Steve Brodner’s full-page illustration of the debate over raising the debt limit was amazingly dishonest [“The making of Washington’s debt-ceiling obsession,” Outlook, Aug. 7]. All Republicans were shown as ugly, angry and screaming.
The people fighting to reduce spending were seen shouting, “More! More! More!”
More of what? They must be very greedy and angry to want so much more of . . . less?
The only reasonable-looking person in the cartoon was our “surprisingly generous” president. Generous with what? Other people’s money?
Meanwhile, House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) is shown reaching into President Obama’s pockets. What’s he trying to take?
Can one “take” reduced spending away from a president? How exactly does one steal a reduction?
Mark Stamm, Potomac
Under the Aug. 7 front-page headline “Political parties trade blame for U.S. rating downgrade,” Zachary A. Goldfarb presented a “balanced” story of finger-pointing over last week’s downgrade by Standard & Poor’s that was largely based on the fight over the debt ceiling.
Whose finger-pointing was more justified? Goldfarb’s 25 paragraphs carefully danced around this question.
As my admittedly left-leaning finger moved away from his article, the answer was just inches away: “The origins of a showdown” pointed out how House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) pushed the Republicans to use the threat of default to achieve their government-slashing goals.
By drawing on his colleagues’ work, Goldfarb could have evaluated both sides’ claims instead of just repeating their talking points.
Dave Kung, Lexington Park