To the Editor:
Re “America Is Living on Borrowed Money” (editorial, July 9):
Republicans won’t raise taxes; Democrats won’t cut spending. Politically, both parties need to compromise.
But revenue as a percentage of gross national income is well below where it was before the Reagan years, and the distribution of income is more skewed toward the upper-income brackets than it was before World War I.
We don’t need compromise; we need some new blood and thinking.
Daniel Mahoney
Andover, Mass.
The writer is a retired economic consultant.
To the Editor:
I’m in complete agreement with your editorial about the urgent need to reduce the national debt. A reduction is crucial for our nation’s long-term financial stability and future generations’ well-being.
However, I respectfully disagree with your implication that reducing taxes only leads to reduced government revenues. Over the years we have witnessed instances where tax reductions have actually stimulated economic growth, resulting in increased government revenues. By allowing individuals and businesses to keep more of their hard-earned money, tax cuts can incentivize investment, job creation and overall economic activity.
While responsible fiscal management is essential, it is important to recognize the potential positive impact of well-designed tax reductions. Balancing the reduction of the national debt with strategic tax policies can foster economic growth and ultimately contribute to a healthier financial future for our nation.
Dave Berry
Dayton, Ohio
The writer is a retired certified public accountant.
To the Editor:
Advising that “Republicans must accept the necessity of collecting what the government is owed and of imposing taxes on the wealthy” defies political reality. Any G.O.P. House member who takes this path will face a primary challenge and probable defeat, ensuring no solution.
The only way to deal with this problem is to elect a Democratic House majority in 2024 and then forge a compromise with Senate Republicans who are still able and willing to participate in governance. Urging elected officials to vote for their own demise is not a path forward.
Eric R. Carey
Arlington, Va.
Barbie Memories
To the Editor:
Re “What Makes Barbie Barbie” (Sunday Styles, July 16):
Back in the ’60s, Barbie was not just a doll but an important part of my childhood. We didn’t have a lot of money in those days, and a $3 Barbie was affordable. My sister and I would spend Saturday afternoons with our Barbies and our imagination.
We dressed our Barbies in beautiful clothes and gave them special voices so they could talk to each other. We gave them make-believe careers, ambitions and adventures. Through this play, my sister and I bonded in a very special way. And I can never forget the incredible joy I felt when my father came home with the Barbie Dreamhouse.
My Barbie was never neglected at the bottom of a toy chest.
Judith Eisenberg Pollak
New York
Wesleyan’s Decision on Legacy Admissions
To the Editor:
Re “Officials End Preferences for Alumni at Wesleyan” (news article, July 20):
As a 1970 graduate of Wesleyan with the name John P. Wesley, I am encouraged by the university’s decision to do away with considering legacy as a factor in determining admission.
I was the first member of my family to attend the university, and I have no proof of genealogical connection to the founder of Methodism, John Wesley, for whom the school was named. The name association probably didn’t hurt my admission chances, though.
My son, John M.P. Wesley ’06, had both the name connection and the legacy status through his father. We are both grateful for whatever fates or factors opened the door to attending Wesleyan, an invaluable springboard to purposeful lives and expanded perspectives.
Nonetheless, we agree it is past time to take legacy status out of the admissions equation. For its role in fashioning a diverse, inclusive, accomplished and educationally committed student body, a strong case can be made for affirmative action as recognized by a string of Supreme Court decisions, before its recent extreme rejection of precedent.
Surely the aim of affirmative action stands on much firmer equitable footing than the preservation of the elite’s legacy connections. We’re proud of our alma mater for its principled decision, and confident that it will retain its reputation of providing an exceptional learning experience and a community of change-makers for students of many backgrounds, financial means and promises of achievement.
John P. Wesley
Brattleboro, Vt.
Knee Injuries in Soccer
To the Editor:
Re “The Curse Stalking Women’s Soccer” (Sports, July 19):
Has anyone considered that one of the causes of the A.C.L. injury epidemic in women’s soccer is the referees’ tolerance of violent and hazardous play?
As a fan of girls’ soccer, I have witnessed three instances of players being forcefully side-checked and ending up crumpled on the grass (or turf) with a torn A.C.L.
The rules need to be re-evaluated. Hip-checking and other forceful maneuvers need to be analyzed as possible risk factors for heartbreaking, potentially career-ending knee injuries.
Susan Doherty
Woodside, Calif.
In Spain, a Tale of Bullfights and Dwarfism
To the Editor:
Re “On the Front Line of a War Over Bullfighting Traditions” (Spain Dispatch, July 13):
When I read the headline, I thought it was going to be a story about ending the cruel “tradition” of animal torture as spectator sport. Instead, the focus was on whether it was demeaning for entertainers with dwarfism to perform at bullfights.
Bullfighting is not a sport or an “art.” It isn’t a “fight”; it is a ritualized slaughter in which people seem to be entertained by watching an innocent animal being injured and bloodied on the way to being stabbed to death.
The argument over whether comedy acts by individuals with dwarfism is degrading to those with disabilities is incongruous when the problem is so much deeper.
The question is: Why do people buy tickets to see savagery and brutality inflicted upon helpless victims?
Carol Kraines
Deerfield, Ill.
To the Editor:
Congratulations to Jason Horowitz for this fine article. I have seen “The Popeye Bullfighter and His Dwarf Sailors” perform on several occasions and have marveled at their skill and bravery. The audiences have always treated them with respect and dignity — more so, in fact, than spectators in this country often treat our professional athletes.
Congratulations also to the local officials who found a way around the national ban so that the Popeyes could perform. These men and women may be small in stature but their hearts are big and their courage is immense. They are true artists and deserve the right to show the public their artistry.
Morgan Smith
Santa Fe, N.M.
Rethinking ‘Special Education’
To the Editor:
Re “New York Schools Ordered to Fix Issues in Special Ed” (news article, July 20):
The term “special education” is a concept foisted upon us, without our consent, by people who (consciously or otherwise) avoid the word “disability.”
It ignores the deeply rooted and pervasive societal barriers that discriminate against us. It is based on disability stereotypes such as: Disability is a central defining characteristic; kids with disabilities shouldn’t be expected to follow rules and get disciplined; every student with a disability needs a paraprofessional all day every day.
Students are consigned to special education by individuals who are unaware of the achievements and knowledge of disability activists and the technology, techniques and medical breakthroughs that are bringing us closer to achieving full academic integration.
In too many instances, the designation “special education” has outlived its usefulness and now does more harm than good.
(Rabbi) Michael Levy
Sharon Shapiro
The writers are, respectively, president and executive director of Yad Hachazakah — The Jewish Disability Empowerment Center.
