Voters should be aware of the hypocrisy of those who gutted our economy by destroying a surplus and voting for trillions in expenditures without a clue about how we were going to pay for them.

Now the same individuals and their shock-jock supporters would have us believe that President Obama is responsible for the mess they left behind.

Contributing to the mess these elected officials put our country in includes the following:

• Entry into two wars — Iraq and Afghanistan — resulting in no-bid contracts and billions in funds unaccounted for.

• Part D Medicare coverage for prescription drugs.

• Tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, including the top 1 percent, who earn more than the total of the bottom 50 percent of wage earners.

• Elimination of the ceiling on estate taxes for the rich, bringing our country closer to becoming a fiefdom or banana republic.

• No taxes for individuals and corporations stashing billions away in Bermuda and Cayman Island banks.

• No taxes for Exxon Mobil’s billions in profits.

• The first TARP bailout for corporations and financial institutions on short notice with little or no plan for reimbursement.

In summary, the tax breaks for the rich did not create new jobs and bolster the economy. They just made them richer, left more Americans without jobs or homes and led to re-election of the same in Washington.

These same politicians decry the expense of “entitlements” most Americans earned by hard work. I think we need to reduce the unearned “entitlements” of millionaire congressmen and their rich benefactors in the corporate world.

Secondly, we need to reduce the expense of our military stationed in 125 countries throughout the world, along with bribe money we pay to countries to make them like us.

Patrick Eisenhart
Augusta 

House Speaker John Boehner claims he wants to rein in spending and, in talking about jobs that will be lost with the Republican budget proposal, blithely states that “If some jobs are lost in this, so be it.”

However, he wants to continue giving tax breaks to oil companies that are already experiencing huge profits, and he insisted that the second engine for the military’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter be built even though the Pentagon doesn’t want or need it.

Eliminating this alternate engine could ultimately save $3 billion, but Boehner’s district just happens to be near a Cincinnati-area General Electric Aviation plant helping to build this alternate engine. Hypocritical?

There are indeed places where cuts can and should be made, but not at the expense of everyday people just trying to stay in their homes and keep food on the table.

Kathleen Moses
Round Pond 

If Congress wants to cut spending, I have questions.

Do we need 570,000 personnel in more than 700 (known) military bases in 130 countries?

Why does the Navy need more admirals than it has ships?

Why are we spending billions of dollars rebuilding Iraq’s infrastructure when it has billions in its treasury from oil sales?

We are in debt, so why do we borrow money and give it away in the form of foreign aid, military aid, grants, etc.?

Why, for instance, does Saudi Arabia, with its oil reserves, need our aid?

Why does Israel, a solvent nation whose citizens earn within $4,000 of what Americans make, need massive amounts of foreign and military aid?

Why does Congress give money to unions and private organizations? Remember ACORN?

Why do we subsidize so much of the United Nations operations?

With more than 9 percent unemployment, why doesn’t Congress send the “undocumented workers” home and give those jobs to citizens?

Why do we borrow money from the Federal Reserve at 6 percent interest when the government could print its own money and let the Fed fend for itself?

Why doesn’t Congress outlaw earmarks?

Congressional service is not supposed to be a career. Why do they have a 100 percent pension plan and health care program that follows them when they leave office?

Does Mrs. Obama really need more than 20 attendants, who collectively will receive $6.3 million in salary?

Does the government truly want to reduce spending?

Herbert Dobbins
Windham 

Bill O’Reilly of Fox News interviewed the president recently (Feb. 6). O’Reilly asked the president what he was going to do now that a federal judge in Florida ruled, according to the Constitution, that the Obamacare law was null and void.

Obama said he wasn’t going to fight that battle anymore, implying the judge was wrong in his opinion, and that he will go ahead against the ruling to implement the law.

Recently, another federal judge in Louisiana ruled that the Interior Department was in contempt of court after the judge had ruled twice that putting a moratorium on all Gulf of Mexico drilling was against the law. Obama’s administration doubled down on the effort, again ignoring the judge.

In Obama’s 2009 State of the Union speech, he chastised the Supreme Court judges for upholding a law that lets corporations donate to elections with no limit. But during TARP bailouts for GM and Chrysler, Obama ignored the federal bankruptcy laws and handed the unions a fistful of pension money and told the bondholders of their stock to take a hike. They got zero dollars back. The law states they should have been paid first.

Do you see a pattern here? Politico.com posted an article about O’Reilly’s interview and had no mention of the health care ruling, no mention of the issue at all. Chuck Schumer, the senator from New York, stated on CNN on Jan. 30 that the three branches of government were the House, Senate and the president. What happened to the judicial branch, Chuck?

This Congress has no regard for the laws or “we the people.” If they ignore the laws, we should too. Chaos will ensue soon if they keep breaching the federal courts at the top.

Patrick Scully
Alfred

 

Copy the Story Link