America’s Economy and Social Programs

The juxtaposition of two lead articles in Opinion (July 27) could not have been more revealing. On the one hand you have Michael Clough arguing that America is fast becoming a land of regional powerhouses anchored by diverse cities such as Atlanta, Charlotte, Houston, Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles, whose needs and voters are so diverse that they cannot possibly be served by the “national elites” in Washington. On the other hand there is Kevin Phillips, former conservative pundit, who is fast becoming the primary spokesman for continuing the current centralized federal system, with its mandates and one-size-fits-all social programs.

Whether Phillips likes it or not, Clough has brilliantly, and perhaps inadvertently, laid out the case for massive cuts in federal government power and federal taxes, with attendant increases at the state and local levels.

WILLIAM BRADSHAW

San Diego

Clough states with Toffleresque certainty that “America is destined to become a country of distinct, relatively independent regions, each with its own politico-cultural economics, metropolitan centers, governing elites and global interests.” Where I come from, this is called balkanization. Why he anticipates it with such obvious relish is, however, beyond me.

The beauty and genius of America has always been its capacity to take in many diverse elements and assimilate them into a people with a sense of common purpose, common history and common destiny. Clough has it dead wrong. In a society as diverse as ours, any social vision that does not promote this unity is not only fatuous, but dangerous.

MARK NEDELMAN

Irvine

Re Phillips’ article: Does it not make sense for older people who can afford to take care of themselves to do so? With the aging of America and the improving health of older people, does it not make sense to raise the age limits for benefits? The greatest problem with medical insurance of any sort is that it both raises the baseline cost of care and distorts the care. In response to increasing costs, the payers reduce the level of care.

How do we allocate our limited resources fairly so that the budget balances, taxes are kept moderately progressive, and the people who cannot care for themselves get the help they absolutely require? The fairest answer is to have people take care of themselves if they have the resources.

JIM KETCHAM

Malibu