Where have the Fiscally Responsible Republicans Gone?

To the Editor:

In the past, we were likely to see Democrats in Congress propose a program they felt would benefit our citizens. Republicans would not support any such plan until it included the taxes or other revenues needed to fully finance the proposal. When these two conditions were met, legislation was passed with wide bipartisan support. This produced popular programs like Social Security, the interstate highway system, Medicare and so on.

Since it was the Republicans who insisted we be fiscally responsible and generate the revenue required to cover the spending, I have supported Republican candidates in the past.

In 1980 all that changed. Ronald Reagan campaigned on a new economic philosophy. He would cut tax rates which would benefit most those with the highest incomes. These people would invest this money in new plant and equipment and hire many new workers. The country would prosper. With more people working and higher incomes all around, tax revenues would increase despite the lower rates, thus keeping the budget in balance.

Many were skeptical. George Bush called it "Voodoo Economics." Yet like millions of other Americans, I thought it was worth giving Reaganomics a try, so I voted for the Gipper.

Instead, this led to ever increasing budget deficits and an explosive increase in the national debt to over three trillion dollars. I was left wondering how my fiscally responsible Republicans could have let such a catastrophe happen.

As President, George Bush was faced with this economic nightmare. It was predicted that if nothing were done, by the end of his term the annual budget deficit would reach $380 billion. Much to his credit he took the required action to avert this disaster. Through a balanced approach of tax increases and spending cuts, he was able to reduce his final deficit to $280 billion. Yet, as Ross Perot pointed out during the 1992 campaign, this is still a staggering figure.

As President, Bill Clinton continued on this course toward fiscal responsibility. Like Bush he increased the tax rate on those who benefited most from the rate decreases in the 1980's. He made the hard choices required to cut spending by an even greater amount. As a result we are well on our way to cutting our $280 billion budget deficit in half. Yet, to my utter amazement, my fiscally responsible Republicans fought this effort every step of the way.

"Oh, how terrible," they say. "The biggest tax increase in U.S. history." The fact that the highest rate effects only about 1600 Americans whose annual incomes exceed one million dollars seems to upset them. When we consider that 71 percent of Republican campaign contributions come from the richest Americans, we might wonder just whose interests they really represent.

The fact that this legislation also increased the earned income credit, which allows 12 million low income workers with children to keep more of their earnings, goes largely unnoticed. Perhaps these Americans have little money left over to contribute to political candidates.

At least, I thought, Americans learned a hard lesson. How wrong I was!

Now we see Republican candidates on the steps of our Capital pledging that, if elected, they will repeat the very same mistakes that created this mess in the first place. Again they want us to believe that we can cut taxes on their rich benefactors, increase military spending, cut domestic programs (no details given) and somehow the budget will end up in balance. Sound familiar? No wonder some are calling this "Voodoo Two."

They expect voters to fall for the same economic fantasies that got Ronald Reagan elected. They want voters to punish our members of Congress who faced reality and voted for a balanced approach to deficit reduction. Oh where, oh where have all the fiscally responsible Republicans gone? Not among our current state candidates, that's for sure.

For the sake of our country's economic viability we cannot let this cynical ploy succeed. We must not vote for candidates who present fantasy as reality and encourage us to act irresponsibly.

We cannot have a responsible federal government unless we as voters act responsibly. Let us vote for fiscal responsibility and realistic deficit reduction in the upcoming election.

Published October 27, 1994

An Objective Criteria for Sexual Orientation

Marty, you said: "... there is no objective standard for "orientation" other than self-declaration."

There is an objective test for "orientation" that has been used in clinical studies for over 50 years.

The subject is wired to a machine designed to measure physiological changes associated with arousal. The person is made comfortable, then shown several series of slides of attractive men and women in alluring poses. Suggestive messages are provided through earphones.

If the person is aroused by persons of the opposite gender, then the person is heterosexual.
If the person is aroused by persons of the same gender, then the person is homosexual.
If the person is aroused by persons of both genders, then the person is bisexual.

This is the standard protocol for clinical studies in this area. People are placed in the appropriate group based on the results of this test.

This technique was the basis of an attempted "cure" for homosexuality in the 1950's and 1960's. The person was hooked up and shown the pictures. He was given a painful electrical shock whenever he was aroused by pictures of men. The idea was that he would eventually learn not to be aroused by these pictures and therefore men in general.

A cow who is shocked when coming into contact with an electric fence, learns to avoid the fence. Thus the term "avoidance therapy." Have you seen the film "A Clockwork Orange?"

Alas, while a cow can choose where to walk and avoid the fence, a man cannot choose not to be aroused when presented with pictures consistent with his orientation.

The fact that this and every other treatment which attempted to "cure" homosexuality failed, was an important component of the mass of data that lead to the understanding that orientation was an inborn trait which is not chosen and cannot be changed.

There is no debate over the definition of homosexuality. Both the scientific and the dictionary definitions are identical. A homosexual is a person who is attracted to (aroused by, has sexual desires for) persons of the same sex. Behavior has nothing to do with the definition.

Didn't you know you were a heterosexual (I assume) for many long years (I hope) before you actually had sex?

Ware Farms

!!!April Fools!!!

(that was soooo easy)