John Grimes seems to think there is a correlation between the level of funding for poverty programs and the number of people living in poverty.
Using the same logic, can we assume that shutting down Alcoholics Anonymous meetings would bring an end to alcoholism?
Perhaps Mr Grimes can look to the cause of the increase in poverty levels to find a solution to the problem, thus leading to the corresponding decrease in funding he craves?
We can only hope.
Curb welfare state“The April 5 editorial ‘Out of balance / House asks the poor to pay’ wrongly claims that antipoverty programs are necessary on the basis of a rising poverty rate and a ‘record’ number of Americans without health insurance.
If the poverty rate, which you assume to be a good indicator of actual poverty in the United States, is increasing, then why should we continue to fund the current antipoverty programs? How will throwing more money at the ‘problem’ actually do anything more than extend the welfare state for its own sake?
John Grimes, St. Paul.”