To the Editor:
The headline, “What’s wrong with ‘radical’ ideas,” does not fit very well with Milt Lauenstein’s 7/2/2020 letter. He started out by mentioning “radical ideas” a couple of times, and then reverted to his usual form. I can’t remember how many times where the primary thrust of his many letters has not been the progressively unequal distribution of wealth in America. It must be his pet peeve and it obviously bothers the hell out of him. And, of course, he puts the blame for all of it on President Donald Trump.
I’d like to point out to Mr. Lauenstein that a Pew Research Center report dated 1/9/2020 showed that in the 1991-2000 decade, during the presidency of Bill Clinton, the mean income of the top 5% of families grew at an annual average of 4.1% – a high watermark. During the 2011-2018 period (i.e. Obama – 6 years and Trump – 2 years) the annual average mean income of the top 5% families grew at an average of 3.1%. It wasn’t close to the Clinton record.
Yes, we recognize a progressive trend of unequal wealth distribution in America. So, Mr. Lauenstein, tell us what “radical ideas” do you have that will accomplish a more equitable distribution of wealth in America. Don’t weasel word, just tell us clearly what you think needs to be done to accomplish a just solution to an acknowledged problem.
Further on in his letter, he faults President Trump for trying to kill Obamacare (ACA). If it is not defective, then why is it sitting in the SCOTUS, as it is, awaiting its fate? America needs a new, comprehensive healthcare law and putting bandaids on ACA will not accomplish that result.
Lastly, I want to address Lauenstein’s venom directed at President Trump’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. He stated, “His knee-jerk reaction to delaying action on the pandemic and the ensuing deaths of 120,000 Americans …”. What happened when Trump was initially made aware of the existence of this mysterious, new malady was that he turned to his own people (i.e. CDC and FDA) for guidance in how to handle the problem. They had nothing to offer. They’d never heard of it. Nevertheless, as president, it was Trump’s responsibility to react, but first he needed reliable guidance. He thought that the World Health Organization (WHO) should be knowledgeable and reliable, so he turned to them for help. Likewise, he thought that President Xi of China, where the COVID-19 originated, and with whom he thought he had a good relationship, might help, so he turned to him, too. Unfortunately, both of those sources mislead him, and based on their advice he painted “rosy” pictures of the situation until the situation on the ground made it clear that he had been misled. His reactions after that were commendable. What happened was not the result of malfeasance – he did what he thought he should do, based on the information that he had at the time.
If you think that wasn’t what actually happened, Mr. Lauenstein, then please tell us what you think actually did happen.
Respectfully submitted,
Irving W. Glater
Exeter
