Spending Cuts

A whole lot of Democrats and independents were probably delighted to hear President Barack Obama demonstrate a little more resolve in the deficit reduction debate today. In unveiling his $3 billion proposal to reduce federal debt over the next decade through both spending cuts and tax increases, the president also outlined some core principles — among them that he won't support any measure that requires the middle class and poor to do all the sacrificing in order to preserve tax loopholes and other advantages for the rich.

I have some questions for the House Tea Party Caucus: First, how do you plan to reduce the federal debt through spending cuts alone (i.e. no revenue increases) without destroying Medicare and seriously damaging Social Security? Second, if tax increases are "job killers," then aren't spending cuts "job killers" as well? Finally, if tax cuts are "job creators," then aren't spending increases "job creators" too? So why is one of them a good thing and the other not? George Alberts, Columbia

Gov. Martin O'Malleyand the Democrats running Maryland will ruin our state if we don't speak up and stop the runaway spending. Moving the responsibility of paying for teacher pensions to the counties is just wrong. Governor O'Malley needs to show some leadership and balance his budget with serious spending cuts, not by raising taxes and moving costs to the counties. Fergie Grossman, Ellicott City

The Obama administration, the Democrats and the mainstream media, including The Sun, got what they deserved when Standard & Poor's downgraded the U.S. government's credit rating and warned of further downgrades if more spending cuts aren't forthcoming. The unchecked government borrowing and spending since 2009, when Mr. Obama became president and the Democrats took control of both houses of Congress, have plunged this country into a fiscal chaos that has brought the United States to the brink of default on its obligations.

Regarding the editorial "Playing chicken with the economy" (May 15) , when President Obama presented his original budget, it contained no spending cuts and totally ignored reigning in entitlement spending (Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid). Only after the Republicans proposed spending cuts did the president revise his budget to include spending cuts. Was this a demonstration of courage on President Obama's part? Leading from behind is not leadership and requires no courage. It seems that President Obama's and the Democrats' idea of courage or compromise is when the other side capitulates and they get their way. Was there any compromise by the Democrats on ObamaCare or the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill?

I HAVE such a longstanding respect for Sen. Bob Dole that I fantasize the old Bob Dole -- the responsible statesman -- will weigh back into the budget debate.He was one of the first Republicans to recognize that the towering Reagan deficits endangered the health of the economy.Ignoring the political risk, he stood up to his own president, who offered supply-side nostrums, blithely talking about "growing out the deficits" and minimizing their size by basing projections on rosy scenarios.The old Bob Dole cut through the malarkey.

WASHINGTON - Always a partisan document, the federal budget took on an even more partisan feel yesterday as the House passed a $2.41 trillion spending blueprint for next year that Democrats said is fiscally irresponsible. Republicans, who have traditionally eschewed deficits - now expected to surpass $521 billion - mostly put their concerns aside to back President Bush's priorities: tax cuts, funding for the war in Iraq, and tighter domestic spending. But the House curbed the tax cuts a bit and speeded up Bush's goal of cutting the budget in half in five years.

I take issue with letter writer Fred Pasek's comment that "every time you hear a candidate speak, you either get the far left agenda, or the far right agenda" ("Voting Republican for president, by default," Sept. 7). With all due respect to Mr. Pasek, "far left" simply does not apply to President Obama. To the chagrin of liberals, the president is moderate to a fault. The recent debt-ceiling debate is a case in point. If we were truly dominated by politicians from both extremes, the debt ceiling stalemate would have been between a liberal president who opposed spending cuts and a conservative Congress opposed to any tax increases.

As a conservative Republican, I cannot believe that I actually agree with a Montgomery County Democrat ("Income tax is facing dissent," May 15). If you missed the story, Del. Charles Barkley, a Montgomery County Democrat, stated opposition to the Democratic leadership's "doomsday" tax plan, telling The Sun, "I don't like the income tax plan. I don't think it's fair to taxpayers. " No kidding. Delegate Barkley is right: the new income tax is unfair to taxpayers. If you work hard and obtain wealth, why should it be taken from you?

WASHINGTON -- Armed with steady public support for his economic package, President Clinton held his first meetings with Republican congressional leaders who appeared divided over how to respond to the plan.Nearly two weeks after making his economic package public, Mr. Clinton and Vice President Al Gore met yesterday with the Republican House and Senate leadership on Capitol Hill. GOP lawmakers described the discussions with the president as cordial and nonconfrontational.But the Republicans disagreed over how their party, in the minority in both houses, should deal with Mr. Clinton's efforts to drive his program of tax increases and spending cuts through Congress.