Letters to the Editor

A different, sobering way to look at the national debt


Scare tactics over ‘socialism’

President Donald Trump’s State of the Union speech and some letters to editor try to frighten the public, claiming that socialism and even the “notion of socialism” are great threats to our country.

Our Social Security and Medicare programs are longstanding examples of American socialism. Let’s be honest: Americans already enjoy the benefits of some aspects of socialist principles.

There is a need to better understand socialism and how it already provides critical benefits to all Americans.

Douglas Harman,

Fort Worth

A tale from the southern border

Down from New York to Washington, D.C., one day came a big “dealmaker” proclaiming, “I’ll make America great again, and Mexico is going to pay.”

But Mexico had a different idea and said, “No pesos from us, señor, no way.”

So back to Washington, sombrero in mano, the peso-less dealmaker came.

Adios to the wall down Mexico way.

Don Woodard,

Fort Worth

Going up, up and up without end

Why do we so rarely see a breakdown of our national debt by family or person in the United States?

USDebtClock.org puts our total debt now at just under $22 trillion. The 2010 census put the U.S. population at more than 308 million. Do the math, and that comes to more than $71,000 per person.

The census estimates the average U.S. family now consists of about 3.2 people, so our debt is around $220,000 per household.

This amounts to a new home for every family in the United States.

Please explain how we are ever going to get this paid off.

James Lutkenhaus,


Cynthia Allen tells it like it is again

I read with great appreciation Cynthia Allen’s Feb. 1 column, “Turns out those Planned Parenthood videos may not be so deceptive after all.” (11A) It was once again informative, fact-based and courageous.

After retrieving my paper each morning, it has become my habit to turn first to the opinion pages to look for her byline. The balance her writing provides is the only reason my husband and I continue to subscribe to the Star-Telegram.

Teresa Bruner,


What Schultz’s candidacy may mean

The reaction to the possibility that Howard Schultz might enter the presidential race as a centrist independent illuminates the fear that maybe there are enough of us in the middle who have grown tired of the same boring and stupid lack of productivity that an independent candidate might have a chance. (Jan. 29, 8A, “Dems’ PAC vows fight if ex-CEO of Starbucks runs”)

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s group assumes that if Schultz enters the race, President Donald Trump would be a lock for re-election.

Trump’s group welcomes Schultz in the hope that liberals would be so split that Trump would be a lock for re-election.

Both camps are stating their belief there aren’t enough of us who have grown so sick of the status quo that Schultz has a chance.

I won’t be surprised if they are correct, but I also won’t be surprised if we’ve finally reached the tipping point that allows followers of Pelosi and Trump alike to walk off the proverbial cliff.

There has to be a change, or at least a belief that there could be change.

Glen Gibson,