ShareThis Page
Letter to the editor: George Will wrong on seniors & debt |
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: George Will wrong on seniors & debt

In one of his more desultory columns, George Will eventually arrives at one of his mainstay concerns: the entitlement state ( “The future’s only constituency is the conscience of the present,” Aug. 5, TribLIVE). According to Will, we seniors should cheerfully chuck our Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security cards as we collectively are eating the “seed corn.” This argument is at best specious and at worst bizarre.

Of the many attacks on entitlements, stifling U.S. “basic research” is certainly one of the stranger ones. Basic research by its nature is decidedly uncertain, and to ask seniors to pull in so that the scientific/government bureaucracy can pursue unfettered research for decades strikes me as fanciful or worse (recall that current space efforts, driverless vehicles, electric vehicles, etc. are driven mainly by private or corporate interests — not the U.S. government).

Will references the burgeoning national debt and related budget deficits (he at least recognizes the issue, unlike many other “conservative” commenters). Senior citizens should not have to shoulder the burden of our feckless taxation polices that reward the wealthy while soon punching trillion-dollar holes in the federal budget. I don’t consider that the senior citizens of this wealthy country are “holding back” scientific progress. I think overall our scientific progress is doing just fine, thank you.

James Kvitkovich


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.