To the editor:

I would like to follow-up to a few responses to my recent letter commenting on Catherine Bayliss' Jan. 5 column. The most recent response came from Mr. Jerrold Oppenheim.

The point of my letter was not only to illuminate some specifics, which Ms. Bayliss seldom does, but also to show the larger context of what impacts an economy and to view things from a big picture perspective, not just a one-sided view. It isn't just about how much we are charging our neighbors - the professional couple who are doing well - and then complain about how they never seem to pay enough in taxes. Thanks to Mr. Oppenheim for helping to prove my point.

He states that the federal tax rate on average has dropped for people at the highest income levels. He is right, kudos.

He fails, however, to mention that, in 1968, the marginal tax rate was around 75 percent and maintained a level of 70 percent until Ronald Reagan entered office. How in the world do you expect to have a vibrant economy when you have a 70 percent tax rate. Rates had one direction to move in, and that was down.

In fact, when Reagan started his "revolution," most of the industrialized nations in the world followed suit, most notably in Europe, which helped to spark the renaissance of the new global economy. Another important point omitted. Why care about billions of dollars in growth and millions of new jobs?

Mr. Oppenheim also fails to note that when you lower the top tax rate in a formulaic manner in relation to GDP, it increases tax revenues collected, which increases the bottom line. You want people spending, creating jobs, consuming goods and services. That's a fact, not a sound bite. Or you can tax them to death, stunt growth and realize less in the U.S. Treasury and move things in the opposite direction. It's pretty simple.

Moreover, as far as the middle class and poverty rates in 1968 and beyond, illegal immigration was not at, or close to, a fever pitch. Globalization was limited because the needed technololgies did not exist yet.

We have 10 million to 15 million illegals driving down wages, taking jobs flooding our schools and hospitals and consuming public services. Similarly, now that technology has leapt forward and companies can globalize, where do you think jobs will go? As a result of these and other issues, what do you think is going to happen to the middle class and poverty rates? Let's realize the issues and their cause, not just crunch data and give numbers. What was happening in 1968 is vastly different than now. Again, Mr. Oppenheim fails to mention this.

Let's secure our borders and create incentives to keep jobs here, leaving the markets to operate freely. The iron grip of unions, along with the highest corporate tax rates in the world, as well as other factors, hinder our ability to compete. Let's start looking at things like businesspeople, and not like socialists with the "tax pen" ready to write. What substantive plans do Democrats have to fix these ills, if they don't embrace the ones I mention above?

My last point is about change starting with us, Americans. Mr. Oppenheim talks about high energy prices, the housing collapse; I'll go one further and throw in health care.

We consume more gasoline than a dozen other industrialized nations combined. We demand and drive the largest vehicles. We went to the table and purchased homes we couldn't afford or made ill-advised choices with out realizing the consequences. We also have the highest obesity rates on Earth and complain about the cost of health care. We want low prices at Wal-Mart but turn a blind eye to how it operates and what it costs us in the long run. We want to blame someone else for many of our problems and look to the government to help bail us out.

I guess there is always two ways to look at things. I feel privileged to live in a country where I can sit down at my kitchen table and write down a business idea or a dream and make it happen with perseverance and motivation, having the safety and freedom to do so.



EDWARD MALONEY

Granite Street, Rockport