Dowling on Entitlements
* Katherine Dowling’s commentary, “Redefining ‘Have’ and ‘Have Not’ ” (May 10), represents some of the most specious reasoning to grace your pages. Moving from the case of one welfare mother who stays home to take care of her child--not necessarily the best source for an overview of the origin, development and consequences of the entire social support system in place throughout the U.S.--Dowling moves on to conclude that the happy, carefree recipients of Aid to Families With Dependent Children, Social Security and Social Security Disability benefits are the great winners in society because they have “free time.”
Yeah, sure. In exchange for the “dole,” which provides a subsistence existence below the federal poverty level, moms get to play patty-cake, seniors master shuffleboard and the disabled do those fun things disabled people do.
Perhaps the depth of the anger and ignorance Dowling displays stems from personal circumstances. Maybe she is, in fact, too busy as a doctor earning an income in the top 5% of incomes in the country to have any “free” time.
JIM AITKEN
Marina del Rey
* Dowling’s “call for a redistribution of the most precious commodity of all: time” and the contribution of community service by able-bodied recipients of public entitlements leads me to suggest an equitable modification to entitlement programs: a two-tiered system in which recipients who perform a certain monthly minimum of documented community service for nonprofit organizations receive a higher entitlement benefit than those who do not. The benefit to the community in increased parks maintenance, day-care help, teachers’ assistance, youth mentoring, urban cleanup and the many other valuable products of “third sector” efforts should greatly exceed the cost of the extra layer of bureaucracy this two-tiered entitlement system would entail.
GREGORY WRIGHT
Sherman Oaks
* I agree with Dowling that time is the most precious commodity. As such, it would be highly arrogant for working parents to demand it from others, entitlements or not--especially retirees, who have earned their leisure after working all of their adult lives.
No one has to have children. Those who make this choice must bear the responsibility of making time for them. People already pressed for time should think twice and then again before adding children to their lives. I wonder if Dowling would also like to “conscript” people like myself who are working and married, yet have no children.
JENNIE PEURON
Santa Ana
* Three views of parenthood in today’s issue, each one different and all conflicting:
First, a letter from a birth parent critical of “rich” adoptive parents and advocating the outlawing of most adoptions and developing ways to help young birth mothers keep their children. Next, the commentary from Dowling deploring single mothers who avail themselves of public entitlements so that they can keep and raise their children. Last, an article by an adoptive parent, describing the criticism faced by the young birth mother of her child when her peers found out she was not planning to raise her child.
If the welfare of our children is one of our society’s most important concerns, why can’t we be more tolerant of the various ways parents seek to ensure it?
CATHERINE M. ADAMS
Agoura Hills