Blame not productive

EDITOR:

The letter from Irene Gutierrez on Dec. 2 singularly attributes this nation's economic woes to George W. Bush and or the Bush administration. Such one sided and egregious accusations serve as a smoke screen to hide or divert attention from the true root of our problems. While the Bush administration may well be blameworthy, they are merely one in a long line of those who are culpable.

It was inferred that Bush alone was singularly deserving of harsh criticism for leaving office with a national debt at an all time high. Since 1929 every president left office with the national debt at an all time high. In fact only two presidents since 1900 left office with the national debt lower than when they entered office. They were Harding, who died after some two years in office, and his successor, Coolidge.

The letter is mistaken in using budget deficit and national debt increase interchangeably.

A projected U.S. budget deficit or surplus is the estimated income (taxes, et al.) minus only the expenses listed in the budget. The U.S. budget does not include the costs for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and other supplemental Congressional appropriations.

Such a "budget surplus" exists only on paper. The increase in the national debt is the actual revenue minus all expenses. During 2008 the budget deficit was $455 billion but the national debt increased by $1 trillion. Bush may well have entered office when there was a projected budget surplus, but the known expenses not included in the budget would well have caused an actual deficit and an increase in the national debt.

The letter attributes a tax cut for the rich to the Bush administration and ascribes an increase in the national debt to that supposed tax cut. It was the tax rate that was reduced, not a tax cut. Total taxes paid decreased by 8.2 percent during the two years before the tax rate cut. Total taxes paid increased 37.6 percent in the four years after the tax rate cut. Increasing income reduces, not increases, debt.

It is alleged that the Bush administration borrowed money from the Chinese to pay for the nonexistent tax cut. Where is the logic in having to borrow money to pay for an increase in income?

The letter insinuates that the unregulated increase in the credit default swap market was caused by the Bush administration because the runaway growth occurred from 2000 to 2008. With the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 Congress made this market not subject to regulation. This act was passed and signed into law in 2000 while Clinton was president. Clinton could have vetoed the act but Bush could not rescind it.

The first steps to solving our nation's problems is for both parties to stop blaming the other, honestly admitting to their own failures and correcting them.

Ben Justus

Gardnerville