To the editor: Why is it that Veronique de Rugy’s op-eds always read like an intellectual exercise (“The inequality gap we should be talking about: marriage,” April 30)? We already knew that those programs mentioned give more benefit to single adults than to married couples. For once, I agree with her; she is right to say that this should change and equally benefit married couples.
But then she adds: ”Sometimes the most compassionate long-term answer is to remove the marriage penalty in welfare programs. Sometimes, it’s to have a smaller program or no program at all. We will never know until we honestly ask the question.”
She would have us believe that she seriously wonders whether a smaller or no program would be better?
Ask anyone at the threshold of poverty or already living poverty on a daily basis, living paycheck to paycheck in the U.S. (and there are millions), if it would be more compassionate to shrink or eliminate these programs. Then you’ll have your answer.
Marie Louise Mulligan, Manhattan Beach
..
To the editor: De Rugy cites a report, “Land of Opportunity: Advancing the American Dream,” to draw an unfounded conclusion that the government is not doing enough to promote marriage. This report was compiled by the American Enterprise Institute, which also promotes antiabortion and anti-woke ideology.
Elementary school children learn that both simple and complex problems often have more than one solution, yet De Rugy cites marriage as being the only solution worth talking about. Well, research has already given us multiple paths forward: better access to contraception, truthful and frank sex education, curbing intimate partner violence (research shows leaving such marriages leads to better outcomes for children) and respecting the autonomy of women.
Erin Keith, Mission Viejo