CMR’s deficit double down
Seems the current day Republican crowd has chosen to invest time and energy in everything Trumpville. Seems anything he says is gospel, whether proven to the contrary or not. It’s beyond my comprehension how or even why towing this Trump Party line outweighs fact beyond any reasonable doubt.
Let’s take the economy, for example. Rather than just listening to the one-sided GOP rhetoric, I decided to check out a few actual facts. Here’s what I discovered. The deficit, the gap between what the government spends and what it takes in as revenue, has fallen by $1.4 trillion this year alone … the largest federal deficit decline ever. Compare this to the former Trump term when $400 billion was added to the deficit, mainly attributed to that whopping $2 trillion tax cut to the wealthiest top tier.
Now, I don’t know about you, but I have certainly not seen much of that tax giveaway “trickle down” to the rest of us. What I continue to see are skyrocketing costs while these megacorporations post record-breaking profits.
So, here’s a suggestion. The next time you hear Rep. McMorris Rodgers, who by the way also signed off on the Hearing Protection Act which supports delisting current regulations on gun silencers, tripping out on rising costs due to Biden’s runaway spending, think again. Check out the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, its estimated revenues and how it is designed to help you and me.
Pay your fair share
As we move toward the midterms, Democrats are emphasizing abortion. It is my hope one of them starts talking about the deficit. For folks wondering how Trump’s administration fared while making America great, take a gander at this figure.
During his reign, the deficit climbed (even before COVID). He and his other Republicans added $400 billion. Part of this was the $2 trillion tax cuts for the wealthy and for corporations.
This year the deficit fell by $1.4 trillion . Unemployment has dropped to 3.5%. The GDP is expected to rise to 2.9%.
Republicans running for office want us to be very afraid for our economic lives. If I were part of the 1%, I might don my running shoes. However, I am a retired person in the middle class. I believe individuals and corporations who have so much wealth through hard work or inheritance must pay their equitable share. Just like the rest of us folks.
Smiley vs. Murray, with Vestal assisting
Shawn Vestal makes quite a comparison in the recent debate between Sen. Murray and Tiffany Smiley (“Debate revealed candidates’ temperament, style,” Oct. 26). Vestal says Smiley comes off as “nasty and red faced” while Murray is quiet and sober. There are reasons for this.
Sen. Murray doesn’t speak much unless she has been seriously coached, as she was for this debate. This is because her handlers are afraid she will say something ridiculous as she did years ago when she said Osama bin Laden actually did some very good things … this shortly after 9/11. That is why you see her during White House events, conspicuous in the background but never saying one thing. So Murray stuck to her script, which did make her appear calm and sober rather than ridiculous.
Yes, Smiley got worked up while discussing all the crises brought on by the Biden administration, i.e., inflation, crime, the border crisis, Afghanistan withdrawal and as the My Pillow Guys says, “So much more!” I’m worked up, too, and you should be as well!
Shawn goes into agonizing detail about style, but he never touches substance. He won’t analyze the two candidates’ positions and the reason is it will show that Smiley, in spite of her aggressive performance, is clearly correct in her positions. Murray is a one-pony show called abortion, which is insignificant because our state will always allow abortion. Vestal gives it his best shot to polish Murray. But she is still just a Biden puppet. Smiley is clearly the better choice.
I recall a huge controversy back in 2020 when the publisher of The Spokesman-Review endorsed Trump and Cathy McMorris Rodgers for office, resulting in an editorial wherein the editor said the paper would end the practice of endorsing candidates. But, the reality of the situation is a de factor endorsement of Democratic candidates by allowing your columnist Shawn Vestal to continually express his leftist views without the paper also having a counterpoint columnist.
I can’t even began to count the times Mr. Vestal has denigrated those with conservative views such as Nadine Woodward, McMorris Rodgers, Ozzie Knezovich and others in his columns. In a recent column, he goes after Tiffany Smiley, now apparently because of facial expressions, temperament and style versus real issues (“Debate revealed candidates’ temperament, style,” Oct. 26).
Some of us saw Smiley as impassioned about her issues and views, not “nasty,” “red faced,” “glaring,” etc. Some of us saw Murray as stone-faced, bland and impassionate as someone who has been in office for 30 years and simply going through the motions.
I have no problem whatsoever with Vestal expressing his own personal leftist views on the Opinion page of the Spokesman, but I would also expect the Spokesman, if truly fair and nonpartisan, to present alternative views on this same page by having a columnist with conservative leanings and given the same space and access as Vestal.
No to loan forgiveness
The Biden plan for college debt forgiveness is completely wrong. Or is this another way to buy Democratic votes? This is an insult to those millions of Americans who have sacrificed and worked part time or full time to finance their degrees as well as those families that sacrificed to help their children earn a university degree. And what about those millions who have paid off their student loans?
In my case, I worked an eight-hour midnight shift in a Michigan community hospital as an orderly while carrying a full load of credits to earn my business degree. My wife taught full time while earning her master’s. My MBA was financed by substituting in business subjects at a public high school, working part time in the evening at a Shell gas station and the GI Bill.
It shocks me to see the thresholds used to justify the loan forgiveness, such as those individuals with less than $125,000 annual income and families with less than $250,000 annual income. If those with incomes close to those numbers can’t pay off a loan, I suggest they look at how they are spending their money and set a budget.
This is not how I want my tax dollars spent.
Instead of loan forgiveness, let’s address the cost of higher education.