Like Ike said
I could have heartily agreed with Ron Raymond's letter “Cut spending” (March 23) had he not invoked British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to support his economic position. And his use of the term “socialistic” pejoratively to characterize those who think otherwise weakened his quite temperate and thoughtful thesis.
I credit Mr. Raymond for supporting balance in seeking solutions in the current economic struggle facing our country, saying: “We need to quit thinking ‘Republican' or ‘Democrat.'” But his position would have been clarified and strengthened had he used President Dwight Eisenhower's 1961 farewell speech for support.
“(We) need to maintain balance in and among national programs — balance between the private and the public economy, balance between the cost and hoped for advantages ... balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual.”
In the same speech, Eisenhower warned: “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, “defense spending ... a spending cut that dare not speak its name.”
If one chooses the mantra “No tax hike; cut spending,” defense spending is where to go, since 20 percent of our national budget pays for past, current and future wars.
I'll take Ike over Thatcher any day.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Food for thought
- Animal abuse
- Poisoned long ago
- Appreciate caregivers
- EPA not the problem
- Bible under attack
- Give thanks for vets
- Trophy shot trumps learning
- Speak up on illegals