Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 4 · column 3 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
Why she's
a liberal
To the Editor:
In the exchange of letters to the editor I’ve had with Edith Pond, this year and last, at least two lessons have been learned. First, Social Security does not add to the federal deficit, but instead, owing to the administration’s smoke-and-mirrors accounting, about $60 billion to $70 billion of excess funds in the Social Security Trust Fund have been drawn out and applied to reduce the deficit in the general fund. Second, mere characterization, or name calling, without some sort of factual support, is hardly a proper basis for argument.
Now for the applications of these two lessons.
I. Edith Pond would define “liberal,” used in the political sense, as “characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts with other people’s money.” (Her words emphasized.) For purpose of this discussion, I accept the amended definition.
In the mid 1980s, largely as a result of Reagan’s supply-side tax cuts (what Bush described once as “voodoo economics”) and defense buildup, an annual deficit of $220 billion was attained. This was an all-time high until Bush scored somewhere around $350 billion. All of this money is borrowed, of course, and the payback, if any, must necessarily burden our children, their children, and their children’s children; yea, even unto the fourth and fifth generations. “The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the teeth of the children are set on edge” (Ezekiel 18:2).
It would appear that Reagan and Bush have been generous and willing to obligate large amounts of other people’s money (i.e., our children, their children, etc.). Based on the facts, then, Reagan and Bush fall clearly within the Pond definition of politically liberal.
95.5%