Senator Warren B. Rudman (Retired)
From: Steve Conover, Sr.
Date: January 25, 1999
you for the personal letter you sent me requesting a renewal gift
of $25.00 or more to the Concord Coalition. I received your letter
today, have read it carefully, and have two questions I'd like
to pose before I decide whether to send a renewal gift.
Concord Coalition literature has expressed a desire for "open,
honest debate." In that spirit, I attempted more than once
in late 1998 to get honest answers to a few questions about Concord's
basic position - questions that would help me clarify in my own
mind some reservations I have regarding Concord's philosophy.
first, I thought I could get open, honest answers from Concord's
Communications Director, Mr. Craig Cheslog - who else, if not
the Communications Director? However, I was disappointed that
Mr. Cheslog ignored my questions, and ignored my followup request
for a response, in November and December of 1998.
I will respectfully pose these questions to you, Senator Rudman.
If these two questions have logical answers which support Concord's
basic philosophy, I will modify my opinions accordingly. (My current
opinion is summed up by the header on this page, and in more detail
at my website: "Deficits, the National Debt, and Economic
Growth" - http://web2.airmail.net/scsr/.)
position seems to be that "growing debt is undesirable, because
it represents a growing burden on our children." That leads
to the first of my two questions:
If the USA's Gross Domestic Product grew at a slightly faster
rate than the federal debt grew, year in and year out, would the
USA's fiscal health be getting worse because of the increasing
debt, or would it be getting better because of the improving debt-to-GDP
I presume you are aware of the precipitous decline in defense
spending during the Clinton administration. This condition alarms
me greatly, because a strong defense deters war, while a deteriorating
defense invites misadventure by foreign rivals. Moreover, a Balanced
Budget Amendment, which Concord advocates, would forbid borrowing
except in cases of national emergency. That wording puzzles me,
and leads to my second question:
Why should it be permissible for the government to borrow money
to win a war - yet impermissible to borrow money beforehand, to
prevent that war from starting?
you, Senator Rudman, for a small slice of your valuable time.
I would also welcome your opinion of my website, if you have some
time to take a look.