Robert Schwarz, in his letter ("Cut government to curtail deficit," Dec. 17), talks about government spending as it relates to the size of government. What his numbers ignore is that an increase in spending doesn't mean more government, merely more spending.
The deficit is due to large tax cuts during the Bush administration more than 10 years ago. They were supposed to spur growth and increase revenue and did no such thing. Then a huge military buildup added to deficits. Then, finally, a major recession required financial intervention and that decreased revenues.
Some more specific questions might be asked. Do we really need to spend more than $700 billion annually on the military?
That is 4.7 percent of gross domestic product, and more than the next 12 largest defense budgets in the world. Maybe matching the top 10 would be enough?
Do big U.S. corporations need more than $100 billion in subsidies annually when corporate profits are at record levels? Do we need to spend $60 billion on the Department of Homeland Security?
To reduce, or eliminate, deficits several things can be done: Return tax rates to their 2000 levels when we actually had a budget surplus; reduce government military spending and corporate subsidies; and selectively trim agency budgets. Cutting has been going on since the onset of the recession, much on social programs. No doubt there are still areas that can be trimmed there, but any more cuts to social safety nets should be carefully considered. These programs represent a small fraction of total spending, less than half of corporate subsidies.
And when looking at cuts we should not exempt our representatives from trimming excesses. In the millions spent to run the House and Senate, surely many areas exist where significant savings can be made.
Roger Savoy
Troy