To the editor:

Your editorial regarding the CARES Act follow-up legislation contains an incorrect statement. Specifically, the assertion that: “No one disagrees that that provisions such as those outlined by Biden should be included.”

I strongly disagree with at least two of the proposed provisions and suspect that their may be others like me who oppose certain elements. Specifically, your editorial states that Biden’s proposal should include funding/resources: “for state and federal (did you perhaps intend to say ‘local’?) governments trying to keep front line workers on the payroll…”

The problem I see with the federal government bailing out state and local governments has two dimensions both of which are problematic. State and local governments have the same ability to tax and borrow as the federal government to acquire money to pay for such programs. The unique tool that the federal government has is it can print money. This, of course, they have been doing at a rate which will eventually and most certainly will undermine or collapse the value of our currency. China awaits patiently for this day.

Also, the state and local governments with the greatest need (and the most Congressional voting power) are those that have and continue to spend recklessly. Additionally, the further removed from the control and oversight of the taxpayers the more abuse and waste. And who shall define “front line” worker? That might be the police in major cities who are instructed to “stand down” and not interfere with rioters and looters. The state and local governments need to step up and address their unique problems in the most efficient and controlled manner. The federal treasury does not have a magic source of money to resolve all problems.

The second item that I am opposed to as being part of legislation specific to the economic impact of COVID is the attaching “affordable health care for millions of working families.” This was allegedly accomplished with the Affordable Care Act aka “Obamacare.” The two elements of this statement that render it implausible are defining “working families” and what exactly constitutes health care? Are we talking about married, both or one working, children, or just a building with people occupying? And for affordable health care what’s included and what’s not, and affordability is a function of so many variables as to defy calculation.

Affordable health care and living wage are perhaps the two most abused politically motivated phrases that have no true quantitative value.

Robert Allen

Mifflintown