To the editor: As soon as once more, contributing author Veronique de Rugy comes up with that very same outdated and drained “entitlements” canard when referring to Social Safety, Medicare and Medicaid applications (“The choice between tax reform and total disorder,” Feb.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 said, partly:
“This invoice demonstrates forever our nation’s ironclad dedication to Social Safety. It assures the aged that America will at all times hold 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 at the present time 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 stated:
“Social Safety has nothing to do with the deficit. Social Safety is completely funded by the payroll tax levied on employer and worker. Should you 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 finances or erasing or reducing the deficit.”
I get pleasure from studying knowledgeable opinions from across-the-aisle contributors, however when writers equivalent to De Rugy begin tossing out nonsense like this, effectively, no thanks. President Reagan’s forceful statements on the topic are all I would like. In any case, he would know. He created the bipartisan commission 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 grievance about spending on this op-ed was geared toward applications 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 want 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 cope with President Trump’s first-term failings. It’s kind 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 applications De Rugy criticizes really 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 internet revenue or any particular person with greater than $10 million in internet revenue ought to be charged an additional 1% of their internet revenue.
That 1% would barely have an effect on them and will solely be used for one objective: to pay down our nationwide debt. No politician may get their palms on it. These being charged would squawk to excessive heaven, however it might slowly pay the nationwide debt and assist hold rates of interest decrease than they may be in any other case.
Dan Ardell, Laguna Seaside
