Rosen on Welfare

Ruth Rosen’s Dec. 27 Column Left on welfare seems to miss the point about current demands for reform. According to the Congressional Research Service, $210 billion was spent by the federal and state governments in 1990 on “cash and non-cash benefits for persons with limited income.” As Charles Murray has pointed out, that works out to $6,270 for every man, woman, and child under the poverty line, which was $6,652 for a single, unrelated individual in 1990. So, we are spending a good deal of money, but we are not getting peaceful neighborhoods with healthy and happy children in exchange.

Instead, we have an explosion of illegitimate births, now around 30% for whites and 66% for blacks, which as most scholars have observed, is bad for children independently of poverty. It can be directly related to crime and the perpetuation of a welfare class. It is this explosion which drives the welfare budget. Murray believes that illegitimacy is the central social problem of our time, that its spread threatens the underpinning of a free society, and that the current welfare system encourages and rewards unwed motherhood. Welfare reform needs to have as a goal the reduction of the number of children conceived by unmarried women. We have to restore the social opprobrium and moral sanctions that used to accompany unwed pregnancy. And we need to provide economic disincentives, instead of the present incentives, for such unwed pregnancy.

CARL B. PEARLSTON JR.

Torrance

Rosen rhetorically asks who isn’t taking welfare, then goes on to equate tax deductions and government-backed student loans as welfare. No, no Ruth. Welfare is when the government takes money from those who work and gives it to those who do not. Tax deductions are when the government takes less of what someone has earned. To confuse the two is to demonstrate the arrogance of liberals, who in their heart of hearts believe that the government is entitled to a person’s assets, and is generous by not taking it all.

Rosen also calls the voters who repudiated the Democrats in November “mean.” Such name-calling is ugly, sanctimonious and counterproductive. It also demonstrates shallow thinking. To Rosen, to disagree is to lack compassion. The fact is, one can be just as concerned about the have-nots in our society and still disagree with liberal policies. Compassion as an individual trait is commendable; compassion as government policy has proved itself to be a disaster. If believing that makes me “mean” I’ll accept the label. It will carry no more sting, however, than when my 13-year-old calls me “mean” for making him do his chores.

JAMES L. BASS

Thousand Oaks

Many of us can remember when Americans willingly gave money to provide food, education, and medical care for children in Africa and Asia. Now we elected people to represent us in Sacramento and Washington who apparently don’t care whether children on our streets receive such treatment.

Please tell our representatives that compassion for others is a most important part of the American Dream, and that convincing their colleagues of this is a most important service that they can do for us. There is a place for religious values in politics, and this is it.

ROBERT H. FROST

San Luis Obispo

Rosen omitted one clear-cut case of welfare for the wealthy and well-off.

While there is a basis for the claim that retirees paid for Medicare Part A through deductions while working, and are therefore entitled to the benefit, the same is not true of Medicare Part B. Only about one-fourth of Part B cost is paid by the retiree, generally by a deduction from the Social Security monthly payment. The other 75%, amounting to almost $1,500 per year, is a pure gift from the federal treasury.

Why?

GENE BARMORE

Huntington Beach

I was outraged to read the ridiculous comments by Patti Hudson of the National Organization for Women (letter, Dec. 28) about pregnant women on the welfare rolls. Why is it that liberal organizations such as NOW choose to deal with these types of problems after they occur, instead of with prevention! Instead of making excuses for these people she should be reminding them of their responsibility to society. If a person is making the minimum wage or is unemployed then she should make certain that she does not become pregnant. If this means abstinence, then so be it.

The people in this country sent a load of messages to Washington this past November. One of those was, we don’t want to be saddled with the expense of raising the child of a woman who can’t afford to do it herself.

MICHAEL J. DUFFY

Woodland Hills