 68 percent or 8.5 percent per year.

If the budget had only grown by the rate of inflation for the eight years (1983-1990), the budget would have been $9,972,354,000 (an average rate of increase of 3.7 percent a year (Source: U.S. Department of Labor), a nearly $9 billion surplus . . .

The railing that Mr. Kuttner talks about is the broken promises that the federal government again is doing to the American people.

For the elimination of a large part of your tax deductions and closing of tax loop holes the rates were to be lowered. Now the rates are once again going up with no deductions.

To continue to rail that the rich got richer and the poor poorer in the '80's is ignoring the real facts.

mbler M. Blick


Killing vs. kissing

My grandson is at the "Barney" age right now, but when he reaches 12 or so, I would rather have him see on TV two men kissing each other than Clint Eastwood or Bruce Willis blasting another man with an assault weapon.

It is the latter action that is unnatural and sick; the former action is merely sexual preference.

Gerald Ben Shargel


Cat breeders promote feline welfare

The Humane Society's recent call for a voluntary ban on pet breeding could very well be a case of it "biting the hand that feeds it."

For example, the Cat Fanciers' Association acts as parent organization to over 700 CFA cat clubs nationwide, which are also non-profit and put on shows annually, with proceeds donated to humane projects that benefit cats.

Funds are donated to local shelters, neuter-spay programs, and educational projects for public education and feline health research. Cat clubs are becoming increasingly selective and wary of donating to organizations that support anti-breeder legislation.

The typical hobby breeder who is a member of one or more cat clubs produces an average of three to four litters per year.

Kittens are sold by contract as exclusively indoor pets with signed neuter-spay agreements and health guarantees.

Most hobby breeders have waiting lists and provide follow-up involvement, which includes finding other homes for animals bred if new owners are unable to keep them. In five years of breeding, we have placed only three kittens in breeder homes. The rest have been neutered or spayed.

We cat fanciers love all cats, not only our own breeds. Through club and volunteer activities, hobby breeders act as educators and advocates for feline welfare.

We, too, abhor the negligently permitted breeding of free-roaming or unowned cats, as well as the for-profit kitten- and puppy-mills that produce inferior pedigreed animals sold in pet stores.

These, like the other unwanted Traci Harmon animals, often end up housed in shelters at great expense and ultimately put to death.

We are not the enemy. As responsible breeders of animals desired for their distinctive beauty and personality, we would rather be utilized by the Humane Society as allies, working with the public through education rather than legislation.

#Jennifer and Ray Hawkins


Clam dredging

As of February 24, 1992, the Maryland Department of the Environment allowed the Department of Natural Resources to open the mouth of the Patapsco River to commercial clam dredging. This action was based on good bacterial water quality.

The clam dredging process is done with a high powered water pump which disturbs the bottom by dredging approximately a two-foot deep by four-foot wide path in the bottom sediments.

The suspended sediments created can be seen stretched for hundreds of yards behind each clam boat. These boats sometimes gather in numbers up to 40 or more and dredge all day long six days a week throughout the year.

The resultant suspended sediments not only cloud the water but prohibit the growth of aquatic plants.

Of great concern is that this area is within a short distance of the Baltimore Harbor.

For many years heavy industries in the area have dumped various contaminants which have dispersed into the bottom sediments.

Baltimore Sun Articles
Please note the green-lined linked article text has been applied commercially without any involvement from our newsroom editors, reporters or any other editorial staff.