National Debt

Washington. -- In politics, a zealously presented image is often more powerful than reality. Louis Goldstein's recent Opinion * Commentary article, ''The Federal Buck Doesn't Stop Anywhere Anymore,'' is a prime example of presenting a political issue so one-sidedly one marvels at how it could develop so in a society where leaders face election and a free press exists.Mr. Goldstein claims that interest payments on the U.S. national debt are ''tax dollars into a black hole'' that have resulted in the federal government denying much-needed aid to the states.

Remember the national debt, that multi-trillion fiscal embarrassment, which Ross Perot once compared to a "crazy aunt" hidden in the basement?Despite all the tax increases and spending cuts in the new U.S. budget accord, the overall national debt -- now at least $3.2 trillion -- is expected to balloon by another trillion dollars in the 1990s.Interest payments on all that red ink will cost more than the defense budget by 1997, according to congressional estimates. Federal borrowing, meanwhile, will remain vast -- gobbling up TC cash that might otherwise go to private investments that spark economic growth and create jobs.

George Wallace used to say there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between the two major political parties. Well, this election changes that calculation a mite. According to experts at the Committee for a Responsible Budget, a watchdog group that specializes in castor oil rather than milk and honey, there is about a trillion-dollar difference between George Bush and Bill .. Clinton.Neither candidate for president has offered a credible program to stop the catastrophic increase in the national debt -- despite the economic pamphlets they are hawking to the electorate.

Frank Faris usually spends Sunday afternoons thinking about Aikido, a form of martial arts he teaches in a studio near the Cross Street Market.But yesterday he found himself thinking about the numbers flashing across a billboard-sized electronic clock mounted on wheels and parked at a service station three flights below his studio.Each second, the National Debt Clock at South Charles and West Cross streets ticked off the federal deficit. The foot-high figure increased at the rate of $9,600 per second.

The possibility of a government shutdown has Washington and the left-wing mainstream media in high dudgeon. Maybe they are hoping for a repeat of 1995, when President Clinton refused to sign a budget, shut down the government and got away with it by blaming it all on the GOP. But who's to blame for this mess now? Last year, Democrats controlled both houses of Congress plus the presidency. By law, they were required to pass a budget. They didn't. Why? Were they afraid of being punished by the voters?

The federal government may run a surplus of more than $4 trillion over the next decade. What would you do with the money? Shore up Social Security? Pay down the national debt? Expand health-care coverage? Build a missile defense system? Improve the nation's schools? Cut taxes? Rebuild our roads, bridges, parks and airports? Or address other social needs in creative ways? We are looking for 250 words or less; the deadline is Oct. 23. Letters become the property of The Sun, which reserves the right to edit them.

J. Shawn Alcarese blames Standard & Poor's downgrade, along with all of our economic mess, on "[t]he unchecked government borrowing and spending since 2009, when Mr. Obama became president and the Democrats took control of both houses of Congress" ("U.S. was warned of a possible credit downgrade," Aug. 10). This is more of the partisan nonsense that passes for political debate these days. In fact, the Republicans previously controlled both Congress and the White House, and, during the Bush administration, tax cuts, an enormously costly prescription drug benefit in Medicare, extremely expensive and unfunded wars, and rising entitlement costs turned a $290 billion budget surplus in 2000 into a $455 billion deficit by 2008, and nearly doubled the national debt from $5.6 trillion to over $10 trillion and from 56 percent to over 84 percent of GDP. Then a Democratic Congress approved President Bush's bailouts of the financial industry that pushed the deficit and debt to higher levels.

In responding to a recent column ("Question for tea party: What now?" Aug. 4), Stanley J. Glinka accuses Dan Rodricks of forgetting that the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress from 2007-2010, which he claims "was the time when our economy went downhill. " However, Mr. Glinka himself appears to forget that the Republicans previously controlled both Congress and the White House, and that during the Bush Administration tax cuts, an enormously costly Medicare prescription drug benefit, two expensive and unfunded wars and rising entitlement costs turned a $290 billion budget surplus in 2000 into a $455 billion deficit by 2008.

I hope I am not the only reader who can see through the proposals to extend tax cuts for the rich. The logical problem is that if tax cuts stimulate small businesses and hardy entrepreneurship, wouldn't we have seen it by now? Like during the year 2010 when there was no estate tax whatsoever? How many dot-coms did the Steinbrenner heirs start? If cutting taxes for the rich is the way to grow the economy, then there would be no recession. For the record I don't think there should be a tax cut for anybody.

Some may call letter writer Ronald Thompson a fool for wanting to send money directly to the government to reduce the national debt via an Internet site to be established by the White House ("Send Uncle Sam whatever you can spare," July 11). Well, I think it is a fabulous idea. If we can use the Internet for all sorts of worthy charity drives and come up with millions of dollars, why not use it for the good of our own country and our people? We may not come up with $14 trillion, but whatever it comes to, as he stated, it can decrease taxes, interest rates, and prevent reductions to Social Security, Medicare, student loans and government jobs.