Examiner reader got his spending facts wrong Re: “Examiner distorts facts about federal spending,” From Readers, May 17
John Baer exhibited serious symptoms of “Bush derangement syndrome” in his letter criticizing The Examiner for reporting the massive increase in federal spending under the Obama administration by employing the oft-utilized tactic: “Bush did it, too!”
Baer shows a deep misunderstanding of federal finances when he incorrectly claims that the national debt was nonexistent when Bush took office in 2001; it was about $5.7 trillion when Bill Clinton left the White House. Mr. Baer apparently confused the national debt with the deficit — a common mistake.
Under eight years of Bush, the national debt grew about $5 trillion. Economists project that under Obama, the debt will grow by at least that much by the end of his first term. Neither outcome is desirable for the American people.
The Examiner kept “the facts” straight. It seems Baer is the one with “fact” problems.
Matthew Hurtt
Arlington
Amtrak is actually a transportation bargain
Re: “On the wrong track with commercial rail,” May 16
Christopher Taylor makes a poor case that rail-related costs matter, whereas road and aviation costs do not. Transporting people always consumes tax dollars. The real issue is: What form of transportation provides the best deal for the taxpayer and the passenger?
Rail can move a lot of people, while consuming the least amount of energy and causing the least disruption to human environments. We pay less than $2 billion a year for Amtrak. This is a bargain. Passengers pay 75 percent of the operating cost of the trains in which they travel, in part to ride on rails built by private capital.
It is noteworthy that the Sunset Limited, the route highlighted by Taylor as inefficient, runs only three times a week. To make Amtrak more efficient, expand it so that it can run more trains and bring in more revenue with little increase to fixed costs.
Michael C. Alexander
Pittsburgh
Newt’s voting idea poses a danger to democracy
Re: “Ideas 101: A’s for Romney and Roemer, D-minus for Gingrich,” editorial, May 15
The problem with Newt Gingrich’s idea — that voting eligibility should depend on learning American history — is not just that the concept evokes echoes of excluding black and poor white
voters. It would also mean that defining knowledge of American history would become a function of the federal government.
Gingrich should know that that means that when the “bad guys” are elected, they get to determine what knowledge of American history is required before people can vote.
More concisely: Be careful what you wish for!
R. G. McFadden
Manassas, Va.
