Quantcast
Opinion

Readers' forum: Don't just cut

Comments

Return To Article
  • JustGordon Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 8, 2011 5:49 p.m.

    We are all Americans with hyphens unless of course one is a Native American. To think and write otherwise is naive.

    Platitudes like we don't have a revenue problem we have a spending problem do nothing to further discourse as they limit by its very phrasing the solution as if there is only one solution.

    Such overly simplistic solutions to complex issues and a willingness to continually differentiate oneself from all Americans by suggesting that those without a hyphen are different from the overwhelming 300 plus million of us who all have hyphens attached to our ancestry do nothing but divide the country and stalemate any serious discussion and progress.

  • conservative scientist Lindon, UT
    Sept. 7, 2011 9:13 p.m.

    It would be nice to know who the author is. I thought this was a requirement in submitting letters to the editor.

  • HaHaHaHa Othello, WA
    Sept. 7, 2011 6:11 p.m.

    @4:03 Interesting that you use one website to site population statistics, but another to cite job statistics, whats with that? If you stick with the BLS website, it shows that job candidates increased under Bush by 7.3%, reflecting similar trends with the population statistics. However, the BLS website also shows that the employed increased by 6.2%, which is far above the theory of .83% claimed by you. How many more jobs could have been created under Bush, when the unemployment figure in 2008 was 5.5%, up from 2007 (going into a recession) by almost 1%. That is affectively full employment.
    I am with those who call for deep cuts in federal budget spending. Nobody says we have to start tomorrow, but lets get going soon. We always get stuck with promised spending cuts that never materialize. Show us the cuts, then we can talk about some temporary limited tax increases when the economy starts to REALLY turn around. As for you leftists that hate the rich. If you double the "claimed" taxes on the top 400 so that they now pay 32% not 16%. You barely make up 1% of the budget. Smarten up!

  • TheProudDuck Newport Beach, CA
    Sept. 7, 2011 4:14 p.m.

    Wastintime, how on earth is the payroll tax "regressive"? You can only make it so if you ignore the benefits they are coupled to. The whole point of payroll taxes is to fund the taxpayer's retirement. For the people at the bottom of the wage scale, when you take benefits paid into account, the payroll tax is not only not regressive, it's actually negative. That is, lower-income taxpayers get substantially more out of the programs the payroll tax funds, than they ever paid in. Subsidized, as usual, by yours truly.

    As for sales tax -- I'd like to check those numbers. A much greater percentage of low-income earners' money is spent on less-taxed items. In California, where I live, food is exempt from sales tax. Utility taxes are much lower than the sales tax rate. Rent isn't sales taxed, and the landlords' property taxes are offset by the mortgage interest deduction, so property taxes generally have no net effect on the amount of rent charged. Not only that, but what taxes low-income earners *do* pay is often offset by refundable credits like the child tax credit and the EITC.

  • Wastintime Los Angeles, CA
    Sept. 7, 2011 4:03 p.m.

    Re:lost in DC
    Sales, excise, payroll and even some State's taxes are regressive, hitting those at the bottom of the wage scale harder than more affluent people. So it is disingenuous to merely focus on federal income tax. Secondly, even if we adopted a flat tax, those at the top, who own most of America's wealth, would pay a large percentage of the income tax.

    Between May 1999 and May 2009, employment in the private sector sector only rose by 1.1%, by far the lowest 10-year increase the post-depression period. Its impossible to overstate how bad this is. Basically speaking, the private sector job machine has almost completely stalled over the past ten years.
    Business week

    Other data ranking President's job creation record can be seen at: "Congresswoman says Democratic presidents create more private-sector jobs" at politifact.

    Estimates from the U.S. Census and the BLS show that during the Bush years, the population increased by 7.8 percent while the number of jobs rose by .83 percent.
    (politifact)

  • Wastintime Los Angeles, CA
    Sept. 7, 2011 3:59 p.m.

    Re:lost in DC
    Sales, excise, payroll and even some State's taxes are regressive, hitting those at the bottom of the wage scale harder than more affluent people. So it is disingenuous to merely focus on federal income tax. Secondly, even if we adopted a flat tax, those at the top, who own most of America's wealth, would pay a large percentage of the income tax.

    Between May 1999 and May 2009, employment in the private sector sector only rose by 1.1%, by far the lowest 10-year increase the post-depression period. Its impossible to overstate how bad this is. Basically speaking, the private sector job machine has almost completely stalled over the past ten years.
    Business week

    Other data ranking President's job creation record can be seen at: "Congresswoman says Democratic presidents create more private-sector jobs" at politifact.

    Estimates from the U.S. Census and the BLS show that during the Bush years, the population increased by 7.8 percent while the number of jobs rose by .83 percent.
    (politifact)

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Sept. 7, 2011 3:50 p.m.

    Re: "A few polls that support my conclusion."

    Interesting rating scheme.

    No time to check them all, but, i.e., the 7/13 Gallup poll on preferences for spending cuts vs. tax increases -- the one you cite as 73 to 20 [not sure what Some/All Taxes No Taxes/All Spending means] -- was actually reported out as 20% favoring all spending cuts, 30% favoring mostly cuts, 32% favoring equal numbers of cuts and new taxes, and 7 percent favoring cuts, but leaning mostly to new taxes. Only 4% favored no cuts at all.

    So, I guess if your conclusion was that all but 4% of Americans want spending cuts, then yes, these polls support your conclusion.

    And mine.

    We need real spending cuts. We need them now. Americans agree in overwhelming numbers. We know how to do it, it's just a matter of transplanting a little backbone into Congress.

    Quoting a previous, obviously intelligent poster -- "Here's an idea -- let's try some cuts first. Assess the effect. Then we can intelligently discuss any need for more taxes."

  • TheProudDuck Newport Beach, CA
    Sept. 7, 2011 3:48 p.m.

    I see a couple liberals invoking the talking point that Texas Governor Rick Perry supposedly slashed firefighter funding, as a result of which Texas is burning down.

    Operating under the time-honored assumption that every Democratic talking point is a fib until proven innocent, I looked into it.

    Surprise, surprise: Par for the liberal course.

    What happened is this: Texas firefighting funding has been slowly rising, from about $70 million early in this decade to $75 million last year. This year -- fiscal 2010-2011 -- there was a one-time spike up to $100 million, for a big purchase of new equipment. Next year, it goes back down to the standard $75 million operating budget.

    Counting a one-time spike in an agency's budget, after a capital purchase program expires, as a Drastic Cut Gutting Public Services is a time-worn Democratic trope. Doesn't make it any less of a lie.

    And in any case, I'm trying to understand how Democrats think that a budget cut that doesn't go into effect this year, is supposed to be having an effect on service levels *this* year.

    Time travel, I guess. Fire up the flux capacitor.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Sept. 7, 2011 2:22 p.m.

    @redshirt
    what is ironic is the fact you actually think liberals are stupid enough that they don't already know that. Here is the dilemma faced by liberals we can either vote for the rich guy that will not get rid of tax breaks for him and his buddies or we can vote for the rich guy that wants to give himself and his buddies even more tax breaks or the third option of throwing your vote down the rat hole of a third party and watching the second guy win anyway. I think the one thing we can agree on is our system is broken.

  • TheProudDuck Newport Beach, CA
    Sept. 7, 2011 1:45 p.m.

    The problem is that every time conservatives agree to a "grand bargain," accepting tax hikes in exchange for spending costs, guess what happens?

    The tax hikes go into effect. The spending cuts don't.

    Sorry, Lucy, I'm not having any more shots at kicking your football. Give me some genuine cuts first -- I mean real cuts, as in "we spend X this year, and X minus Y next year" -- and we can talk. I thought Simpson-Bowles was a decent approach; too bad the President deep-sixed his own deficit commission's results.

    The problem here is that the average liberal (heck, the average person) has little if any idea as to how the tax code actually works, or how much taxes people pay now. We could tax The Rich(TM) more than anyone else in the world -- but Mr. Average Liberal, whose thinking is based more on anecdotes (plural /= "data") and myths than on reality, will still think they're undertaxed.

    The only thing certain is that nobody thinks he's undertaxed -- unless, possibly, a person has enough billions that being liked by the right people is more important than his tax rate.

    Warren Buffett can afford higher taxes. I can't.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Sept. 7, 2011 1:05 p.m.

    Correction to CNN poll above:
    I posted "Increases in taxes on middle class and lower-income Americans 63% should be included"

    The correct statement: " increases in taxes on businesses and higher income Americans: 63%"

    Only 12% believe taxes should be raised on Middle class and lower income Americans.

  • notcarmel SANDY, UT
    Sept. 7, 2011 12:55 p.m.

    I wrote the letter, "Don't Just Cut". I'm delighted with the large number of comments.
    I wish I had time right now to set straight those of you whose comments I havent
    recommended.
    But Im busy developing a couple of new start-up businesses: A piece of equipment to reduce symptoms of insomnia, and a school to efficiently teach schoolchildren what to say and do to cope with bullying on and off school property. Im more passionate about my ideas in that realm than about trying to convince the tea party that their dreamed-of miracle just aint gonna happen in the near term.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Sept. 7, 2011 12:50 p.m.

    I see the author of this letter has bought into the misinformation spread by the demagogue party. The tea party does NOT want to maintain all the loopholes, but espouses eliminating them and reducing the corporate tax rate to keep more revenue and jobs here.

    Truthseeker,
    Between January 2001 and November 2007, we created 8.8 MILLION jobs and unemployment stood at 4.7%. Thats a bad record? Compared to the 2.9 million jobs weve LOST since BO became president and the 9.1% unemployment rate we suffer through now? It is true we lost jobs from November 2007 forward because the dems in 1997 refused to regulate mortgage derivatives and Fannie and Freddie in 2005 so we had a housing bubble.

    Roland,
    You can rest easy, 47-50% of Americans pay NO federal income tax, which is MUCH less than 16.6%. The top 5% pay, what is it? something like 40% of all federal income tax? I guess that's not enough for those who want to punish others' success.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Sept. 7, 2011 12:47 p.m.

    Reported on KVUE, March 23, 2011:
    "State funding for volunteer fire departments is taking a big hit. It is going from $30 million to $7 million. Those departments are already facing financial strains.

    The State Firemens and Fire Marshals Association of Texas represents 21,000 state firefighters. The Association says more than 80 percent of volunteer firefighters are reporting taking a personal hit in the budget crisis."

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 7, 2011 12:40 p.m.

    Can/Should the Budget Deficit Be Reduced with Spending Cuts Alone or Should There Be Some Increase in Taxes?
    Poll Date Some/All Taxes No Taxes/All Spending
    Gallup 8-10 66 33
    CNN 8-10 63 36
    McClatchy/Marist 8-9 68 29
    New York Times/CBS News 8-4 63 34
    CNN 8-2 60 40
    Ipsos/Reuters 7-26 68 19
    Rasmussen 7-25 56 34
    CNN 7-21 64 34
    Washington Post/ABC News 7-19 66 32
    NBC News/Wall Street Journal 7-19 62 27
    CBS News 7-18 69 28
    Quinnipiac 7-14 67 25
    Gallup 7-13 73 20
    Washington Post/ABC News 6-9 61 37
    Ipsos/Reuters 6-9 59 26
    Bloomberg 5-13 64 33
    Ipsos/Reuters 5-12 61 27
    Gallup 4-29 76 20
    USC/Los Angeles Times 4-25 62 33
    New York Times/CBS News 4-22 66 19
    Washington Post/ABC News 4-20 62 36
    Washington Post/ABC News 3-15 67 31
    Washington Post/ABC News 12-12 62 36
    Average 8-10 65 35

    A few polls that support my conclusion.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Sept. 7, 2011 12:27 p.m.

    Re:procuradorfiscal
    What is the date of the poll you cite?
    CBS poll 8/2/11: What should be the higher priority? 29% said govt. spending, 62% said creating jobs.
    50% favor increase in tax revenues.

    CNN poll 8/5/11:
    #1 Sixty-two percent of Americans poll said taxes on wealthy people should be kept high so the government can use their money for programs to help lower-income people.

    Question #2: Please tell me whether you think each of the following should or should not be included in that deficit reduction proposal: Major changes to the Social Security and Medicare systems? 64% should not be included.
    Increases in taxes on middle class and lower-income Americans 63% should be included

    CBS poll 8/4/11 Seventy-two percent of Americans disapprove of Republican's performance during the debt ceiling debate, while just 21 percent approve.

    Republicans get most of the blame for the standoff. Forty-seven percent blame Republicans in Congress, while 29 percent blame President Obama and congressional Democrats; 20 percent say both are to blame.

    A majority of Americans - 52 percent - says Republicans in Congress compromised too little in the debate

  • Demosthenes Rexburg, ID
    Sept. 7, 2011 12:07 p.m.

    This letter writer stereotypes tea party members and implies s/he accurately describe their views.

    That's why it's not an effective letter.

    Tea party members are generally not well-off, nor are they generally opposed to closing tax loopholes.

  • TheProudDuck Newport Beach, CA
    Sept. 7, 2011 12:00 p.m.

    "Texas is paying a price for excessive cutting of the government as there is now a shortage of firefighters and equipment to fight the wildfires that are burning in that state."

    Evidence?

    I'd be happy to be corrected, but my immediate reaction to this kind of claim is that, like most liberal "facts," it is obtained by alimentary extraction.

    You've made a factual claim: Because of budget cuts, Texas now has fewer firefighters and less equipment than it had previously. Is this true? Do you have numbers to back it up?

    As for taxation: Raising taxes on "the rich" won't put more than a scratch in the paint of the budget deficit. Looks to me like that would net us about $80 billion, against a $1.5 trillion hole. (And that's assuming tax hikes wouldn't increase tax avoidance, which they always do, leading the higher rates to return less than the expected revenue).

    You'd have to pretty much double *everybody's* income taxes, to get deficits back to Bush-era levels. Got an extra thousand bucks a month lying around? Me neither.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Sept. 7, 2011 11:37 a.m.

    Re: "Look at any poll and you will find that this statement [Americans favor immediate spending cuts] is untrue."

    Not sure which polls you're looking at, but a recent CBS News poll found "77 percent prefer to cut spending, 9 percent want to raise taxes and another 9 percent want to do both."

    So, 86% of Americans want spending cuts. There may be less agreement as to particulars, but a clear and vast majority agree there must be cuts.

    Yet, liberals block any serious proposals to cut spending. Recent "compromises" don't cut a nickel -- they don't even seriously address spending growth.

    Many dramatic cuts, starting with the number of agencies and bureaucrats, would be relatively painless [see discussion above] and could reduce the deficit a lot [executive branch payroll is $177B a year, physical plant/vehicle/support expenses, another $161B], yet liberals/trade unions oppose them, bleating about some crying need to raise taxes, instead.

    Here's an idea -- let's try some cuts first. Assess the effect. Then we can intelligently discuss any need for more taxes.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 7, 2011 11:14 a.m.

    To Hellooo: You can rest easy. The 400 wealthiest American families, with average incomes over 100 million dollars a year, only pay 16.6% of their income in federal taxes.

  • Hellooo Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 7, 2011 10:45 a.m.

    Why would anyone believe someone should have to pay more than 35% of any percentage of their income to the Federal Government. It is wasted on foreign wars with no result, extravangant spending programs at home with no real purpose, and keeps the country from addressing its need for structural reform in the tax system and social programs. Fix the programs, lower taxes, and then watch the country prosper again.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 7, 2011 10:42 a.m.

    "With nearly 50% of Congress being Millionares you expect any legislation to pass that would punish the millionaires, or even create more oversight and control over their activities?"

    Didn't we have over 50 Democrats in the senate who wanted to get rid of the bush tax cuts on those making over 250k? Then the GOP filibustered it of course... and held unemployment benefit extensions hostage to use as a bargaining chip for it...

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 7, 2011 10:40 a.m.

    To procuradorfiscal: It is certainly true that most people in America believe that there must be "massive reductions in federal spending [that] must be done immediately"--Look at any poll and you will find that this statement is untrue.

    Americans support spending cuts in general, but when it comes to cutting any specific programs, they are opposed to all cuts except foreign aid (under 1% of the budget). Support for cutting Medicare or Social Security is in the single digits. Virtually all polls show that Americans would rather pay higher taxes than see cuts to those two programs.

  • Independent Woman West Jordan, UT
    Sept. 7, 2011 10:19 a.m.

    I agree 100% with the letter writer.

    What I bothers me the most about the whole thing, and politics in general, is the way everyone seems to need to kowtow to the Tea Party. This party is, in reality, a small minority of all voters in the US, and yet all candidates are changing their ideas, etc. to get Tea Party support. That's a very scary scenerio in my opinion.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Sept. 7, 2011 9:55 a.m.

    Here is the ironic thing about the liberals. They complain about the "fatcat" millionaries that have destroyed the country, but then elect them into political office with the idea that they will punish the millionaires.

    Obama is worth $5.5 Million
    The Clintons are worth $34.9 Million
    Harry Reid has $3.4 Million
    Nancy Pelosi has $35.2 Million
    Jane Harman has $293.4 Million
    John Kerry has $238.8 Million
    Maxine Waters has $2.2 Million

    The fact that in 2010 there were 261 millionaires in Congress.

    With nearly 50% of Congress being Millionares you expect any legislation to pass that would punish the millionaires, or even create more oversight and control over their activities?

    To "KJB1 | 6:58 a.m." one thing that is often not included in the household budget analogy is the fact that the government is on a fixed income and is incapable of getting a second job. The US averages just under 20% GDP in taxes, regardless of the tax rates. So, raising tax rates won't fix anything, it only shifts where the money comes from.

    The best thing to do is to get more people working.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Sept. 7, 2011 9:39 a.m.

    Ok, I accept that too much cutting too soon could give us more of a recession. But as it is now, I don't see any cutting. Let's get some of that. That would help restore confidence that the government is able to do something. As it is now, I've heard a lot but so far I haven't seen anything.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Sept. 7, 2011 9:29 a.m.

    Re: "Think this through!

    Good advice -- let's do a little thinking, here.

    Every nickel paid to government workers comes out of our pockets. Every nickel not paid represents a cut from our monstrous, unsustainable deficit.

    Additionally, some 40% of government workers are at, or within 5 years of retirement eligibility. For most of them, retirement means a small, tax-supported pension, supplemented by contributions to and earnings of a 401K-like Thrift Savings Plan. Since matching contributions to the Plan are sunk costs -- already paid -- the continuing cost to taxpayers of a retired government employee is a tiny fraction of the cost of paying him full-time wages.

    Any small effect [outside the Beltway] on the productive economy of cutting jobs from the parasitic sector, will be more than offset by the stimulus provided by a lower deficit.

    So, let's put on our thinking caps -- large cuts in the cost of government can be painlessly attained by encouraging retirement-age bureaucrats to retire, maybe even offer incentives for early retirement.

    So, why not do so?

    Government employee unions, maybe?

  • The Missing Link A Tropical Paradise USA, FL
    Sept. 7, 2011 9:12 a.m.

    The GOP and their Wall Street millionaires who helped cause this global financial-crisis. Nouriel Roubini, co-founder/chairman of Roubini Global Economics LLC, said the current slowdown in the world economy has brought forward the timing of a new financial crisis. Three years after the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., financial shares in Europe are under assault and the cost of insuring bank debt is at records as the global recovery falters and the euro-region crisis weighs on the economy. There's a 60 percent probability that most advanced economies will fall into a recession, while authorities are running out of options to provide emergency support, said Roubini, also a professor at New York Universitys Stern School of Business. You need to restore economic growth, not five years from now, you need to restore it today, Roubini said. In the short term, we need to do massive stimulus, otherwise there's going to be another Great Depression. Things are getting worse and the big difference between now and a few years ago is that this time around were running out of policy bullets. The economist said another financial crisis "is already manifesting itself" in developed economies.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Sept. 7, 2011 9:04 a.m.

    "We have a serious spending problem which is fast becoming a serious debt problem for our children and grandchildren. Stop the spending - now."

    But cuts won't necessarily improve the deficit!

    Think this through!

    You lay off a bunch of federal/state workers. Firefighters, police officers, teachers, and other workers.... The private sector is unable to absorb these people are provide them with salaries.

    These people then, don't buy products, stop paying taxes (because they don't have a salary), and then lose their homes.

    That debt and lack of income generation (from buying products), slows down the economy even more and brings up more government shortfalls.

    Folks, it's not that difficult to understand!

    We need more wealth overturning more quickly. Instead, it's being all hoarded by those on the very top.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Sept. 7, 2011 8:59 a.m.

    Good letter.
    The debt has increased under Obama due to the stimulus, a significant decrease in revenues, extending the Bush tax cuts and the war in Afghanistan.

    Republicans for years have promoted the idea that tax cuts create jobs. Bush had the worst job creation record of any modern Pres. The extension of the Bush tax cuts has not produced more jobs either. Now the Republicans are talking about deregulation (repeal Dodd-Frank) and more tax cuts, such as lower capital gains tax rates. Basically, they've decided to double-down on the Bush economic principles.
    We do need to put into place longterm spending cuts. Drastically cutting spending now will increase, not decrease, unemployment and further weaken the economy.
    Interest rates for govt. borrowing are basically zero. So, we should be taking advantage of the borrowing rate for a short-term jobs program, focused on upgrading our infrastructure. Tax cuts to spur hiring have little to no effect when the demand is low.

    Basically, however, Republicans are invested in Obama failing, thereby the economy failing. Obama's ratings are low because he as ceded the asylum to the inmates.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Sept. 7, 2011 7:49 a.m.

    Re: "The tea party believes . . . ."

    Parties don't believe, people believe.

    Liberal demagogues ascribe any evil they care to rail against to the Tea Party. The Tea Party is an easy target, of course, since it has no official platform or even existence, except in the minds of people using it as a prop for whatever they're selling.

    But, ultimately, it's a scam.

    It is certainly true that most people in America believe that there must be "massive reductions in federal spending [that] must be done immediately . . . ." But it is not true that the same majority would hold for not "eliminating tax loopholes or raising rates." [Note the liberal code for raising taxes.]

    What most of us object to is the mentality of raising taxes first, with no accompanying real reduction in the cost of government.

    That's the rope-a-dope liberal vote-buying, tax-and-spend politicians have played for years, and are still playing today.

    Here's an idea -- Cut first, then we can talk intelligently about any needed tax increases.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Sept. 7, 2011 7:05 a.m.

    "I marvel that this truth is invisible to the tea party."

    You and me both!

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    Sept. 7, 2011 6:58 a.m.

    Nice letter.

    The Tea Partiers keep saying that the government should budget like a household. Fine. Say your hours were cut. You'd find a way to cut expenses (drop Netflix, maybe even sell a car), but you wouldn't tell your family to stop eating or using electricity. You'd be trying to find a part-time job or some way to make more money. You'd be trying to find more revenue. Why shouldn't the government do the same?

    The Tea Party may whine about being called "terrorists", but what they want is economic terrorism, point blank. If the shoe fits...

  • JoeBlow Miami Area, Fl
    Sept. 7, 2011 6:17 a.m.

    In today's political climate, it seems like the "common sense" approach is out of the question for the GOP base.

    EVERY GOP presidential candidate professed to be against a plan that included $10 of spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases.

    Seriously, if that plan was put on the table, would you want your representative to vote "NO"?

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Sept. 7, 2011 5:06 a.m.

    Texas is paying a price for excessive cutting of the government as there is now a shortage of firefighters and equipment to fight the wildfires that are burning in that state. People who dismiss the need for government are ignorant narcissists.

  • EJM Herriman, UT
    Sept. 7, 2011 3:48 a.m.

    We as a society have spent the last seventy five years building up this deficit. Both parties have contributed to our financial fiasco. To cut drastically overnite would plunge us into a Depression that would rival the 1930's. Great letter and correct. It will take a combination of cuts, tax raises and an overall reprioritizing of our wants versus needs to fix the mess.

  • Reverend Ike West Algiers, LA
    Sept. 7, 2011 12:48 a.m.

    We have a serious spending problem which is fast becoming a serious debt problem for our children and grandchildren. Stop the spending - now.