This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2013, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
Congratulations to Russell Fericks for coming to the obvious conclusion in "Even liberals should worry about national debt" (Opinion, May 4) that servicing the expanding national debt will crowd out other spending and is not sustainable.
Fericks proposes that a conversation about a solution for our debt must begin. By his pejorative reference to the "regressive economics of neocon fiscal fanatics and tea party nutcases," I assume he does not believe that reduced spending and smaller government should be an acceptable part of that conversation.
So what's left? Tax increases on the "rich"? Since they can afford to take advantage of loopholes in the tax code, higher taxes on them just encourages financial decisions based on avoiding taxes and not on the productive use of their money.
Grow the economy? With the flood of regulations now coming out of Washington and the uncertain impact that future regulations will have on businesses, good luck with that one.
Conversations are fine. But if one set of solutions can simply be ignored because they do not fit with Fericks' liberal world view, then what's the point?
Robert Sleight
Layton