The Public Pulse: John Cavanaugh spouting same old 'tax the rich' talking points

Want your voice to be heard in The Pulse? Fill out this form, or email us at pulse@owh.com. 

Cavanaugh spouting same old 'tax the rich' talking points 

John Cavanaugh's letter to the Pulse (July 13) was just more of the same old recycled tripe Democrats have been whining about for decades: "Tax the rich." "Make the wealthy pay their fair share."

Not an original thought therein. Even his criticism of General Bacon is warmed over.

Every tax cut/reduction has benefited me, my family, friends and neighbors — everyone, even Democrats.

The following information is available and verifiable to anyone who choses to know the facts.

The top 1% money earners pay 46% of the paid taxes.

The next 2-5% pay 20%. The bottom 50% pay 10%. Those in the middle pay the rest.

Do the math.

So, what is the wealthy's fair share? 80, 90, 100%? The latter would be Democrats' nirvana.

As a "by the way," every Nebraskan should read the July 15 Midlands Voices piece by the state's three congressmen, which actually explains what is in the recently passed Big Beautiful Bill, instead of what the Democrats and liberal media tell people and want them to believe.

Max Moore, Bellevue

Nebraska congressmen wrong on Big Beautiful Bill 

In the aftermath of the Battle of Bến Tre during the Vietnam War, a United States major was reported to have said, "It became necessary to destroy the town to save it."

I was reminded of this quote reading the Rep. Bacon, Flood, and Smith joint op-ed published on July 12 defending their decision to gut Medicaid and eliminate coverage for 10 million people. They say the program was on an “unsustainable fiscal trajectory” and thus like the village of Bến Tre. In order to save it, it had to be destroyed.

With our three “fiscal hawks” from Nebraska so concerned about unsustainable fiscal trajectories, surely the bill they are boasting about will at the very least reduce our nation’s ballooning deficit? Put us on a path to a balanced budget? Allow us to start paying down America’s gargantuan debt?

In fact, the bill will increase deficits by $3.4 trillion and add up to $5 trillion to the national debt when including interest.

No, there was nothing fiscally responsible about this bill. At the same time it strips medical care from thousands of Nebraska children, it hands out tax breaks for private jets and yachts. The bill will at once snatch food from the hands of over 60,000 Nebraska kids and bestow massive tax breaks for millionaires living in New York and California.

Over 58,000 American service members ultimately perished in the Vietnam war. Due to the passage of Bacon, Flood and Smith's bill, it is estimated that 50,000 Americans will die each year. This bill wasn’t about fiscal responsibility, it was a national smash and grab on behalf of the congressmen's richest donors.

Alex Steele, Omaha 

Rich should pay their fair share in taxes 

The three Nebraska congressmen wrote several days ago the reasons they voted for the President's budget package.

While there are a dozen reasons why their reasoning is flawed, I would like to examine just one.

They told us that the top 5% of wealthy pay 40% of the taxes and so are entitled to tax relief. But why not? The Economic Policy Institute reports that the top 5% of the population control 63.5% of the wealth. Seems that anything less than 63.5% of the taxes is just plain unfair to the rest of us. Why have our congressmen refused to do their duty?

Tim Rouse, Omaha 

Congress capable of multitasking on immigration 

The bipartisan Dignity Act is a first step to reforming our immigration policy. Part of our immigration problems stem from confusing policies and lack of guidance in our laws. This bill provides a more humane approach and badly needed directions for present and future immigrants.

Illegal crossings are experiencing record lows. ICE and border patrol just received a huge influx of cash. Yet Sen. Pete Ricketts states he hasn't seen this bill and again pulls out the same worn-out diatribe that the border must be secured first before reform is considered.

Why can't Congress do both? When will the border ever be secure enough? Apparently, not as long as our representatives have to actually do the hard work of passing legislation that doesn't have to do with lowering taxes and cutting programs that benefit the poor.

Jeff Johnston, Elmwood