Re "Food stamp economics," Editorial, Nov. 3
Hurrah for the conservative rollback of food stamp benefits, thus saving our glorious republic $5 billion or so.
Unremarked upon, more than 16% of the people of our fair land live in poverty, and it is getting worse; more than that percentage of our children go to bed hungry every night.
Biomedical science is awash with studies that establish the relation of calorie and protein deprivation in both unborn and young children to a host of diseases in later life. These include hypertension, cardiovascular and metabolic diseases, and brain damage and neuropsychiatric problems. These can be transmitted through generations.
Conservatives are waging a highly successful war against President Obama's vision, and fortunately, that conflict will last only two more years. But why must they also wage a war against the poverty-stricken and poor children of our land, which will have devastating consequences for generations to come?
Lawrence D. Longo, MD
The Times recognizes the need to support the hungry, but I would question the use of stimulus money to do this. Stimulus money is basically borrowed funds that should be spent on stimulating the economy (like an investment) in a way that generates income to help the poor.
A better way to utilize stimulus money may be to create incentives for nonprofit organizations to support the needy. Nonprofits can raise the money to pay for these needs of our nation and continue to generate support for the poor. This stimulus makes sense because it encourages income generation via charities.
Maureen Kris Halikis