Become a digitalPLUS subscriber. 99¢ for 4 weeks.
News Opinion Readers Respond

President must act in the interest of national security and raise the debt ceiling

The president of the United States has a transcendent duty to protect the nation, especially when the danger is clear and imminent.

Failure to raise the meaningless debt ceiling for the first time in American history (the same one that was upped seven times under President George W. Bush and 18 times under President Reagan) would have disastrous results: U.S. standing worldwide would be shaken; interest rates for all individuals and businesses would increase; growth, jobs and economic recovery would reverse; and, in sum, result in an economic and humanitarian catastrophe. Default, or even near default, would make our financial situation much worse and much more difficult to fix.

Americans elected a Democratic president, a Democratic Senate and a Republican House of Representatives to conduct the people's business. When an ideological minority within the Republican House holds the nation hostage and blocks all reasonable attempts to avoid default, the president must act in the interest of national security and raise the debt limit.

Once the nation is out of immediate danger, the three democratically elected entities need to address our long term financial challenges by following the balanced guidelines of every bipartisan commission, the bipartisan "Gang of Six" and the "grand design" developed by the Democratic president and Republican speaker of the House.

Next November the American electorate will issue its verdict on who was acting in the best interests of our country and who was acting in what they believed was their political self interest.

Roger C. Kostmayer, Baltimore

Copyright © 2014, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • Schaller fails to see danger of U.S. debt

    Columnist Thomas F. Schaller's analysis is incredibly myopic ("Avoiding Europe's austerity nightmare," April 18). To compare the economic condition of the U.S. to those of Greece or Spain at the beginning of the economic crisis is comparing apples and oranges.

  • Military spending is misplaced U.S. priority

    On April 17, I will be protesting war taxes at Baltimore's main post office. I realize that taxes fund many good programs — education, environment and diplomacy. But sadly when 57 percent of the federal budget goes to the Pentagon, the government's priorities are out of touch with the...

  • A better budget remedy than the Buffett rule

    You end your editorial on the Buffett Rule ("The Buffett Rule backlash," April 13) with the question, "Where will the $50 billion come from to balance the budget, if not from this minimum tax plan?"

  • Skeptical of Buffett and need for higher taxes

    First, I'm an 80-year-old living on Social Security, and I know all the tax loopholes need to be closed ("The Buffett Rule backlash," April 13). But isn't it correct that Warren Buffett owes the IRS a great deal of taxes for a number of years? Let's have a true picture of Mr. Buffett.

  • The Buffett Rule backlash
    The Buffett Rule backlash

    Our view: Taxing the wealthy at rates others already face wouldn't solve the nation's deficit, but it would restore a modicum of fairness to the tax code

  • Godless Republicans turn back on poor and sick

    Some churchmen take exception to some of President Barack Obama's positions on matters of faith. I suggest these men of faith take a closer look at the true meaning of religion. All three Abrahamic religions — Christianity, Judaism and Islam — have as their central theme the...

Comments
Loading