Thanks so much for the editorial, "A path away from the fiscal cliff," Dec. 13, on the federal budget melee in Washington. It is what I would have said.
I've been critical of the media for failing to dissect the issues and educate the public about the real costs of our government. So, thank you, for an editorial that strikes at the heart of this important issue.
A truly honest attempt at budget reform should have Social Security and Medicare revenues and expenditures separated from the rest of the budget discussion. These two programs have revenue sources that are intended to pay for them and them alone. Changes need to be made in both to ensure solvency for future recipients. Voters should be able to decide whether they are willing to pay more, to reduce benefits to mesh with the revenue, or to select some combination of both. Medicaid and programs to support the poor should not be coming from payroll taxes intended for Social Security and Medicare but from income taxes and corporate taxes.
Discretionary spending should also be dealt with separately. Voters should be able to decide whether such spending should be heavily weighted to defense, as it is now, or how much we want to pay in income and corporate taxes for other government programs — education, environment, science, international affairs, transportation, etc.
Our representatives need to stop misleading us and come clean on how much these programs cost, how much of each they are willing to cut, and what the affects of those cuts would be. Then, they need to explain how they intend to raise the revenue to fully support their spending.
The cacophony of muddled thinking and sidestepping have cheated the public of a true understanding of what these "fiscal cliff" negotiations mean. The murky discussions seem designed to pull the wool over our collective eyes.
To the politicians, I say, give us the real numbers. If we don't like them, we can always vote for someone else.
WILLIAM COLDEN
Troy
