Letter: Rose Williams
I realize this page is not intended for two people (readers) to exchange views, but in the Sept. 22 issue, Rose Williams asks why the Republicans didn’t ask for a tax reduction nine years ago, and that gives rise to several responses which I shall avoid.
But to recount history, nine years ago, the Congress was in the fifth decade of spend-o-crat control. It remained that way until post election in 1994, and while the Dems still held sway, and with the leadership of Willy or Hillary – take your pick – the largest tax increase in our history was enacted.
In the following year, with new Republican leadership, an effort was made to cut both spending and taxes, initiating a government shutdown by Clinton, while he cavorted around the Oval Office with Miss Lewinsky. With help of the obsequious news media, ole’ Slick convinced the naive public that those nasty Republicans did that as they plotted to put children in starvation, oust the seniors from their homes and pollute the air and water. Incredibly, some – the uninformed – people believed that.
Now – according to human events publications – Clinton wants $83 billion dollars over the caps he agreed to last year and is threatening eight vetoes if the Republicans won’t give it to him. Absolutely beyond intelligent belief, but there it is.
The so-called windfall for the rich is a 1 percent, that’s it, 1 percent reduction in tax rate, not effective until the year 2005. Well, if the left wing media has its way, by that time, a spend-o-crat majority shall return to Congress, and soon thereafter, there shall be new taxes and increased wasteful spending.
Look at Harry Reid and Richard Bryan if you want to really know why there has not been any tax reduction, and please try to remember, the plan is not to take back money from government, the plan is to let the earners keep just a tad more and spend it as they see fit. How on earth can that simple fact be so difficult to understand?
VERNON M. LATSHAW