In response to Linda Tableman’s letter, “Which Vision Works For You?” (Sept. 14): It’s what I see that worries me.

She claims 80 percent of esteemed economists rate the stimulus a success, but I have yet to see any tangible benefit. What I see is 50 percent less pay since the stimulus.

What I see is an esteemed economist, Ben Bernanke, cranking up “QE3,” further diminishing my greatest asset — a paycheck — while disproportionately inflating the assets of the top 10 percent. Remember, esteemed economists claimed unemployment would be under 6 percent and GDP above 4 percent if the stimulus was passed. I haven’t seen that, have you?

She claims Bush destroyed the economy. How? Deregulation and tax cuts are the typical answer, yet it was the Clinton administration that deregulated the financial services industry and pushed Fannie and Freddie to increase exposure to sub-prime loans.

Stephen Holmes claimed the increased risk exposure could lead to a ’80s-style savings and loan mortgage crisis in a 1999 New York Times article. He was right. That was before Bush was running for president.

The confederacy of dunces that unleashed this crisis is littered with prominent Democrats, including members of the current adminstration.

When it comes to taxes and spending, I think two questions need to be posed. First, how do you have a just society if government asks the top 10-30 percent to pay for most of it?

Second, how did the government balance budgets in the late 1990s, spending or taxes? Back then, federal budgets were 18 percent of GDP. Today government spends 25 percent of GDP. The economy sputters, with stagnant revenue growth.

I see a monopolistic government cooking the numbers, playing favorites with the tax code, and recklessly spending money. Regardless of who’s elected, do you think this vision will change?

John Williams

Pinehurst