Letters to the Editor

Positive side to tax cuts overlooked in analysis

The front page article on national debt on May Day was provocative, though the conclusion that half of the debt was caused by "Bush era policies" was predictable for the Packet.

Before the impact of a cut in taxes can be interpreted, one has to ask, "Whose money is it we are talking about?" Clearly, the administration and media think it is the government's money, ergo we lost $6.3 trillion of "our money" -- catch phrase, "anticipated revenue."

A deficit of $1.7 trillion just two years into a presidency is astounding but multifaceted. Presidents do not decide budgets, legislators do, and political control of the three houses on Pennsylvania Avenue is not the sole determinant of net fiscal outcome.

The Congressional Budget Office budgetary estimates are all prefaced with a disclaimer to the effect that "estimates presume no further change in relevant legislation." Fat chance. The CBO has had to recalculate 30 times in the past decade. They score loss of "anticipated revenue" from taxes but not the positive effect such policy has had on our gross domestic product.

From all perspectives, the most critical driver of national debt is economic cycling. Such is difficult to modify. Excessive spending is a hard habit to change, too. Since recent congresses are severely addicted to this habit, their members who do not get the connection between oblivious spending and red ink should be sent to rehab and replaced by responsible adults.

Charles P. Duvall

Hilton Head Island