Editor:

This is directed to Clinten Garrett concerning his column, "Students should accept loan reform" in the Wildcat on Jan. 18.

In response to welfare being for the lazy and unemployed: In order to receive cash benefits through the state (A.F.D.C.) a parent must be absent. This definition has a provision that they are not contributing financially to help support their children. And even more discouraging than this, sometimes the absent parent's location is unknown, and if they do work, they work for cash and are paid "under the table" so they cannot be detected, or avoid work to escape financial responsibility. A.F.D.C. is child support through the state. The state only fronts it until the absentee parent is located, and then they are required to incur this debt. Furthermore, 90 percent of all A.F.D.C. recipients are women. The next logical correlation to make would be: Where are the fathers and what messages are we, as a society, sending that allow men the comfort or ability to evade responsibility with such frequency? Welfare is disturbing, especially when the root of a large portion of the problem is revealed in the proper light. Shouldn't this be the cause of our concern and our anger? Women on welfare do work. In fact, they work an average of 950 hours a year. If you do your math, this is approximately 20 hours a week. This figure also reflects the average hourly work force of all women in our country. In other words, women on welfare do not work less than women who are not on welfare. Shouldn't you be concerned that women earn only 65 percent of what their male co-workers earn, even when their education, work experience and skills are equal? Especially since there are a large and growing number of single-parent households in our country, often times headed by women. Shouldn't you be more concerned with the high rate of corruption within our government that allows senators to fly (made possible by our tax dollars) for a round of golf, or a long weekend European bicycle tour? And, for those of you who think welfare is bankrupting the country, get real. I know I would rather pay one percent of my tax dollars towards A.F.D.C. and 2.5 percent toward helping to feed the impoverished, than 59 percent on building unnecessary weaponry.

Doesn't it make more sense to spend very little monetarily toward helping those in despair? Can you imagine the large scale societal benefit we could achieve if we could just make a large contribution in alleviating our youth from an overwhelming feeling of powerlessness, hopelessness and misery? Unfortunately, it is naive to think that "those" people will just go away. It exists in your world. A small monetary investment could ensure the security of our future - yielding a large profitable return. (For those of you who only care to measure things in dollar amounts.)

See, I've had an insider's glance. I am on welfare, and I an not lazy. Being impoverished is not what anyone aspires to obtaining, but unfortunately, all too commonly it is a harsh reality.

Tell me Clinten, have you ever had to pay for rent, utilities and child care (which can sometimes costs as much as $800 to $1,000 a month) on wages of $4.25 an hour? Yes, welfare does need to be reformed. Women need to be able to have health insurance for their children and themselves as well as childcare in order to be able to survive. Poverty is a real issue. Ten percent of our nation owns 76.1 percent of the entire wealth. The top half of 1 percent of that owns 36.1 percent of the 76.1 percent. That leaves approximately 23.9 percent to distribute amongst the rest of us, the remaining 90 percent. How can I illustrate the cause and effect relationship more clearly for you?

Just what would happen if student loans were cut and schools did not follow suit in your delusional plan, becoming more efficient? I certainly would not want to find out. I take out loans to make it through school (as well as many others). Education should not be available only to an elite class. There are those of us that do not have mommy or daddy around to finance all of our expenses. Loans make it possible for the struggle to perhaps one day end. While we're at it, we might as well cut off the 15-20 percent of welfare recipients who are disabled , or are caretakers for a disabled child, spouse or family member. Because you know that 15-20 percent of 1 percent of our federal budget is bankrupting the country.

In your proposals of cutting student loans, there are two flaws in your logic. How can you insult those who struggle day in, day out to make it (welfare recipients) and at the same time suggest cutting loans which, in turn, promote education, which promotes self-sufficiency? You are discouraging the vehicle that you claim to support. Also, if one is working full time to support oneself (because loans are reduced) isn't it more likely for grades to slip? And by denying loans to those with fallen GPAs, it is causing the problem you are trying to prevent. Let me quote your opening statement: "Are the people who bitterly defend the Federal student loan programs really as selfish and shortsighted as they sound?" Are you Clinten? The irony of your statement was maddening. I wonder where your values are (And I am referring to systems other than money). Most of all, I'm tired of being poor. I'm also tired of being a scapegoat.

Tiffany Weeks
communication junior