• Front page
• Receive letters on your RSS reader

Paula Noonan of Littleton writes:

To Mike Rosen, government is almost universally bad or incompetent, except when it turns its “guns” outward to protect our borders. His April 27 column on the responsibilities of government shows how little he knows about how government works these days. He derides the “liberal” view that a principal sign of responsible government is when it takes care of the poor and weak among us.
If Rosen had attended the 25th annual CWEE luncheon sponsored by Newmont Mining at the Denver Center, he would know that taking care of the poor IS a principal responsibility of government. CWEE, a non profit, helps poor women, often abused and always with low self regard, find jobs.
CWEE’s clients are referred by government social service agencies. That is, these women must attend CWEE classes in order to receive their government services. Upon completion of CWEE programs, these women seek jobs from employers who are willing to give them the leg up they need to move ahead with their lives. These poor women receive services from government first, then CWEE, then find jobs with partnering employers.
Everyone at the CWEE luncheon learned just how important turning around the lives of the poor is to the moral core of this country - and how competent government is an essential element to making that happen.

This letter has not been edited.

READER COMMENTS

It is not in the constitutional purview of the federal government to subsidize the lives of "the poor and weak among us."

The government can and must remove obstacles and encumbrances from people, to allow them to seek freedom and prosperity on their own.

But understand: When free people put their own encumbrances on themselves -- those circumstances that make it difficult to succeed -- government should bear no responsibility to correct them.

Government's role is not to protect us from ourselves. Looking for charity? There are plenty of them out there.

With all due respect, you have Mike Rosen all wrong, as you probably do all of us on the conservative end of the politcal spectrum. We are NOT against a social safety net. We are against consistently and constantly growing it. We currently spend $1.7 TRILLION out of a $2.9 TRILLION annual federal budget on social programs and income redistribution to people that need help. Is that not enough? How much is enough? We only spend $500 billion out of that annually on defense of the country. And defense of the country is actually WRITTEN into the US Constitution. I am tired of the accusations from the left that we on the right are heartless because we do not wish to give you every damn dime you want for every damn social program you think will help someone. That accusation has no merit when you look at what we now spend. So lighten up.

Since you make these outrageous claims Michael, which are likely false, particularly in light of your rhetorical phrase "income redistribution", I'm forced to counter with some actual verifiable information. This is a website with an agenda (best I have on short notice), but they correctly, and right up front, link to the actual U.S. budget figures, so if you think there are any errors in their pie, you can check the actual budget. You call Rosen a conservative? From where I'm sitting, he looks like just another rabble rouser on talk radio.

Sorry, here it is.

http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm

POST A COMMENT

• 'Kid Nation' reality show a new low
• Rivers a shameful hire
• Too little news
• ‘Diesel’ fumes
• Unlocalized story a disservice to readers
• Riled up by Christian music
• Darling of the left
• Solutions too costly