Government programs wind up enslaving the poor Re: “Wealthy residents use plenty of city services,” From Readers, Sept. 30
Mr. Rosenstein’s critique of Harry Jaffe’s column concerning the “soak the rich” mentality in D.C. seems to miss the point. No one is arguing that the city should defund essential services. Mr. Rosenstein and other like-minded wealth redistributionists often use this tired old argument as a basis for justifying higher taxes.
However, his claim that raising taxes on the rich somehow magically brings people out of poverty is wrong. Government housing and supplementary income schemes raise the cost of goods and services and promote a permanent “poor class” trapped by the very programs that seek to help them. These programs also contribute to monetary inflation, which disproportionately harms the poor.
We will only be able to significantly reduce the number of Americans living in poverty when we accept the fact that the Great Society failed, and seek to empower the economically disadvantaged rather than enslave them with more programs at the expense of everyone else.
Matthew Hurtt
Arlington
Poor customer service reason for lost ridership
Re: “Metro sues insurer over ridership loss from Red Line crash,” Sept. 28
WMATA is a great example of a poorly run government-funded entity. If Metro officials are looking for the reasons for declining ridership, they need not look beyond their horrible service.
From broken elevators and escalators, to lack of policing that results in litter in the cars and on the station platforms, to the do-nothing station managers who sit in their booths and chat on their cell phones while tourists struggle to figure out the farecard machines, Metro has a chronic problem with poor customer service.
As with private industry, poor service generally results in lower sales. There’s no reason that the insurance company should pay for WMATA’s poor management.
Scott Wathne
Washington
Congress planned Postal Service’s demise
As a unionized letter carrier for 23 years, I consider myself a libertarian and agree with many of the general principles that motivated the recent rise of the Tea Party. I believe people should earn what they get and keep what they earn. But the government is stealing $5 billion a year from me and my co-workers.
For the last 40 years, all of the U.S. Postal Service’s costs of doing business (wages, salaries, equipment and infrastructure costs) came from the monies paid to buy our goods and services, just like any successful private business. Not one penny comes from taxes, even though we are required to charge the same rates in rural areas as we do in more heavily populated ones, and for political reasons to charge a rate on “junk mail” that allows us to do little more than break even.
In 2006, Congress compelled the Postal Service to make a yearly payment of over $5 billion to prefund retiree pensions for the next 75 years, which is not required of any other public or private enterprise. But the money already paid into the system is gone, replaced with an IOU from the City of Broken Promises. The actual legislation pretty much guarantees that the Postal Service will run out of money, with Washington keeping the unused funds from retirees who probably won’t exist.
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., described repealing this tax as a “bailout,” but you don’t do someone a favor by not stealing from them anymore. Conservative leaders are more interested in rewarding friends and punishing (perceived) enemies than standing up for principle.
Casey R. Conner
Racine, Wis.
