As an economist, it was made more distressful by his lack of economic rigor.
By way of example:
Righeimer asserts the Haves in society work harder, are more productive, and create opportunities for the Have-nots. This veiled rendition of "trickle-down" economics may not withstand the Paris Hilton test.
Take the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, which were supposed to trickle down to the middle and lower income levels. It hasn't happened. The rich are getting richer, the poor poorer, and the middles are running in place.
I am a capitalist, but I don't believe we should be blind to its inequities. I also believe the beneficiaries of capitalism's largesse should be more accountable.
Two sidebars: 1) Nostalgic Righeimer asserts there was a time when the Haves (Peters in his parlance) outnumbered the Have-nots (Pauls), but I cannot find a single era in recorded human history when this was true; 2) He also pooh-poohs the notion that "people are dying in the streets from lack of health care."
Apparently, he missed the recent story of a woman writhing in pain for 45 minutes before her death on the floor of the emergency room at an L.A. hospital.
Let's have more facts and fewer assertions.
BOB SCHMIDT
Peters in Congress want to give Pauls money
Jim Righeimer does a great job to clarify the major distinction between Democrats and Republicans. The Democrats simply want to redistribute wealth and believe the average person doesn't know what is good for him and the populace needs the government to be in charge of everything.
If you don't think the Peters in Congress are trying to give your money to the Pauls, just take a look at what the Democrats are already trying to pull off in the form of higher taxes.
TERRY JOHNSTON
Initiative's intent has no legal significance
