To the Editor:
Re “Millions at Risk of Medicaid Loss if G.O.P. Wins Cuts” (front page, Feb. 26):
Modern Republicans have been striving, by tax cuts, anti-regulation, agency defunding, characterizing government as “the problem” and accusing government agencies of corruption and fraud, to just get rid of it altogether. And the reason? Freedom to exploit natural resources, material resources, intellectual resources and human resources to exhaustion without hindrance to accrue immense wealth and power.
Republicans are living and operating in a post-truth world. One obvious example of the lies and fraud they foist upon the public concerns the efficiency of two of the largest government programs designed to directly benefit the public: Social Security and Medicare.
The overhead and administrative costs to run Medicare are less than 4 percent of its spending; Social Security overhead and administrative costs are less than 1 percent. Elon Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency considers those statistics signs of waste and fraud and is working to “improve” them by privatization, where overhead and administration costs run much higher.
Programs like Medicaid and Social Security show why government exists in the first place. The state performs essential functions that the private sector isn’t capable of doing or chooses not to do. It also protects the public and the public interest from private sector abuses; the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which President Trump and his cabal have moved to shut down, is one of the agencies no longer looking out for individuals.
All the new expenses created by this slashing will be paid for by the public, and will further line the pockets of the new privateers. One hundred years ago, we called them robber barons.
Steven Boyer
St. Paul, Minn.
To the Editor:
As the executive director of the National Alliance on Mental Illness in New York State, I know firsthand the effect that Medicaid coverage can have on people with mental illness and their families. That’s why I’m so concerned that Congress is considering major funding cuts to Medicaid that would put access to mental health care at risk for millions in need.
Medicaid is a lifeline for more than 70 million Americans, including people with mental health and substance use conditions, pregnant women, children, people with disabilities, working families and veterans. It’s also the largest funder of mental health and substance use care in the United States.
If these cuts are carried out, they will make it more difficult, or even impossible, for many people in New York State to maintain insurance coverage and access to mental health care. In truth, these cuts wouldn’t truly save money; they would shift the costs to those in need of care.
We at NAMI in New York State urge our senators, Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, and our House representatives to say “no” to any efforts to cap or cut Medicaid funding to our communities. During an ongoing mental health crisis throughout our state, these cuts would be disastrous.
Nathan McLaughlin
Menands, N.Y.
To the Editor:
All major religions — and moral tales of every sort — teach that those who can help others in need should. It’s a basic tenet of a good and decent life.
President Trump and his Republican supporters are attempting the opposite. Their primary goal is to give money mostly to the wealthy — with an expected $4.5 trillion in tax cuts. To help finance that, they plan to take money from people far less well off — by cutting Medicaid, for example, and other services that support those in need.
The attempts to rationalize this by suggesting that states will assume the burdens of payment are flawed. There’s a reason the federal government has always borne a huge share of Medicaid costs; most states don’t have the money to do so, and they still don’t.
President Trump’s plan could be summarized: Take from the poor and give to the rich. I would have never thought so many people would actually support that.
Sheldon Hirsch
Wilmette, Ill.
To the Editor:
We have gone from war on poverty to war on the poor.
I’m a little concerned about the moral arc of the universe.
Larry DuBois
Salt Lake City
It’s Extremism, Not Science
To the Editor:
Re “Farmers Sue Government Over Deletion of Online Climate Data” (news article, Feb. 25):
The removal of climate change references from government websites is based upon extremist ideology, not analysis or science. This is the cartoonish, Ayn Rand “minimal state” version of libertarianism, which limits the functions of government to police actions, courts and a military.
The primary goal of such a government is allegedly to protect private property. Sadly, this version of protection is counterproductive.
There is little value in owning a farm that is decimated by extreme weather, or a home that is blown off its foundation by a Category 5 hurricane.
Indiscriminate exaggeration of the benefits of unlimited individual freedom precludes social cooperation. Without it, the general welfare evaporates, leaving atomized individuals lacking resources to cope with preventable disasters, from epidemics to environmental degradation.
Gary Stewart
Laguna Beach, Calif.
Trump, Kafka and Beckett
To the Editor:
Re “Chorus of Vengeance at Purged Kennedy Center” (White House Memo, front page, Feb. 22):
Are we living in the twisted world of a Kafka novel, or an absurdist Beckett play?
Every day, our president behaves in ways that overturn everything we thought we knew. Is there a federal program to prevent disease, to help the needy, to respond to disasters that hasn’t been gutted? Is there an economist who isn’t predicting financial doom because of President Trump’s 19th-century economic fantasies? Is there a country in the world that respects or trusts us anymore?
And nothing is too small, too petty, too trivial for his disruptive touch. Purge the Kennedy Center? What’s next, doing away with pennies? (Oh wait, he’s doing that too.) Maybe invade Canada or Panama or Greenland? (Never mind …)
Every day, I pick up my copy of The New York Times with a heavy heart, knowing I’ll read something that leaves me distressed, confused and confounded. We would be living in the funniest moment in history if it weren’t so tragic and absurd.
Mark Schannon
Tucson, Ariz.
The Long View
To the Editor:
Regarding your articles about the Trump administration:
I am 101 years old and have lived through the Great Depression, Pearl Harbor and World War II.
My husband, at age 18, was in the U.S. Army and sent to Europe. He was in several battles and was deep in German territory when the war ended in 1945. It took sacrifice and work for all of us.
I know a darling 6-year-old girl. With all of the chaos in the White House, what will be in her future?
Marion J. Veale
New York
To the Editor:
I am 82 years old and used to be motivated to live long enough to see my young grandchildren grow up. But now I am equally motivated by wanting to see our leadership change to folks who are not merely capable but also moral and empathetic.
Is that too much to hope for?
Elizabeth Rosenthal
Larchmont, N.Y.
