For proof that “A Christmas Carol” is a timeless story, we have Peter Roff’s column saying we are doing “too much to help the poor.” Gotta love the timing. The first sentence should have been: “are there not poor houses, are there no debtor prisons?” Blaming poor people for being lazy is timeless. Changing this mindset is difficult, but maybe Roff will be visited by three ghosts and change his mind. One can only hope. ’Tis the season, after all.
Peter Roff’s Wednesday editorial is full of sloppy thinking.
He attacks helping the poor but criticizes programs not limited to poor people. He criticizes unemployment benefits but doesn’t mention that the benefits are temporary, not limited to the poor, and funded partly by payroll taxes paid by workers to receive coverage.
He attacks Obamacare subsidies, which aren’t limited to poor families, and their apparent generosity reflects high health insurance costs. Those subsidies aren’t regular income; their use is limited to health care coverage.
He omits antipoverty programs limited to truly poor people, such as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. Since its “reform” in 1996, the number of poor families with children receiving help has plunged, but the number of poor families with children has not declined significantly. Most families leaving the program remain poor.
He claims generous social programs discourage working; he provides no rigorous proof. He neglects to mention that American employers have pressed down salaries and benefits for workers for years. Since the mid-1970s, the share of the nation’s income going to the poorest 60% of families has steadily declined; the share going to the richest 20% has steadily increased. Roff doesn’t seem to think that compensation affects whether people seek jobs.
He also omits assistance programs for middle class and upper class families and businesses. America’s most expensive federal housing program does not help poor people. Many U.S. corporations receive subsidies from all levels of government. Apparently he approves governments aiding businesses and wealthy Americans; only helping the poor distresses him.
Can we evolve fast enough?
My previous letter (Dec. 21) noted the need for slow change to allow time for necessary adjustments to higher temperatures. That slowing is needed more now than in the past and the time to change is now — as much as we can and as soon as we can. Carbon dioxide, methane and some other gasses cause heating of Earth and atmosphere. Rising snow coverage area also changes radiation in and out but the effect of clouding and added gasses is more important. We have added carbon dioxide by burning fossil fuels since the 1600s and using steadily more for 400 years. Burning fossil fuels is not the only problem. Forest burning to open crop fields in Brazil sends the carbon stored in wood into the air. Methane from livestock manure rises into the air. Methane trapped in arctic ice is now being released by melting, which is very troubling. There are additional cases. That is why we should be concerned about climate change. The rising level of carbon dioxide and other gasses adds additional capture of solar light energy reaching Earth. That adds to evaporation. When increased evaporation creates more water vapor and clouds, the temperature of Earth also rises. That is climate change.
Lack of action will lose the thousands of years of adjustment time to use God’s brilliant invention of evolution to slowly adapt for survival. Have we evolved enough now to see and react to this problem? If we at least slow the change some we will increase future generations’ chance to evolve fast enough to survive.
