Chicago Monday AM 16 April 2012

Editors, The New York Times

Gentlepeople:

The New York Times Saturday 14 April Editorial “More Help for the Wealthy” opens complaining that the Republicans are trying to “starve the government of needed revenue.”

In its first 6 years The George W Bush administration had a monthly average deficit of $20 billion, unprecedented at the time (the last two years, assisted by Democrat House of Reps, who know a thing or two about deficits, even that monthly average was raised to $35 billion.) In its first 42 months the Obama administration's average monthly deficit has been $120 billion. If ever a government needed a little reduction in revenue, this is it.

Next you claim “the economic reality is that employers, big and small, are hesitant to hire because of slow or uncertain demand for their products and services, not because of their tax burden.” Do the arithmetic. Regardless of the certainty of demand for their products and services, if you cut employers' taxes, they have more money to hire new employees.

You close referring to proposed Senate Democrat's calling for a vote on the Buffett Rule, that “would require the wealthiest taxpayers to pay at least 30 percent of their income in federal taxes and, in the process, raise some $47 billion over 10 years.” We're running a $120 billion average monthly federal deficit, and you use valuable New York Times editorial space plumping a Senate proposal that might raise $4.7 billion a year for 10 years?

Arnold H Nelson   ah_nelson@yahoo.com