Hillary Clinton on Welfare

* Writing against the Republican reform of the school lunch program, Hillary Rodham Clinton calls the plan “mean-spirited” (Commentary, March 14). It’s a rhetorical flourish indeed, since Clinton fails to mention there would be more funding under the Republican plan than under her husband’s. The key difference: The funds would be administered by the states under the Republican plan, by the bureaucrat corps in D.C. under her husband’s. The Republican plan is only “mean-spirited” to the interests of the established Washington bureaucrats.

MICHAEL LAWLER

Los Angeles

* Every time I read one of Hillary Clinton’s reheated sermons on what is owed to other people, it becomes increasingly apparent why her husband’s presidency is doomed. The frustration of the middle class is legitimate: We are being held to one standard and those on public assistance are being held to another. People on welfare appear to be able to indulge any self-destructive whim without penalty while the rest of us are expected to behave.

If I were to ask my employer for a raise because I was expecting a child, I would be told that my personal decisions do not increase his financial obligations toward me. This sort of response, which Clinton might call “mean,” keeps me from littering the landscape with children I cannot afford. I would not be so resentful of her husband’s helping himself to half my paycheck if I felt he was encouraging a more self-disciplined world, but, inexplicably, he is not.

SUSAN L. SELF

Los Angeles

* OK, I’ve solved it. All the problems in this country are caused by working mothers. Therefore, all mothers should stay home with their children. If there is no other income earner, then these mothers are entitled to welfare. No! Wait! No woman can have a baby unless she is married to a man who can support her and the children. If an unmarried woman gets pregnant, she must have an abortion. No! Wait! She must marry the father, or put the baby up for adoption. This goes double for women whose husbands have disappeared. Taxpayers will support all these children in orphanages. No! Wait! All women with children must remain married, even if the husband is abusive. No! Wait! Why can’t a woman in an obviously abusive relationship just leave? She will be entitled to welfare for support. No! Wait! She must go to work to be self-supporting. No! Wait! A mother must stay home with her children . . .

Hmmm. I see a pattern here. All the problems in this country are caused by unwed fathers. Perhaps we should begin to raise more responsible sons . . .

JOANNE RONCAGLIA

Irvine

* The Republicans recognize a genuine social problem when they point to teen-agers bearing illegitimate babies they cannot afford to raise. Unfortunately, they refuse to recognize the solution: early sex education, school-supplied contraceptives and subsidized abortion on demand.

LEE RILEY

Beverly Hills

* Clinton states, “Being American is not about being rich, poor or middle-class.” Good for her. This endless attempt to stratify society by class and income is extremely polarizing. One only hopes her credo is observed more frequently by her husband, Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.), David Bonior (D-Mich.) and other Democratic leaders, who can’t seem to avoid such divisive rhetoric every time they step before a microphone.

RICHARD JACOBSON

Reseda

* Re “U.S. Aid for Illiterate Women Outlined,” March 9:

At a time when all the talk in Washington is budget cuts and the liberals are wailing over the loss of revenue to fund their sacred programs, Hillary Clinton proposes to give $100 million taxpayer dollars to--get this--women who are citizens of and living in foreign countries.

The purpose for this munificent largess is to raise the level of literacy. By her own confirmation, a higher standard of literacy is of immeasurable benefit to the economic well-being of those countries whose governments have invested in this strategy. Since this is so, why cannot those governments continue to fund those projects?

ALFRED LORONA

Oxnard

* At last! Someone who inhabits the real world! I wish Peter Barnes’ commentary (“Welfare Is Integral to Our System,” March 13) could be mandatory reading for everyone. Especially for our blind and isolated politicians in Washington who inhabit a place they have concocted in order to avoid reality. They haven’t a clue.

But they are in for a rude awakening when neediness, despair and crime skyrocket. And when our abandoned poor are forced to beg, steal and starve in the streets. Still, those in Washington, and far too many others in our population, are determined to turn us into a Third World country. We are already well on our way.

MARY O’DELL

Santa Monica