Letters to the Editor: U.S. Spends Too Much on Defense
U.S. Spends Too Much on Defense
Editor, Times-Dispatch: You end your editorial "What You Owe" with: "You might question the source, but can you question the math?"
I can certainly question the presentation and the intent. I fail to see the distinction between the cost of past wars (veterans benefits at $819) and current wars (defense at $6,328) other than to try to hide the fact that the cost of war to this nation has been, and continues to be, the greatest single expense we bear (Social Security and Medicare being self-funded and currently running surpluses).
As a nation, we currently are spending more than the rest of the world combined, on defense. We have not for some long period of time been able to afford every whim and want of the Pentagon, Congress, and defense contractors.
Is anyone but the Pentagon, Congress, and Northrop Grumman in favor of replacing the 11 nuclear carriers, already operating, with the 10 or more Ford class carriers that are beginning construction and are planned? How many operational nuclear aircraft carriers does the rest of the world have? My Google search yielded exactly zero.
It is past time that Americans speak out on this issue. We can, and certainly should, continue to finance our own defense. But let us have some sanity with respect to how we define defense.
Don French.
Lanexa.
Reader Isn't Racist, She's Scared
Editor, Times-Dispatch: The letter from Blair Griggs, "Racism Is the Reason Obama's Not Liked," claims that anyone who disagrees with President Obama's policies is a racist. With all due respect, what nonsense.
Griggs says that the President "pulled himself up by his bootstraps" and overcame many obstacles. It seems to me that if anyone was racist, it was Barack Obama. It wasn't the father who abandoned him at an early age that afforded him all the wonderful opportunities. Yet he writes a book honoring this man. Why?
Barack Obama is as flawed an individual as anyone else -- his gift lies in his ability to orate. I would love to see presidents of every ethnic background, as long as they have the wisdom, strength, and leadership qualities the job requires. I won't vote for anyone based on his skin color, and I won't vote for a president because he's black. That is, in essence, racism.
Obama's policies are a breath away from pure socialism. He scares me -- and it has nothing to do with his color.
If this country is as strong as I hope it is, it will survive in spite of this radical turn toward socialism. Do I hope he will fail? He will take his place in history as the first black president, but hopefully his outrageously expensive and radical government-controlled programs will fail and the country will stabilize.
I believe this country will see a strong shift in the House and the Senate in the next election.
Ginger Mohlie.
Midlothian.
Cantor Should Try To Please Constituents
Editor, Times-Dispatch:
I am completely perplexed by Rep. Eric Cantor's insistence that there be no government option in the health reform legislation that is percolating in Congress. I heard his conversation on "Good Morning America" recently and found his comments in support of the status quo to be completely disingenuous.
I'm no economist, but it's obvious that the health insurance business model relies on maximizing the income from premiums and minimizing the outlay to actual health care in order to generate the profit it needs to meet its overhead and satisfy its shareholders. This cannot be in the best interest of the insured. We hens are paying the fox to be in charge of the hen house (because we don't have a public option), and Cantor is spending more time defending this nutty system than working to ensure that his constituents have affordable access to health care.
I was very glad to read in The Times-Dispatch that Cantor will have competition in the 2010 election. He is much more concerned with toeing the party line and pleasing his corporate supporters than in improving the living conditions of his constituents.
Barbara Anderson.
Richmond.
Reader Reactions
Barbara… Cantor does please the majority of his constituents, as well as the majority of Americans if you believe polls, when he says no government-run health insurance. You are in the minority on this issue.
If you want to see how government can run health care, look at Massachusetts, Hawaii and Tennessee. All three states have state-run health insurance programs and all three programs are in serious financial trouble. Tennessee had to kick about 500,000 people off their plan several years ago to keep it solvent. Massachusetts’ plan loses 30 percent a year, which their uber liberal legislature just taxes people more to make up. Hawaii cut so much out of their plan in 2003 to keep it alive that it’s basically a shell plan today.
Is health care broken? Of course. Is there a need for reform? Absolutely. But the idea that government is the answer is so foreign to logical thought you can’t quantify it. The federal government cannot can’t run a 9 million person Medicaid plan efficiently. How in the bleep does anyone with a brain think the federal government is going to run a health insurance plan with at least 7 times the number of enrollees? The concept is flat out ignorant.
Blackbird: Eric Cantor? Eric Cantor is an irrelevant politician in an irrelevant, out of power, political party, same as the rest of his fellow republicans - why do we have to name him? He can’t do anything. Eric Cantor isn’t in the white house, he isn’t in the majority party - so what about Eric Cantor? Jim Webb is relevant (when he’s not going to South East Asia to poke around). Mark Warner is relevant. See, Webb and Warner belong to the democrat party - the party that holds the white house and both houses of Congress. I’m not wasting my time on half wits like Eric Cantor from an out of power political party who has no idea how to advance a good idea.
“Somebody’s lying - it’s either the truth or Barack Obama. My vote is that it’s both of them”
you left out Cantor….
should be all “three of them”...
everybody has an agenda, they twist the facts to support. The basic premise of health care for profit leads to the logical conclusion that coverage will be minimized to maximize profit. This is a loosing game for ‘the people’ admit it. Don’t fall back on the old party line “well do you think government can do it better”.... No, I don’t think government can do it better. I ain’t lying there am I.
So what’s the answer?
The “status quo”? No, that favors health care for profit. I say let’s try something different. Do I think it will be perfect, no. Will it have problems…Yes , definately.
Does that mean we shouldn’t try it.
No. It means we try it, and work out the problems.
We have tried working out problems with for profit systems for years.
HMO’s were one solution. They have had time to work. Let’s try something new.
Ok, no liberal agenda here, no anti-American rhetoric, no name calling.
It’s just time to try something different. I am all for the proposals Republicans have put forward also, about allowing interstate competition, if they can figure out how to make that work, fine. Lowering malpractice suits, sounds good to me. Let’s do it all?
James Madison, 1790:
Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied : and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.
The fact that we’ve been in almost continual warfare since WWII, in addition to having over 1,000 foreign military bases lends much credence to Madison’s statement.
While I certainly agree with Mr. French about overspending on defense, this quote must be addressed:
Social Security and Medicare being self-funded and currently running surpluses
The SS Trust Fund ran a $6 Billion deficit for the month of August. This was supposed to be a 2037 problem, not a 2009 problem. Seven monthly deficits in the last twelve months.
Anyone under 50 should count their contributions as a sunk cost. Receiving anything from the ponzi scheme is gravy.
The bottom line is that our leaders don’t have the courage to make the necessary, painful decisions. We will be pushed towards fiscal conservatism not by choice but by our lenders (the Chinese and Japanese) after the Fed is done devaluing the dollar.
Mr. French,
You ask “Is anyone but the Pentagon, Congress, and Northrop Grumman in favor of replacing the 11 nuclear carriers…“
My answer is “yes, me.“ You might be open to hearing Mark Helprin’s view of this issue, since he was a ruthless critic of the Bush administration’s handling of the Iraq war. Speaking of China, he wrote “Though the dangers of epidemics and terrorist nuclear attacks are now obviously pre-eminent, rising behind them is a newer world yet. This century will be not just the century of terrorism: terrorism will fade. It will be a naval century, with the Pacific its center, and challenges in the remotest places of the world offered not by dervishes and crazy-men but by a great power that is at last and at least America’s equal. Unfortunately, it is in our nature neither to foresee nor prepare for what lies beyond the rim.“
The whole column is eye-opening: http://bit.ly/111qBG.
What do insurers provide in medical service needs to our nation that warrants their receiving 20%+ of the cost of our system; other than processing claims (money-changers)?
Why does Eric Cantor support such waste? What proposal has Cantor, Boehner, Mitch McConnell, and others of the insurance-bought GOP offered to controlling insurance cost for our nation, destined to double again in 8 yrs and eventually cripple majority of Americans? What is their “Better Plan”, other than to further enrich the profit industry?
Would they support a public option, such as allowing you to enroll into on of the plans under the Federal Employee Health Benefits program, such as Aetna Plan 224 Self-only at $286/month or Aetna Plan 225 Family at $586/month, offered in 49 states? Would you support that public option? If not, why not?
Question is directed to open-minded folk; but obviously, will be responded by some who will tap dance around the FEHB option, as it would not allow insurers to rape us for excess profits.
O.K., President Obama said he could pay for most of his, yet to be published, government administered healthcare plan with the waste and fraud in the Medicare plan. The question isn’t for Cantor, the question is for Obama - why has he let this level of waste and fraud continue for 9 months? The question isn’t for Cantor, the question is for Obama - why should we trust the government with MORE responsibility when there’s this level of waste, fraud and abuse taking place on the smaller level.
If there’s this much waste, fraud and abuse taking place, thetruth shouldn’t be going around talking about how efficient medicaid/medicare is in an attempt to sell a government option.
Somebody’s lying - it’s either the truth or Barack Obama. My vote is that it’s both of them.
What exactly do the Family of Five (UnitedHealth, Aetna, Cigna, Humana, Wellpoint BCBS) provide in servicing the medical needs of our nation that warrants their receiving 20%+ of the cost of our system; other than processing claims (money-changers)?
Medicare’s administrative cost is 3-1/2%. Under the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program noted insurers do the paper/computor work for no more than 5%, giving them adequate profit. So, why the 20%+ and rising?
Why does Eric Cantor support such waste? Why do some readers of this info support such waste, other than the fear instilled in you that “it could be worse” with a non-profit option, keeping in mind it (costs) will definitely become worse without an option of such; like premiums doubling again within next 8 years.
Ms Mohlie is correct.Voting for a person just because they’re black is in and of itself racist.And thats EXACTLY why many, including whites, voted for Barack Obama.
Then they in turn call his opponents racists for opposing his policies.
Sure there are real racists on both sides but all this name calling and finger pointing is accomplishing absolutely nuthin’.
The irony is that Obama was supposed to be a ‘post-racial president.‘
Oh, well.
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Advertisement