To the editor: As soon as once more, contributing author Veronique de Rugy comes up with that very same previous and drained “entitlements” canard when referring to Social Safety, Medicare and Medicaid packages (“The selection between tax reform and complete dysfunction,” Feb. 19).
Maybe she’s unaware that on the signing ceremony the place President Ronald Reagan enacted into regulation the landmark bipartisan Social Safety Amendments of 1983, he mentioned, partially:
“This invoice demonstrates forever our nation’s ironclad dedication to Social Safety. It assures the aged that America will at all times preserve the guarantees made in troubled instances a half a century in the past. It assures those that are nonetheless working that they, too, have a pact with the longer term. From this present day ahead, they’ve one pledge that they are going to get their justifiable share of advantages after they retire.”
The next 12 months, throughout a presidential debate with Walter Mondale, President Reagan firmly acknowledged:
“Social Safety has nothing to do with the deficit. Social Safety is completely funded by the payroll tax levied on employer and worker. For those who scale back the outgo of Social Safety, the cash wouldn’t go into the overall fund or scale back the deficit. It could go into the Social Safety belief fund. So Social Safety has nothing to do with balancing a funds or erasing or decreasing the deficit.”
I take pleasure in studying knowledgeable opinions from across-the-aisle contributors, however when writers corresponding to De Rugy begin tossing out nonsense like this, nicely, no thanks. President Reagan’s forceful statements on the topic are all I want. In any case, he would know. He created the bipartisan fee with Senate Majority Chief Howard Baker and Home Speaker Tip O’Neill as co-leaders that resulted within the act he signed into regulation.
David Birch-Jones, Palm Springs
..
To the editor: I couldn’t assist however discover that each criticism about spending on this op-ed was aimed toward packages for the folks, whereas no point out was given to all of the tax cuts and decrease tax charges for the wealthy. In case we’d like reminding, President Clinton needed to repair Presidents Reagan and H.R. Bush’s fouled financial system, President Obama needed to clear up President W. Bush’s financial mess and President Biden needed to take care of President Trump’s first-term failings. It’s form of a sample.
The tax code shouldn’t be geared towards breaks for the wealthy, as that by no means improves issues. In the meantime, the packages De Rugy criticizes truly assist the folks of the U.S.
Jay Coffman, San Diego
..
To the editor: After studying De Rugy’s op-ed, I want to add a thought.
When annual tax statements are filed, any company with greater than $100 million in web earnings or any particular person with greater than $10 million in web earnings ought to be charged an additional 1% of their web earnings.
That 1% would barely have an effect on them and will solely be used for one function: to pay down our nationwide debt. No politician may get their fingers on it. These being charged would squawk to excessive heaven, however it might slowly pay the nationwide debt and assist preserve rates of interest decrease than they may be in any other case.
Dan Ardell, Laguna Seashore
