Letter: Letter fails to address questions
Thanks to Chuck Fuller for his response to my earlier "Where's the meat" letter. It demonstrates the disparity between the political parties at a critical time in this very important election.
However, he failed to address the questions posed on taxes, cuts to social safety net programs, education, clean energy, replacing the Affordable Care Act...all the while supporting increases in defense spending the military doesn't even want. He cites the skirmishes in the Middle East and the terror threats as reasons to increase defense spending. There are no countries in that region with the capability to or having the desire to attack the continental United States. The major powers, China and Russia, who have the capability no longer pose a threat for purely economic reasons if nothing else. We are China's biggest market.
Hopefully, both parties agree that ground warfare in foreign countries is a thing of the past but a large portion of the defense budget continues to support that strategy and the warmongers in Congress keep the fear generators working at full speed. Following troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, military operations will rely on global intelligence gathering, special forces, and airborne strikes, primarily unmanned drones to counter the remaining threats, the terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. This provides for a sharp reduction in developing and maintaining traditional warfighting equipment.
Aside from the defense issue, what are the specifics (the meat) in replacing the Affordable Care Act, tax loopholes, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, reduction in food stamps, dropping public support of Planned Parenthood, Big Bird, and other social programs? We know what those programs are now and most Americans like them. We have a right to know what they will be replaced with so we can make decisions based on specifics rather than generalities based on political ideologies.
The most disturbing argument he posed was the myth that government investment is not the major job generator. Consider the number of industries created by government investment in airplane technology from WW I through today, the computer industry, the Internet, Global Positioning System, space technology, the power grids, energy, education, health care, transportation infrastructure...none of these big investments could have been made by profit-oriented individuals or companies but they have all benefited from the government "investment." This is as it should be - public and private partnership working together to generate new products and associated services (jobs) to grow the economy. You see, none of us "built it on our own." Big Brother government had a lot to do with it.
There are two damaging assertions from former presidents that have changed the public perception of "government." They are:
Reagan - "The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government and I'm here to help."
This irresponsible statement from the head of government made the government the enemy in the minds of many. The people have influence in Government (the Public) through the ballot box. They have no influence over Corporate America (the Private).
Bush - The people know how to spend their money better than the government.
He used this argument in support of the disastrous Bush tax cuts which, in combination of two unnecessary, costly, and unpaid for wars added $5-6 trillion dollars to our national debt and a continuing $1.5 trillion yearly deficit. In general, people do not have the knowledge nor skills to navigate the complex economic world we live in, a world cleverly manipulated by money engineers on Wall Street. Hence, the tax cuts had neither the positive effects of sustainable economic growth nor reducing our deficits and national debt. We achieved little from the two wars and lost a robust and stable economy.