Debt limit debate sends an important message Re: “We can’t just stand athwart the debt ceiling yelling ‘No!”, May 11
David Freddoso argues that we have a severe overspending problem, and therefore we should borrow more money. Huh? What exactly is the meaning of a “debt limit” if you can raise it whenever you want to borrow more money? That sure isn’t how my credit card works.
Yes, cutting spending to stay within the debt limit would entail a great deal of political pain, but the wise move is to accept that pain today in order to avoid an even more painful catastrophe tomorrow. Spending cuts will never get any easier, but the more money we borrow, they harder they will be. That, Mr. Freddoso, is the mathematical and political reality.
The Tea Party should stand firm on refusing to raise the debt limit to send the message that the fiscal insanity needs to stop. If they surrender to the establishment in order to stay “relevant to the debate,” as Freddoso puts it, then they have betrayed their basic principles and they might as well all go home.
James Perry
Arlington
Citizens council would help supervisors supervise
Re: “Fairfax supervisors should supervise their police,” May 11
Rather than establishing a civilian review board to supplant the responsibility of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, I recommend the establishment of a Citizens Advisory Council, which would serve as a countywide complement to district Citizen Advisory Committees that work to educate and engage citizens at the local level.
The council could also be a resource for supervisors. Frankly, most politicians are poorly equipped to address issues of the use of lethal force without independent, objective advice from experienced professionals who know it is sometimes necessary.
The council would hopefully be composed mainly of persons with insight similar to Nicholas Beltrante, a veteran homicide detective with more than 50 years of experience. Persons of his competence know, as he said, that over 99 percent of our police officers are wonderful.
Will Radle
Franconia
Individual mandate also violates First Amendment
Re: “Appeals court hears Va. suits against health care law,” May 10
It’s peculiar that Republicans, the “business party”, object to a plan that will funnel billions of dollars to private insurers and, via for-profit insurers’ investments, to just about every corporation on Wall Street. This article gives hope to all the private insurers who dream of 30 million to 50 million new customers forced to patronize their business.
It’s also a mystery that the individual insurance mandate is only being fought, constitutionally, on commerce clause grounds — which are about the federal government regulating commerce, not compelling it.
The mandate appears to violate First Amendment prohibitions of compulsory speech, but that hasn’t been tested in court yet. With so much private insurance money diverted to advertising, lobbying, public relations, campaign gifts, corporate jets, lush headquarters, and chief executive officer bonuses, there is no public interest justification for mandating that anyone provide funding for those non-health-related components, or for them to lobby for objectionable legislation or fund political candidates.
John Jonik
Philadelphia
