Cardinal Mahony on the Poor
* Let me begin by stating how proud I am to be Catholic, with the voices of Pope John Paul II and our own archbishop, Cardinal Roger Mahony (Commentary, Nov. 3), leading us out of darkness and into the light. What do we stand for as Americans and as believers? Do we see the “other” in those around us? Or do we feel frightened and threatened by “them”? Can we not see our own children in the faces of the poor children around us? Would you want your neighbor to deny your son or daughter a meal, an opportunity, a hope because they don’t want you dependent on a handout?
Can you imagine someone helping you secure a decent job with adequate child care so you can get on your feet? Can you imagine that heartfelt giving? Could that giver possibly be you?
JOAN HARPER
La Canada
* How ironic that Cardinal Mahony is seeking a moral commitment to change the “conditions” that force families to seek public assistance. Isn’t one of those “conditions” too many to feed, clothe and shelter?
It’s time the Catholic Church took some responsibility for its contribution to “family poverty” due to its position on birth control. It’s so obvious that the lack of family planning plays a major part in the poverty cycle that sometimes I wonder if there isn’t a conspiracy by the church to ensure their control by maintaining the status quo. JILL WATKINS
Corona del Mar
* In “Serving Up Welfare as a Half-Full Glass” (Nov. 4) you pictured social workers as cheerfully forcing mothers into jobs that pay slightly more than minimum wage, with no training. Minimum wage provides take-home pay of $620, provided nothing is taken out for federal or state income tax. Let’s say they get $650. If a woman has three children, that might cover rent and child care, leaving nothing for food, clothing, utilities, transportation, taxes, medical care, haircuts, school supplies and household supplies and goods.
What will happen to women and their children if they are forced into minimum-wage jobs and then cut off from any supplemental assistance for the rest of their lives, with no raise in the minimum wage, no effective enforcement of child support, no child-care centers, no universal health care and big cuts in food stamps, school lunch and other nutritional programs?
PEARL MUNAK
Paso Robles
* Terry Paulson’s letter on Nov. 3 misses the point of the writer’s own “honest” facts. Paulson states that the top 5% of income earners pay 47.3% of all federal income taxes while the bottom 50% paid only 4.8%, and accordingly the achievers are being penalized. But if one factors in the fact that the top 1% of the country controls 40% of its wealth, it would appear that the burden of America’s social contract with the poor is falling somewhere else--more than likely on those people between the bottom 50% and the top 1%.
Paulson’s letter is a very good example of how well the wealthy use the poor to scare the middle class. Middle-class Americans are so angry at the poor and wrapped up in what the wealthy are saying that they fail to see that they are being conned.
MICHAEL RUBAL
Hollywood