2 days ago
Letters: One big bankruptcy bill; Attempts to erase heroism
Our country's national debt is over $36 trillion. It is increasing at an unsustainable level. We need to reduce this debt. The latest proposed tax bill looks to increase our deficit between $2.4 and $3.3 trillion over 10 years. This bill, especially the significant tax savings for the wealthiest, should be amended.
If this was the only debt increase, then it might be acceptable. Unfortunately, this is on top of the current average increases of $1.7 trillion per year ($17.3 trillion from 2013 to 2023, where Trump contributed $8.18 trillion during his first term). If this continues, our debt would not increase by $2.4-$3.3 trillion, but by $20 trillion.
The proposed tax legislation has caused Moody's to reduce our credit rating down a notch, from Aa1 to Aaa. This has a direct impact on the cost of U.S. Treasury bonds. Over the past 10 years, our cost has been an average rate around 2.5%. Under the current Big Beautiful Bill, and the resulting reduction in confidence in our credit, we will likely be paying at least an extra 2% rate. If our $36 trillion all had to be refinanced, that would cost an extra $700 billion per year, adding $7 trillion in debt over the next decade.
It is time to get serious about our budget deficits. To start, we must eliminate the tax benefits for the wealthy included in the legislation and add back the Alternative Minimum Tax for individuals and corporations.
Richard W. Shore, State College
Whether the President and members of his administration are implicitly biased or explicitly prejudiced, their actions are hateful based on one-dimensional personal opinions of the peoples they represent. One heinous example is deciding to rename ships that are part of The John Lewis-class U.S. Navy replenishment oilers. The USNS Harvey Milk, named after the prominent gay rights activist, is the second ship in this class. Other targeted ships include the USNS Thurgood Marshall, USNS Ruth Bader Ginsburg, USNS Harriet Tubman, USNS Dolores Huerta, USNS Lucy Stone, USNS Cesar Chavez and USNS Medgar Evers. The claim via Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is that these U.S. heroes do not live up to the Army's Warrior Ethos: 'I will always place the mission first. I will never accept defeat. I will never quit. I will never leave a fallen comrade. The Warrior Ethos is a set of principles by which every Soldier lives. In a broader sense, the Warrior Ethos is a way of life that applies to our personal and professional lives as well. It defines who we are and who we aspire to become.' Army values include loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, personal courage. Every name the administration plans to erase represents a person who embodies the Warrior Ethos and broader Army code of ethics. This action is made more egregious due to timing. Harvey Milk is a Jewish gay hero. Trying to erase Harvey Milk's heroism following recent anti-semitic violence and during Pride Month is especially egregious.
Barbara Nilsen, State College
Does anyone understand what is going on in our country? It's time to take a serious look. We are in a constitutional crisis. This administration is taking a kind of joy in its aggression toward vulnerable people. Videos, tweeted out by the White House, show men being chained by their hands and feet, then shuffling, heads bowed, aboard an airplane. And military troops sent to Los Angeles. And military parades on Trump's birthday, and on and on it goes.
All this in a world that has just set a record for the greatest number of people voting in countries that are holding nationwide elections (more than 4 billion). That's more than half of humanity. Our own elections broke all records for voter turnout. We see, clearly, that voting in elections is no guarantee of democracy.
So, now what? Can we rely on our political parties to fix our problems? Trump has stated, 'I alone can fix it.' Democrats appear to be helpless. There is no compromise. Trump intends to be President for life. We no longer have a democracy. We have a constitutional crisis.
Our government began without any political parties. Our Constitution, intentionally, does not mention political parties. There was great concern that partisan loyalties could become stronger than institutional loyalties. But, there was also the opinion that a two (major) party political system could lead toward an area of 'centrism,' where political parties can find some common ground that appeals to voters. The result would be political stability, and economic growth.
We appear to have lost that. Now, we face 'retributions' for any perceived disloyalty. This is not compromise; it is dictatorship. Any Democrats out there? There's still hope.
Carl Evensen, State College
