To the editor: I’m not an economist who can intelligently analyze all the data presented in “A conservative think tank says Trump policies would crater the economy — but it’s being kind.”
But if you look at history starting in 1945, when taxes and the national debt were very high (we were coming out of the Great Depression and World War II), and then think about all that we accomplished over the next four decades, the analysis is simple.
During that period, taxes were high and the national debt was staying roughly the same every year. We also had the Marshall Plan to help Europe rebuild after the war, we fought the Korean War, we started the space program, we built the Interstate Highway System, we fought the Vietnam War, and we put a man on the moon.
Then came former President Reagan’s tax cuts of the 1980s, which benefited the wealthy, and the national debt quickly turned and headed north. Today, just the interest we pay on that debt is around $1 trillion. That’s more than 15% of the federal government’s total spending this year.
Herb Adelman, Del Mar
..
To the editor: Every parent in America understands that the best spending decisions require consideration not only of the cost of the alternatives, but of their respective benefit as well. That requires understanding of the true cost and benefit.
For example, suppose shoes for our daughter costing $40 might last four years, while $20 will get a pair lasting only one year. You might think the $40 pair is the better deal, but since our daughter would outgrow the shoes in six months, we (and all other sane parents in America) will get the pair lasting 1 year — and save $20.
As for the economic policies of the presidential nominees, Donald Trump’s policies would not merely cost more and increase the debt and deficits; they would disproportionately benefit billionaires such as Trump.
In contrast, Kamala Harris’ policies would not only cost less; they would also benefit the broad spectrum of the American public. The same goes for their respective social and political policies.
No thoughtful parent would leave someone in charge of their home and kids who is filled with greed and hate and is entirely focused on avenging falsely perceived grievances.
Jack Quirk, Porter Ranch
..
To the editor: Economist Veronique de Rugy simply parrots the usual libertarian arguments in her op-ed piece, “Where both presidential candidates’ tax promises go wrong.”
She pretends to present a balanced critique of the policies of both Harris and Trump. In reality, she falls back on the hackneyed attacks on tax credits to “special interests.”
She writes: “[Tax credits] usually don’t grow the economy, because they often don’t encourage work, savings or investment. When they do encourage those things, tax credits can subtract from growth by directing capital and effort toward activities picked by the government for political reasons, rather than those picked by investors and consumers for sound economic reasons.”
Really? Who are the investors and consumers of which she speaks? They don’t sound like anyone in my extended circle.
De Rugy’s libertarian views sound like a form of NIMBYism to my ears.
Martin Parker, Thousand Oaks
