Russell Williams
Well-Known Member
March 9, 2011
Letters to the Editor
Dear Editor,
In the Sunday, March 6, 2001 Herald Mail there are two very interesting pieces. On page A4 Columnist Charles Krauthammer states that, "The nation faces a fiscal crisis of historic proportions... ." Mr. Krauthammer goes on to explain that in part this problem results because of, " sweetheart deals the public-sector unions had negotiated for themselves for years.", and " unsustainable federal entitlements for the elderly enacted when life expectancy was 62 ". Charles Krauthammer explains that. " Republican governors are taking on unsustainable, fiscally ruinous pension healthcare obligations "
In other venues we have all heard some politicians state things such as, "We cannot raise the taxes on the rich because that would be socialistic income redistribution." and, " We cannot raise taxes on business because taxes are bad for business."
If government expenses cannot be met by raising taxes then government expenses must be lowered by lowering benefits. On the front page of the same Sunday paper is an article talking about how Maryland is working on balancing its budget in part by lowering prescription drug coverage benefits for current and former state workers. The article includes statements from two retired people about the impact this proposal will have on them and statements from state legislators Donahue and Edwards saying that, "legislators are trying to scale back the proposed increases."
Voters cannot have it both ways. Politicians cannot have it both ways. If expenses are too high than either taxes must be raised or benefits must be cut. Voters voting for politicians who promise to cut millions of dollars out of the state budget without raising taxes and at the same time argue against proposed increases in out-of-pocket expenses for entitlements are not being logical, or sensible, but politicians who make such promises they are getting reelected.
Yours truly,
Russell Williams -
Letters to the Editor
Dear Editor,
In the Sunday, March 6, 2001 Herald Mail there are two very interesting pieces. On page A4 Columnist Charles Krauthammer states that, "The nation faces a fiscal crisis of historic proportions... ." Mr. Krauthammer goes on to explain that in part this problem results because of, " sweetheart deals the public-sector unions had negotiated for themselves for years.", and " unsustainable federal entitlements for the elderly enacted when life expectancy was 62 ". Charles Krauthammer explains that. " Republican governors are taking on unsustainable, fiscally ruinous pension healthcare obligations "
In other venues we have all heard some politicians state things such as, "We cannot raise the taxes on the rich because that would be socialistic income redistribution." and, " We cannot raise taxes on business because taxes are bad for business."
If government expenses cannot be met by raising taxes then government expenses must be lowered by lowering benefits. On the front page of the same Sunday paper is an article talking about how Maryland is working on balancing its budget in part by lowering prescription drug coverage benefits for current and former state workers. The article includes statements from two retired people about the impact this proposal will have on them and statements from state legislators Donahue and Edwards saying that, "legislators are trying to scale back the proposed increases."
Voters cannot have it both ways. Politicians cannot have it both ways. If expenses are too high than either taxes must be raised or benefits must be cut. Voters voting for politicians who promise to cut millions of dollars out of the state budget without raising taxes and at the same time argue against proposed increases in out-of-pocket expenses for entitlements are not being logical, or sensible, but politicians who make such promises they are getting reelected.
Yours truly,
Russell Williams -
