- Special Sections
- Public Notices
I feel I must respond to Congressman Mick Mulvaney’s column, “Mulvaney explains what government shutdown means,” published in the March 11 edition of The Lancaster News.
That same column appeared in several others papers across the area.
I do find it odd that Mulvaney’s opinions seem to be aired regularly in some papers, but not in my local Rock Hill Herald.
I would like to address some of the congressman’s opinions about why the federal government is spending too much money.
Contrary to Mulvaney’s ideas about runaway entitlement programs, especially Social Security and Medicare, it is the fact that the federal government is collecting tax revenues at the 1950s level.
Could you run your household on a 1950s income? I am old enough that I can remember gas wars when gas was sold at 25 cents a gallon.
I could catch a double feature at the Ball Theater in Pageland, and buy a Coke and popcorn for the same 25 cents. Granted there is waste, but that is not the core of the problem.
Compare the tax percentage rates during the Dwight D. Eisenhower presidency. He was a Republican president and the tax cuts during that era went primarily to those in the top income brackets and to the large corporations.
Do you ever wonder why the government gives subsidies to the oil companies?
Do you think that it is by accident that these two groups have an inordinate amount of power in our state and national politics?
Perhaps it would be very informative if voters would look at where Republicans see waste in government. It’s always in public education, health care infrastructure, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid programs that affect the middle class and the poor.
By the way, according to budget guru Erskine Bowles, there is no immediate problem with the solvency of Social Security.
On the state level, there is also no immediate problem with the solvency of Social Security.
On the state level, there is no immediate problem with the state teacher’s pension plan, but our new governor is already moving to reduce or perhaps, remove these retirement plans.
Very quietly, the Legislature has already vetoed her plan to add about $200 to the health-care payments that education personnel would have to pay for coverage.
Think seriously, do any of these programs affect you or those you know and love?
Toni P. Hendrix