Bush, Clinton, and the Health-Plan Comparison
The front-page article "Bush, Clinton Health Plans Are Dramatically Different," Aug. 11, claims the Bill Clinton plan is different in all the right ways, making it more of an editorial than a news story.
It asserts that the Clinton plan will save $20 billion to $30 billion. Estimates from the Urban Institute, however, show that the payroll tax attached to the plan will cost employers $29.7 billion upfront, translating into the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs.
It also presumes that a Clinton reform package would be embraced by a Democratic-controlled Congress, whereas a Bush plan would be "dead on arrival." Actually, congressional Democrats are split three ways on the issue. Some support single-payer reform, others the "pay or play" plan, and others incremental reform. But the most spurious claim made by the article is that health-care reform won't happen during a Bush second term - because the president's heart isn't in it. This weighty analysis comes, not fr om a White House source or GOP activist, but from Judith Feder, an adviser to the Clinton campaign. Mark D. Epley, Arlington, Va.
As a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, which writes tax legislation, I was dismayed by untruths told by President George Bush in his speech in Houston. Mr. Bush said: "On Jan. 28, I put before Congress a plan to create jobs. If it had passed back then 500,000 more Americans would be at work right now."
The truth is that the Congress put on the president's desk in March a bill containing most of what the president asked for on Jan. 28. He vetoed it because the bill did one thing he didn't ask for - it raised taxes on wealthy Americans earning over $140,000 per household.
Similarly, Bush criticized Gov. Bill Clinton for proposing a tax increase. Bush said of Mr. Clinton that he wants to tax the rich but defines the rich as anyone with a job. The truth is that Clinton has clearly defined whose taxes he proposes to raise - wealthy Americans earning over $200,000 per household. Rep. Don J. Pease, Washington (D) of Ohio The media's coverage of Bush
The Monitor clearly shows its bias and support for the liberal ticket during this presidential campaign. One only has to look at the front-page articles "Economy Still Drags Heels as Bush Hopes for Break," "Bush Dilemma in Balkan Crisis Seen Benefiting Rival Clinton," the editorial "Don't Get Down and Dirty," and Jeff Danziger's cartoon, Aug. 10. It would be hard for anyone who respects the Monitor as unbiased and objective and expects to find its high standard and fair reporting to understand the above articles as the paper's politically objective position. Boyka Zivadinovich, Monterey, Calif.
I am disturbed by the treatment in the media of the Bush administration on the economy. The tone is always that President George Bush personally has made fatal mistakes on this from the beginning of his term right to the present.
The media generally owe it to the public to set the record straight. We apparently have a Democratic Party that is determined to get the White House by any and all means, and it has dragged its heels all the way through this administration.
Instead of having a president from one party and a Congress from the other, we need voters to choose a party standing most for the policies they trust and then vote the ticket across the board.
I have rarely seen a president with more American-type thinking and acting than Bush. Rose Addy, West Palm Beach, Fla.