More from our inbox:

To the Editor:

Re “Biden and McCarthy Talk Debt, Getting Nowhere” (front page, May 10):

Republicans have less than zero credibility on the deficit. Starting with Ronald Reagan, who tripled the national debt, Republican administrations have generally blown gaping holes in the budget by enacting tax cuts for the superrich.

Not once did G.O.P. lawmakers refuse to raise the debt ceiling at those times. But now that a Democrat is in the White House, they cynically claim that the country can no longer afford programs they love to hate, such as medical care and food assistance for poor people.

I applaud President Biden for not capitulating to a bad-faith hypocrite like Speaker Kevin McCarthy, who wants to renege on funding what has already been approved by Congress.

It was President Trump who said in 2019, “I can’t imagine anybody ever even thinking of using the debt ceiling as a negotiating wedge …. That’s a very, very sacred thing in our country, the debt ceiling. We can never play with it.”

Bryan L. Tucker
Boston

To the Editor:

The majority of both houses of Congress vote for the budget, and so explicitly endorse both the amount of spending and the amount of taxation. If the dollars spent exceed those recovered in taxes, then a deficit is created. And increasing the national debt is then inexorably part of the budgeting process.

So these legislators are well aware of the increase in debt they are supporting. That makes the whole notion of a “debt limit” ludicrous on its face. If they don’t want the debt to increase past a certain point, then raise taxes, reduce spending, or both. It’s that simple.

To avoid political logjams, both houses of Congress should convene in continuing sessions, with mandatory attendance by all members, until there is, say, two-thirds support for a budget and related taxes. After weeks of takeout food, they would no doubt be happy to compromise.

Steve Pomerance
Boulder, Colo.

To the Editor:

The Republicans’ temper tantrums about the national debt, and their willingness to crash the economy if they don’t get their way, are behavior worthy of a 9-year-old who threatens to burn down the family home if his parents don’t buy him a new tricycle. I doubt that many parents would respond to such a threat by “negotiating.”

Fred Kameny
Chapel Hill, N.C.

To the Editor:

Re “Why I Changed My Mind on the Debt Limit,” by Laurence H. Tribe (Opinion guest essay, May 8):

There is one more argument for overriding the debt ceiling: It will make the congressional budget-making process more honest. It will force members of Congress to consider the impact of their budgetary choices right then and there, as there will be no escape hatch down the road.

John Bers
Nashville

Bard College and Jeffrey Epstein

To the Editor:

Re “Bard College President Defends Visits With Epstein to Seek a Donation” (news article, May 6), about Leon Botstein, the president of Bard, and Jeffrey Epstein, the financier who was accused of sexually abusing teenage girls:

It appears unbecoming for a college president to portray himself as the humiliated victim of a potential donor he should probably not have been visiting in the first place.

Generous donors gain something of an affiliation with the institution to which they give. For some, that is a motivating incentive for giving. In addition, some want continued control over their gift, and that can affect the institution’s independence and create ties incompatible with academic freedom.

A college has the obligation to reject such conditions and, when accepting a gift, to honor its purposes and forgo any thought of directing it to other priorities for which it seeks support.

Hanna Holborn Gray
Chicago
The writer is a former president and emeritus professor of history at the University of Chicago.

Source: Read Full Article