Stabilizing Welfare Rolls

Concerning the Dec. 16 article on the stabilization of the welfare rolls, the writer stated that the welfare levels may never decrease because of (among other reasons) the increasing number of adult and teen-age women who give birth out of wedlock then become dependent on government assistance. The statistics stated were of the rise in births out of wedlock this year relative to 1970, which may or may not have anything to do with an increase in welfare recipients since no statistics relating the two were cited. The information given and the way it was presented is fodder for those religious right politicians who demonize unwed mothers.

I would like to make a few points in defense of those unwed mothers who are on welfare.

If the fathers, who are half responsible for the mother’s situation, paid for 50% of the costs of the child, a lot fewer of these women would be on welfare.

Let those who have never had sex out of marriage cast the first stone and pass judgment on these women for having sex.

No birth control is 100% effective or without side effects.

And, aren’t these women doing exactly what the religious right would want them to do, that is, keeping their babies instead of having abortions? Now that these mothers have made this decision, the religious right wishes to punish them by taking away the help they need. How is a young woman, alone, able to pay for herself, a child and day care on minimum wage?

Let us not forget that for every unwed mother there is an unwed father who, more times than not, has shirked his responsibilities.

PATTI HUDSON

Co-coordinator, Simi-Conejo Chapter

National Organization for Women

* I offer a simple solution to a major disaster.

Every time a woman delivers a baby out of wedlock, she pays a fine of $10,000. If she can’t pay it, she serves 10 years in prison, sans baby. If she can point out the baby’s father, the father shall be compelled to pay half the fine, or serve half of the 10-year prison sentence.

If the unwed mother can demonstrate convincingly that the baby was the result of rape or incest, the father shall pay the $10,000 fine, serve the 10-year prison term and submit to a surgical procedure that will guarantee he will never father another baby.

In family breakup situations, such as divorce, when children are involved, the spouse that initiates the proceedings shall be compelled to take the children and provide for their upbringing. Failure to perform adequately shall result in the penalties described above.

At the same time, the states shall offer mothers and fathers a cash bonus, or a tax cut, for every baby delivered within the sanctuary of marriage. If it is a tax cut, it shall continue until the child reaches maturity as long as the parents stay together and raise the child together.

This approach is radical, but the magnitude of the problem has reached crisis proportions. When a natural disaster occurs, the government applies emergency procedures. This is such an emergency, and it calls for appropriate measure to stem the flood and rebuild society.

SHMUEL ERDE

Los Angeles

* Your article on the GOP contract (Dec. 18) explores myriad angles of what could happen if the basic welfare-state philosophy of the past 60 years (that of the government’s role as income redistributor), is to be diminished, and finds the prospect “chilling.”

The article states “more Americans are now living below the poverty line, including more children since 1965.” How should a working family feel after several generations of sacrifices into a system that swallows everything down the drain?

GEORGE CALOYANNIDIS

Los Angeles