President Obama’s math just doesn’t add up
To the editor:
I read Monday’s commentary by President Barack Obama on how to improve the state of our union, but I was confused because the numbers he used just don’t add up.
His article said “the deficit has been reduced by more than $2.5 trillion, which puts us more than halfway toward the goal of $4 trillion in deficit reduction.”
Perhaps he was talking about the debt, and not the deficit, but that doesn’t add up either. The deficit (the difference between receipts and outlays) was $160 billion and $460 billion during President George W. Bush’s last two years in office, but it has ballooned to $1.41 trillion, $1.29 trillion, $1.30 trillion and $1.09 trillion under President Obama’s first four years in office. Certainly not the reduction he is talking about.
The debt (the running total of all past deficits and surpluses) went from $9 trillion under Mr. Bush to $16 trillion under Mr. Obama. This doesn’t sound like a reduction, either. So where is this supposed reduction?
If President Obama (or his writer) thinks there was a reduction, it appears to be fuzzy math at best. The facts just don’t support it. I was an accountant and chief financial officer for years before retiring, and if I used his accounting methods I probably would have been fired.
If he really believes this, how can he possibly be the one to lead us out of the economic mess that we are in?
MIKE RANDESI
LAS VEGAS
It’s a republic
To the editor:
Is the United States a democracy or a republic? In order to answer this question, we must first define these two words. And I must point out that when the old Articles of Confederation were superseded by the Constitution, the United States became a single entity, nationally, rather than a looser association of separate states. Therefore, I used “Is” at the beginning of this paragraph rather than “Are.”
First, beware of sly changes in definitions applied currently and dishonorably to manipulate the initial meaning of words in our highest law. The meaning of the word “democracy” at the time our nation was founded referred to a system of government wherein every citizen/elector voted on every issue.
Please be aware that our noble founders did not include the ancient word “democracy” when they produced the Constitution, the supreme law of our land. It’s patently impossible for such a system of voting on numerous issues to work. The founders knew this and created a “republic,” wherein elected people much better informed make the choices.
Yes, the United States is a republic and not a democracy, despite the numerous misinformed people all about. Look for the word “republic” in the Constitution. Ours is the Constitutional Republic of the United States of America. We pledge allegiance to the Republic, for which the Constitution stands.
PAUL MILLER
PAHRUMP
Illegal immigration
To the editor:
Richard Fulton’s Feb. 16 letter, “No amnesty,” is a good start at addressing our illegal immigration problem, but it only addresses the tip of the iceberg.
Yes, we must first completely secure our borders, but any form of probationary status, as touted by Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., must be completely revamped as follows to preclude another influx of illegal aliens, as experienced by a well-intentioned President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s:
First, no action legalizing illegal aliens can be taken until our borders are completely secure. Second, it would be impractical to deport 12 million to 15 million illegal aliens, but self-deportation can be achieved through denying all but emergency medical services. Requiring E-Verify identification for all government programs — such as food stamps, housing subsidies, public schooling, all but emergency medical care — with major penalties levied against all employers who ignore the E-Verify requirement, will result in self-deportation.
On the other hand, we need legal immigrants who fall into two categories. First, those highly educated in the sciences and other areas of expertise where shortages exist. Second, seasonal laborers, who should be admitted under an updated Bracero program. (This program was first initiated during World War II to provide farm workers from Mexico to replace workers who were off fighting the war).
The Mexican workers brought to the United States usually came here under one-year contracts with their employers. No family members were allowed to accompany Bracero workers, and all costs incurred, including medical, had to be paid for by the employers. Citizenship was not even considered as part of this program.
Before all you liberal crybabies complain how inhumane it is to take workers away from their families for a year or more, remember that our military families — including my family during the Vietnam War — are separated for a year or more on numerous occasions.
As a legal immigrant and Vietnam veteran, let me emphasize that any immigration program that permits illegal immigrants to remain in this country under a so-called probationary status is unfair to the millions of immigrants waiting in their home countries for a chance to come to the United States
legally.
JOHN J. ERLANGER
LAS VEGAS
Fox, meet hen house
To the editor:
In response to Ed Vogel’s Monday article, “Foletta moving up ladder: Lawyer holds two jobs in Sandoval administration”:
“ ‘I like the combination,’ quipped Foletta about being general counsel and policy director. ‘It means I can advise myself if a policy we take is legal.’ ”
Sound familiar? When the U.S. Congress voted to look at the policies of the Federal Reserve Bank, lawmakers elected to put a “regulatory office” inside the New York bank. Thus, they had the fox guarding the hen house, and nothing has changed — except the fox who has relocated to Carson City.
ANDY LA PORTA
LAS VEGAS
