South Philly Review

To the Editor:

The president inherited an economic mess, no one disputes this. However, he hasn’t made the situation any better. In fact, it has become worse.

We are now at 10-percent unemployment and when President Obama was trying to sell his stimulus package to the nation he promised unemployment wouldn’t go above 8 percent. Yes, GDP grew 5.7 percent the last quarter, but many economists say that number will be revised down and the growth may not continue.

I wish the president would go in a new direction and stop spending trillions of dollars. This Keynesian school of thought, as academics call it, has been proven a failure. The main idea of Keynesianism is the government must be active in the economy and should continue to spend in order to stimulate growth. FDR tried this during The Great Depression and unemployment never went below double-digits until after WWII. FDR’s own treasury secretary, Henry Morgenthau, was quoted during a Congressional hearing: “I say after eight years of this administration, we have just as much unemployment as when we started … And an enormous debt to boot.”

In other words, the spending didn’t work and they created a huge debt they were forced to deal with. Japan also tried the Keynesian approach and it didn’t work for their economy either. Japan’s debt is expected to reach 197 percent of their GDP. The debt they now own will exceed the amount of goods produced by 97 percent as a result of the spending.

This method is not the way you fix an economy. If you want to revitalize an economy do what was done in the ’20s, ’60s and ’80s: Across the board tax-rate reductions including the corporate tax rate, which is second-highest in the world. The administration also should eliminate the capital gains tax, death tax and AMT tax. This will lead to economic growth.

Above all, the administration needs to stop spending money and actually cut from all areas of the government, including wasteful defense projects. We are headed down a road that only ends in economic ruin. I hope the president and the Democrats have the political courage to change it.

Safety first

To the Editor:

On Jan. 11, the Philadelphia fire commissioner, at a hastily called public press conference, touted the reduced number of 2009 deaths due to fire in Philadelphia in a callous effort to legitimize the reductions he ordered a year ago in fire protection, personnel and equipment. Never before, in the proud history of the fire service, has any commissioner attempted such a callous portrayal to try to justify bad public safety policy.

Having not been invited to the press conference, I am compelled to respond after the event so citizens, taxpayers, business owners and non-resident employees may have a fuller understanding of this issue.

Since ’07, the number of civilian injuries related to fires has nearly doubled. Civilian injuries are at a 10-year high. The number of firefighter/medic injuries has increased from 242 (’08) to 267 (’09).

The number of answered calls in stations adjacent to the seven companies closed by Mayor Michael Nutter and Commissioner Lloyd Ayers has increased dramatically, in some instances by 80 percent.

Residents, employees and property are not “safer” in light of the reductions in the firefighter staffing nor the reductions in available firefighting equipment nor the cutting of the City budget allotted to fire safety and staffing.

While it is possible this statistical anomaly will continue into the future, it is more likely future fatalities will mirror and follow the dramatic recent increase in civilian and firefighter/medic injuries.

No fire death is acceptable to any Philadelphia firefighter. And, not to heartlessly adopt the interpretation of the fire commissioner or the mayor, it seems likely the reduction in deaths, taken in light of the increases in injuries, is improved medical care at the scene and afterwards. Firefighters know the value and the costs of medical care, as we are increasingly forced to bear it ourselves.

The safety of citizens, the health of firefighters, the protections of critical Medic coverage cannot be justified by the commissioner’s false claims that reductions in service and coverage will result in fewer deaths, less injuries or reductions in property damage.