Intriguing conflict

April 7’s two editorials, presumably penned by different editors, present an intriguing conflict. The first, arguing fiscal discipline, proposes “a smaller, smarter tax cut” than President Bush’s recommendation of a $726 billion tax cut, to benefit most those who need it least. The editorial essentially backs the position of Senator Olympia Snowe, who has spearheaded a $350 billion tax cut. Snowe’s “slashing” of Bush’s egregious figure is the work of a moderate, we are told by the news media.

The second editorial, in supporting more funds for veterans benefits, asks that Congress “… put this tangible support for the troops ahead of a further tax cut that benefits primarily the wealthy who remain safe at home.”

Put me down in camp No. 2. Bush’s $726 billion tax cut is irresponsible in a time of war and of record budget deficits and Snowe’s $350 billion cut appears moderate only by comparison. It’s still $350 billion more than the nation can afford when daily we witness Medicaid (and thus state budgets) shredded, Medicare and Social Security threatened, roads and bridges in disrepair, libraries closing, education shorted at all levels, and the president proposing $14 billion in cuts for veterans’ benefits. Bush’s hypocrisy is staggering.

I applaud the BDN’s opposition to the president’s tax proposal. Even better would be a consistent stance against all such reckless cuts.

Kent Price

Orland