 |
Home | Search | Browse | About IPO | Staff | Links |
|
Home | Search | Browse | About IPO | Staff | Links |
|
Letters
Questioning the
Editor: It is quite dismaying to open the cover of Illinois Issues each month and see once again the totally meaningless compilation of reader responses to the "Question of the Month." While an individual's comments may well be worthy of publication, as in the Letters to the Editor section of the magazine, the report on the numbers of yeas and nays is worthless at best and most often misleading. In Innumeracy, Mathematical Illiteracy and Its Consequences, John Allen Paulos of Temple University writes about widespread ignorance, even among (or perhaps especially among) educated Americans, concerning the meaning of compilations. The most glaring and perhaps significant area of innumeracy in the area of public policy involves polls. Paulos writes:
Magazines and newspapers are notorious for announcing biased results based on responses to questionnaires appearing in the periodical. These informal polls rarely come with confidence intervals or any details of the methods used, so the problem of self-selected samples is not always immediately apparent. [A confidence interval identifies the range of deviation reasonably likely given the number of respondents — the width of the confidence interval varies inversely as the square root of the size of the sample.] When feminist author Shere Hite or columnist Ann Landers reports that a surprisingly high percentage of their respondents are having affairs or would rather not have children, we should automatically ask ourselves who is most likely to answer these questionnaires: someone having an affair or someone reasonably content, someone exasperated by her kids or someone happy with them. The March "analysis" of the response to a school prayer question is typical of such idiocy — after setting forth the "results" of tabulating the answers of less than 150 persons moved to mail in the response card, Ed Wojcicki stated: "So, responding in record numbers, you showed more support for allowing a reflective moment of silence than you did for structured prayer." The net result is this. For those who see the "results" for what they are, this section of Illinois Issues is meaningless and a waste of paper. For those who are innumerate, this section is downright misleading. What is the point then? It would not be enough to state the oft found disclaimer that the results have no scientific validity or significance in terms of the population — or even Illinois Issues readers — as a whole. If that is the case, why publish them? It is particularly troubling to see this National Enquirer-type feature in a university-based publication otherwise worthy of praise. If the publication wishes to quantify something meaningful, often a particularly difficult task in the social and political science field, it should do so properly or not at all. If it wishes to quantify something insignificant, such as a response from a limited number of motivated readers to a question of public policy affecting the general population, keep it to yourself. Don't bore those who know it is meaningless, and don't mislead those who do not.
John E. Rhine
Welfare: federal or Editor: I am writing to respond to the commentary by Prof. Rebecca Blank of Northwestern University on the topic of welfare reform that was in the April 1995 issue of Illinois Issues (see page 39). It is said that Professor Blank is an expert on national welfare issues. Considering her views, she should be known as an expert on "national dependency issues." Professor Blank, responding to welfare in the form of block grants to the states, stated, "For one thing, only the federal government has the flexibility to respond to the economy's cyclical changes, which affect who and how many people need help." How absurd for her to believe that only federal bureaucrats know how to respond to the needs of the people who live in the states. Too many people believe that government owes them something — something for nothing!
Welfare subsidizes and encourages self-destructive behavior. The welfare system promotes non-work, illegitimacy and divorce. Since President Johnson's "War on Poverty," spending in all social areas has skyrocketed and, today, these problems are much worse. In the last 30 years, $5.4 trillion has been spent on welfare programs. In 1964, President Johnson's economic advisers warned that without "federal" help, the poverty rate could be as high as 13 percent in 1980. According to the Census Bureau, the poverty rate in 1992 was 14.8 percent. Professor Blank said that she has "seen no evidence that states can do it any better." A Wisconsin Policy Research Institute study showed that "only 35 cents of every welfare dollar ever gets into the hands of the poor." The rest gets absorbed into the monstrosity we call the federal welfare bureaucracy. Look up to the north. Professor Blank, to states like Wisconsin and Michigan, and tell me that the states "can't do any better." For instance, Republican Gov. John Engler of Michigan inherited a budget deficit of $1.8 billion. Engler has cut taxes 11 times over the last four years, balanced the budget and abolished general assistance welfare to single, childless, able-bodied adults. As a result, Michigan now enjoys a budget surplus of $300 billion, an unemployment rate below the national average and is spending $2 billion less today than they would have without the spending cuts; and Gov. Engler isn't done yet. Republican Gov. Tommy Thompson of Wiscon- 32/May 1995/Illinois Issues Letters sin has also been successful in implementing real welfare reform. Professor Blank, liberal, "feel-good" policies don't work! The answer is not wealth being redistributed from those who work! Compassion should not be defined by how many people receive government assistance, but by how many no longer need it. To continue a program that takes away self-esteem, independence and self-sufficiency is not compassion. True compassion requires setting people free to fail and succeed on their own merits. Professor Blank, we need to be of strong hearts and true compassion.
Scott P. Soumokil
Clarifies long-term care issue Editor. Michael Hawthorne's article in the April 1995 [issue] contains an error in fact on page 13. The seniors did not object to paying for insurance for long-term care, which we still feel is needed, but to paying for insurance for catastrophic events requiing expensive treatment and/or hospitalization. The latter would be nice, but only after the first, major insurance is in place. Long-term care is far more frequently required.
Eleanor Knight
Correction In our April 1995 issue, we reversed two photos. The photo of Richard Duchossois of Arlington International that ran on page 26 should have run on page 25. Plate Dancer and Little Bro Lands running in the Stars and Stripes race belonged on page 26. We apologize to the Arlington Heights Daily Herald, which kindly provided the photos, and to photographers Mike Seeling and Ray Carlin who took those excellent shots. We regret the error.
How to write to us Your comments on articles and columns are welcome. Please keep letters brief (250 words): We reserve the right to excerpt them so that as many as space allows can be published. Send your letters to:
Letters to the Editor
e-mail address on Internet:
e-mail address on Access Illinois:
May 1995/Illinois Issues/33
|
|
|