To the Editor:

I read the "opinion letter" printed in the August issue (page 9) and realized that while the writer is obviously a talented person, she earns a lower grade for her skill in economics and political savvy.

A distinct economic difference exists between the meaning of the common terms "costs" and "prices." The government controls nearly 80 percent of the "prices" charged for medical services. Yet government bureaucracies do not control "costs"—only free markets do that. Political interference in free markets skewers their function, and if lower medical "costs" are desired, the conversation can begin by reducing the government's influence in setting "prices."

Further, our country's indebtedness has grown from $1.6 billion per day during the G.W. Bush administration to $4.1 billion per day during the Obama administration; that's an unsustainable increase of 156 percent in less than three years. The increased liquidity results in a greater number of cheaper dollars chasing essentially the same production of goods and services. When that occurs, it takes more of the cheaper dollars to buy the same unit of goods.

Exxon has a market capitalization of over $400 billion, and risks that amount each day to locate, harvest, refine, and transport gasoline to the local stations. For all of this work they earn 8.6 percent on revenue; Conoco-Phillips makes 6.5 percent. A return of such an amount is hardly a sign of greed.

I'm sure you've also noticed that groceries are taking more of your dollars. Why is it that we never hear of a grocery manager being called greedy? Many industries make a much greater return than the oil industry, and no one complains of their greed.

Americans must learn that, when a government debases its currency, imported products will cost more and exports will cost less. Inflation is a monetary problem, and the govern-ment is responsible for money management through the central bank.

It certainly does appear from the increased level of discretionary spending during these past months that our legislators have lost all consciousness of fiscal discipline. And Americans seem to have developed a mentality that whatever is wanted becomes a "right," and all that must be done for it to become a reality is to raise taxes on some other group—never their own.

It was boldly stated by the author that the reason for her life's progress was because Democrats provided the chance for success. Quite the contrary, there is ample evidence that just the opposite is true. For instance, from the 1983 tax law to 2008, more wealth was created in America than in the previous 200 years; 44 million jobs were created. Unemployment in 2007 was 4.5 percent. Seventeen of those years were under Republican administrations. For six of the eight years of the Democratic administration, the Republicans controlled the House, where all revenue bills begin.

The number of folks having a difficult time understanding the enormity of the $14.5 trillion budget indebtedness and the over $100 trillion of unfunded mandates is interesting. Perhaps this simple analogy can help: If you equate one second to one dollar, and live one trillion seconds, you would live to be nearly 32,000 years old.

I understand that it is difficult to change one's mind, particularly with regard to long-held positions, but societal programs must be judged by their results and affordability, rather than the self-described purity of intentions.

—Richard Crump, Olathe