Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowThough I often disagree with Sheila Suess Kennedy, I found her [Dec. 1] column regarding ALICE—Asset Limited, Income Constrained and Employed—to be right on target.
There are single moms and some dads fretting about putting enough food on the table let alone providing a nice Christmas for their children. It is gut-wrenching!
At the end of her provocative column, Kennedy admits to being “troubled by the policy choices that keep [ALICE] ‘asset limited, income-constrained and employed.’”
We cannot ignore the root causes of much of these problems—poor education, social mores that destroy the family, and tax and “benefit” policies that exacerbate the problem.
If providing food, shelter, etc., to the non-working, how do we help those who work but make insufficient wages to provide a decent living?
Chasing major corporations out of America with horrid, misguided tax policies are not the answer. Asking more of the middle class, already squeezed by higher and higher taxes and soaring, non-subsidized higher education costs, is not the answer. More and more of the failed neo-socialism by the left is not the answer.
Many of my conservative friends may disagree with me, but part of the answer lies with that great economist Milton Friedman and his “negative income tax” proposal. Before we say no, I urge us all to take a look. Friedman was brilliant and could explain complex proposals simply.
There are too many Americans wallowing in the misery created by bad government policy at all levels and by both major parties. It is time to look at something different.
__________
John L. Sorg, McCordsville
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.