Thanks to liberals, city spent beyond its means
Commentary writer Paul Krugman (“No, Detroit is not the latest Greece,” July 23) argues that Detroit’s long descent into bankruptcy was not “fundamentally a tale of fiscal irresponsibility” but rather that the city was “for the most part just an innocent victim of market forces,” apparently referring to the long decline of the auto industry in the city. I’m confused — did the city of Detroit’s government produce cars?
Krugman apparently believes that government officials have no responsibility to reduce spending when economic conditions dictate that taxpayers can no longer afford the spending that occurred in more prosperous times. Instead, it’s OK to just keep borrowing and spending until you end up bankrupt and can’t provide even basic government services, and that’s not “fiscal irresponsibility.”
That this is Krugman’s opinion isn’t surprising, since he advocates those same borrow-and-spend government policies for the United States as a whole.
Paul Daggett, Minneapolis
• • •
Recent letters have offered opinions on Detroit’s bankruptcy, but none have come right out and said liberalism defeated Detroit, so I will.
In the 1950s, Detroit’s population was about 2 million. At that time, it had the highest standard of living in the United States, and some called the city the “Paris of the west.”
Detroit has been almost exclusively under Democratic control for about 60 years. Detroit’s last Republican mayor was in the late ’50s; it last elected a Republican to the City Council in 1970.
Robert Reich, secretary of labor in the Clinton administration, opined the reason for Detroit’s bankruptcy is because the rich left the city leaving the poor behind. I think one reason they left was correctly addressed by columnist Stephen Henderson in the Detroit Free Press, who wrote: Detroiters “pay more kinds of taxes, at higher rates, than any other citizens in Michigan … The city’s tax structure is, by sheer numbers, among its most glaring problems.”
Pay attention other large cities. If we do not learn from history, history will repeat itself.
Bob Jentges, North Mankato, Minn.
* * *
The race to raise money overwhelms substance
The other day I received an e-mail asking me to contribute to Wendy Davis in Texas, who may or may not run for governor. I might vote for her if I lived there, but I do not and have no business trying to influence the outcome of an election in a state where I do not live. Crowdsourcing is foolish because a bigger, louder crowd will always form to counter the message.
When a good candidate, whose views are espoused by the majority of his constituents, cannot get his message to the voters because a group of zealots from Timbuktu gather enough money to drown him out with endless ads, that is not democracy. It is expensive folly that repeats again and again because the only possible defense is to raise more money, and the message is no longer about ideas and solutions, it is about clever, gimmicky ads designed to increase cash flow.
The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.