The following is in response to a letter to the Editor last week:
To the Editor,
In response to Ms Moiseyev’s comments on my recent letter about health care policy and the source of my numbers, most of the justification for my figures can be found here. The rest of the numbers required some digging to uncover, but I vetted my numbers with several agencies of the federal government and private industry to insure their accuracy.
I have also shared the letter with three US Senators, eight Congress people and members of Congressional Staff (all Democrats, I might add) and none of them has refuted or even challenged my assertions. I am comfortable with my numbers and my conclusions. If conviction reached after research makes me a right winger then I will wear that badge with honor.
Like all good Progressives, Ms. Moiseyev fails to answer any of my questions and instead attacks the messenger while offering no constructive response.
To the larger point, if Ms Mosieyev believes that the discussion and eventual disposition of the health care debate will not affect the investments she makes for herself and her clients she is living in a fool’s paradise.
At least I took advantage of my God-given right to express an opinion and I stood up to the consequences.
Dennis Gibb
Sweetwater Investments
Redmond WA
The following is in response to our interview with Paul Krugman several weeks ago:
Dear Editor:
No one who remotely understands and appreciates the underpinnings and essential meanings of our founding documents flatly opposes "big government." In fact, the expression "big government" is not only a euphemism, but in some sense it is an oversimplification, to the point of being counterproductive.
Neither the absolute size of government as measured in dollars, nor its relative size compared to previous years or as a percentage of the economy, are per se or even inferentially limited by the Constitution. Rather, the constitutional concept of limited government concerns constraining usurpative federal government activity. In simpler terms, a government out of control is not one that just spends lots of money, but rather it is one that spends it on whatever it deems useful and/or politically expedient at the time.
I personally hope and trust that the U.S. government will stand ever ready to spend whatever amount of money, including unlimited borrowings from future generations, to defend the basis of our civilization's existence - private property rights and the rule of law.
It's the other, Krugman-type and faux-largesse-based uses of public funds for politically saleable bureaucratic notions of socially beneficial "programs" that trample on our founder’s intent and most threaten ultimate fiscal viability and the legal soundness of and basis for our system.
So, anytime you hear ostensibly conservative railings against big government, quickly lift the hood and take a peek to see if it's how much is being spent or what it is being spent on that is being railed against. That will give you instant insight into how much the railer appreciates our system's founding ideas.
Charles Matthews, CFP
Fort Worth, TX
The following is in response to our article, Building a Practice in America’s Fastest Dying City, which was published last week:
Dear Editor,
I commend Mr. Young for sharing his program and the level of depth he provided throughout the article. One could only wish for more articles like this.
Joseph Borriello Jr.
Manager, Advisory Business Development
American Portfolios Advisors
Holbrook, NY
