"It is clear that the budget problems we have today do not occur because of a lack of revenue, but rather too much spending." That is a quote from Joshua Fleming's Jan. 17 letter in response to my earlier letter protesting U.S. Rep. Bob Goodlatte's "no" vote on the "fiscal cliff" deal.
According to the Congressional Budget Office and other sources, President Obama has increased spending by 1.4 percent during his first term in office. During that same time the rate of inflation totaled 6.5 percent, so he did not even increase spending enough to keep up with the amount of spending that the Bush
Administration handed off to him. By my count, he actually reduced spending when the rate of inflation is taken into account.
As I pointed out in my letter, Goodlatte was more than happy to spend, spend, spend, with no way to pay for that spending but to increase our debt by borrowing more money. Only now does he and other Republicans feign concern over the national debt and deficits.
Just a few years ago Dick Cheney was telling us that federal spending deficits do not matter. Now, for some reason, they matter. Republicans continue to chant their mantra about Democrats being big spenders. Since and including the Reagan administration every Republican administration has outspent the Democrats. Most recently, Bush's spending increases outpaced Obama's about 7 to 1 when comparing their first terms in office, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
So, I ask again. If Goodlatte, and now you, and other Republicans are misleading us about the spending increases of Obama when compared to Republican administrations, what is the purpose? Merely politics, or something more devious?
If Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are not on the chopping block for Republicans, how come no deal is proffered by them that does not include a reduction to those programs?
Michael Cash, Fort Valley