To the editor: Unfortunately, for the collaborating writer Josh Hammer and his conservative fellow fellow people who are convinced that there is a base of voters who are willing to trade with their own economic security for the opportunity to punish the “left”, there is still a difficult decision to make (“Democrats are spiral towards irrelevance. Good trip,” “ July 18). That choice comes from the harsh reality that The inequality of wealth is surprisingly highis disgusting a Most Americans forks increasingly Associated with conservative fiscal policies that reward predatory financing at the direct expense of social security networks.
Why should any of us fear the exodus of the capital of a percent of the cities of the left politically when many of us fight to pay the rent, the groceries, medical care, child care and transport even with their presence? What supermarket chains that flee cannot be replaced by cooperatives administered by the community that care about organic products of local origin before profits? What owner could be worse than the guy who denies six roommates for a two bedroom apartment because each one does not do the rent three times?
If I finally have the right to the basic needs of life because they are subsidized by the government, why would I complain about the tax rate of a CEO? Or my neighbor's gender identity? Conservatives expect us to exchange the most basic forms of personal security to punish who they see as the least deserving. Are they willing to participate in authoritarianism to maintain the farce that their policies represent the hope of the people they refuse to help?
Matthew Neel, Sherman Oaks
