LETTERS: Finding real solutions to the poverty problem

To the Editor: It is beyond my comprehension how people can be up in arms over "workfare," a program that requires people to work in order to receive welfare benefits. It is not the government's money being spent on welfare, but ours, collected through taxes we all pay. If I am giving my money to somebody, I want them to be working for it. That is not demeaning. My parents have to work to put food on the table. After graduating, I will have to do the same thing. I expect people on welfare should have to do the same. Workfare programs have been successful in states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Massachusettes. Further, the column's authors offerred no strategies to reduce poverty in America. They forgot that the current welfare system is bad for the poor. Over the past 30 years, it has destroyed the work ethic, created a cycle of dependency and prevented people from getting out of poverty. Instead of continuing the failed programs of the past 30 years, the government needs to find new ways to rid urban areas of poverty. One of the best ways is through the creation of "empowerment zones." which allow businesses to invest in poor areas for significant tax breaks. These empowerment zones allow investment into poorer neighborhoods, creating jobs for residents and reducing the welfare rolls. It is time to end the cycle of dependency in America's inner cities of America, and it is time to find real solutions. The key is job creation in poor neighborhoods. It is appalling that people can support our present welfare system, which is destroying the fabric of American families, promoting single parenthood and creating a permanent American underclass. Keith Largay Wharton '00 On personal value To the Editor: Guest columnist John Mamoun has enlightened us to what justice in this country should be ("Execute Sled's murders," DP, 11/14/96). Because of his column, I'm going to start carrying a copy of my resume in my wallet. My education and job experience should guarantee me the comfort that if, God forbid, anyone of "lesser aggregate value" ever tries to kill me, I can rest knowing my murderer will be executed. On the other hand, if any Penn student, faculty or staff member wanted to harm someone of "lesser value," according to Mamoun, we would be totally justified, since that person would not be as beneficial to society. The victim should have absolutely no bearing on how justice is served. Who are any of us to place worth on a person's life? In Sled's case, one (or more) human being(s) killed another human being. That should be the only factor in sentencing. What else would my aggregate value earn me, according to Mamoun's logic? Could I go to the front of the line at Thriftway because I study engineering at Penn? Could I blatantly break laws because my degree will award me "high-quality" status with the potential to improve society? Or can I get away with punching Mamoun in the face, because I as a senior am closer to achieving my "high-quality" degree? Mamoun's column immediately reminded me of the post-slavery "Jim Crow" era, when ex-slaves were valued at three-fifths of whites. It seems as if Mamoun wants to take our society back 100 years. I would like to know how race would factor into Mamoun's "new and improved" distributive justice system. I, too, was shocked and upset by the news that a distinguished member of the Penn community was killed last month. But to want to execute his murderer(s) solely because Mamoun feels Sled was of "higher-quality" is a slap in the face to those of us saddened by the loss of life itself. Clayton Wynter Engineering '97 Clearing the record To the Editor: I must agree with Mick Lewis's response (Letters, DP, 11/15/96) to Mike Liskey's misinterpretation of the Beatles song "Revolution." Liskey clearly missed Lennon's overtly sarcastic tone when quoting the lyrics in his recent column ("A second revolutionary idea," DP, 11/7/96). While Lewis's eagerness to set the record straight concerning the Beatles is much appreciated, the inaccuracy in his own letter must be pointed out: It would be very difficult for "Lennon's bones to roll over in his grave" due to Liskey's column, since Lennon was, in fact, cremated. George Pasles College '97