Nov. 2, 2025 7 AM PT
To the editor: In her op-ed, contributing author Veronique de Rugy chastises America for its irresponsible fiscal insurance policies and legislative priorities which have led our nation to the harmful “new regular of persistent finances deficits” (“The three forces fueling America’s 45-year debt addiction,” Oct. 30).
In reaching her conclusion, she ignores some important information, not the least of which is that one type of nationwide debt was lowered during Bill Clinton’s presidency, a interval that noticed 4 consecutive finances surpluses from 1998 to 2001. The debt held by the general public decreased by greater than $450 billion, the ratio of debt to GDP fell and the deficit was reduced. This was all spurred by decreased navy spending, a hovering financial system that led to elevated tax revenues and tax will increase applied as a part of Clinton’s fiscal plan.
De Rugy additionally ignores two worldwide occasions that required the implementation of distinctive, albeit costly (and hopefully not repeatedly repeated) responsive actions that led to considerably elevated debt: the monetary collapse of the late 2000s and the pandemic that adopted roughly 10 years later. Past these important omissions, I consider she additionally understates the injury attributable to the Republicans’ proclivity to offer substantial tax cuts to the rich with out offsetting spending cuts.
Sure, we’re seeing a harmful development, however one that may be higher understood by contemplating different causes uncared for on this op-ed and extra successfully managed as we noticed from the Clinton years.
David W. Steuber, Laguna Seaside
..
To the editor: De Rugy means that the federal debt explosion is “the direct results of reckless guarantees to retirees, the price of healthcare and an unwillingness to pay the payments truthfully.”
In trade for paying month-to-month contributions to Social Safety and Medicare all through 42 years of working, I used to be promised primary healthcare and a modest month-to-month cost after retirement. Was this a reckless promise? Opinions would possibly differ on this, but it surely was a promise.
I’d recommend that Congress is recklessly breaking that promise by refusing to fund these packages. It definitely was reckless of me to consider that promise could be saved.
Barry Heller, Rolling Hills Estates
