- The Washington Times - Sunday, January 27, 2008

Fixing the economy

Rebates go out to the people who spend the money (“Stimulus deal reached,” Page 1, Friday). They immediately drive to the nearest Wal-Mart with rebate check in hand. However, prior to receiving the check, your congressman borrows the money by selling debt to the Chinese and in the process loots the Social Security nontrust fund, so you can buy that new television, resulting in the money going back to the Chinese people who produced it.

So, what is the final result of the stimulus package? You get a new television, the national debt jumps up by the amount of the rebate, and your child is stuck with the contract between generations.

Why, I can feel the recession receding already.



You can create 2,500,000 jobs with $100 billion, and that would enlarge the tax base, stimulate the economy and create additional benefits for America. Giving out $300 to $600 rebates will not do the trick, except in theoretical MBA papers at Harvard.

You could also build a few hospitals, repair the infrastructure and hire more border security.

To stimulate the economy means to expand it with care, not to tickle it with little bits of paper money. It is insulting to hear members of Congress talk about the “little people” the way they do.

I feel the same way about health care. I don’t want free health care. I want opportunity. America is the land of opportunity, while Cuba and China are the lands of free or universal health care. In the land of opportunity, I can get my own health care, but it seems Congress would give me an aspirin before they would give me that opportunity.


Portland, N.Y.

No specifics, no vote

The GOP presidential candidates seem quick to talk about a solution to the problem we have with the housing market, which has contributed to the market downturn (“Fiscal fix tops GOP debate,” Page 1, Friday).

I believe that what we, as citizens, would like to know is how you would have prevented this event and what checks you would put in place to prevent it in the future. The prevention was easy, but it seems that as long as wealthy politicians are swimming in dough they seem to forget the rank and file. No specifics, no vote.



Creating a war-free world

I wonder why more people who advocate peace do not see that our most vital mission is to educate people about how we can end war (“Rice sees hope of conflict’s end in talk,” World, Thursday).

Shortsighted people think war will be with us forever. It doesn’t have to be that way if the world’s nations outlaw it and back that up with an international force to keep the peace. Such a force could be set up by strengthening the United Nations or transforming the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Nations that attempted to wage war then would be seen as pariahs to be dealt with by the world community.

Equally vital is the role of international courts in trials for rogue warring leaders. More than 100 countries already have signed on to the International Criminal Court, which tries leaders for crimes against humanity.

This is a terrific start. Look at the former enemies within the European Union who are now learning to live together in peace.

The “realists” who think brute force rules the world have failed miserably, creating more hatred while countries with nuclear weapons approach collapse. It is time for those of us who see the oneness of humanity to elect leaders who will guide future generations intelligently and humanely into a war-free destiny.


Milwaukee, Wisc.

Climate change and ‘screaming greenies’

In his article about the forthcoming report by the U.N. Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change (“Courts confront climate change,” Commentary, Thursday), S. Fred Singer concludes that science is on the White House’s side should it choose to appeal the 9th Circuit’s ruling that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration “must consider the ‘risks of global warming’ when setting gas-mileage standards for light trucks, minivans and SUVS.” This is because “human activities — such as transportation and industrial production — contribute little to global warming.”

In this electoral season, looking ahead a year to what the “White House’s side” might be with respect to global warming is an essential voter task ” and anything but heartwarming.

Imagine the reaction in the unlikely event that any of the three Democratic presidential candidates reads Mr. Singer’s article: “Science? Whose science? We don’t need no stinkin’ science!” The algore-ithms of the environmental left — to which all of the Democratic aspirants subscribe — have very little to do with math or science and everything to do with expanding state intrusion.

Politically, global warming must be caused by mankind; otherwise, what basis is there for government leaders to claim a role in taming it (by further restricting individual liberty)? These Chicken Littles should receive carbon debits for the hot air they expel about global warming.

Of course, the screaming greenies are more than happy to let socialist politicians and their like-minded brethren on the bench dictate environmental policies that are, according to the report cited by Mr. Singer, ineffective, uneconomic and require large subsidies ” even if it means that the resulting sharply rising food prices force economically marginal breadwinners to struggle even harder to feed their families. So much for liberal compassion.

The spectacle of Congress forcing taxpayers to subsidize “greener” ethanol production (which still requires an almost equal amount of liquid dinosaur to manufacture), while at the same time promising an “economic stimulus package” that shifts taxpayer dollars from one bucket to another, demonstrates again that politicians are masters of the old shell game.


Oak Hill

Sign up for Daily Newsletters

Manage Newsletters

Copyright © 2021 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Please read our comment policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide