Where is government as the rich get richer — and the poor get poorer? | Letters
Here’s what readers are saying in Tuesday’s letters to the editor.
Some wealth is pretty easy to recognize.
Some wealth is pretty easy to recognize.
Published Oct. 5

Let’s pay for it

Wealth inequality is far worse than people guess | Column, Oct. 2

The problem with income and wealth inequality is that the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer. Not only have incomes of many Americans been stagnant, our citizens have been denied the resources that should have been invested in infrastructure and the social amenities that other advanced nations enjoy — universal health care, free preschool, affordable childcare and generous educational support. The oft refrain, “We can’t afford it,” is largely because the wealthy do not pay their fair share (proportionate to their enormous incomes). That is why President Joe Biden’s Build Back Better initiatives are absolutely critical. These proposals provide much-needed economic and social support for families — such things that citizens in other advanced countries take for granted. Most of the program’s expenditure of $3.5 trillion would be paid for by raising taxes primarily on multimillionaires and billionaires. Any remaining deficit is likely to be substantially offset by Build Back Better’s economic stimulus.

Robert White, Valrico

No mandate

Some Democrats offer to scale back spending | Oct. 4

Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are not the president and vice president. Democrats do not have a mandate. The federal elections were very close, and Democratic majorities are miniscule. All this is why the Democrats are having trouble implementing their bankrupting, wealth-redistributing “green new deal” agenda. Democrats need to compromise, work with their Republican counterparts, be bipartisan and get over this delusion that they have a mandate. They don’t.

Charles Sitero, Ormond Beach

For the birds

Florida, don’t kill our mockingbird | Column, Oct. 4

I agree with columnist Roy Peter Clark about the attempt to change the Florida state bird. He makes very convincing arguments against this action. Unfortunately, they’re only convincing to someone who cares a lot about birds. The better argument is, “Why?” With all the problems Florida is currently facing, why are we wasting even one minute of time on this? Surely, Sen. Jeff Brandes has many more important things to be involved in than changing the state bird. Mr. Clark explains why the mockingbird deserves its place in Florida. Sen. Brandes should drop this nonsense.

Mark Decker, Seminole