Letters to the Editor | March 28, 2024

I see that House Republicans would like to start pushing back the retirement age and/or the level of benefits to be disbursed to Social Security recipients. It’s all agreed that Social Security is running out of money, and something needs to be done. But why isn’t taking the cap off the Social Security tax ever discussed? It’s amazing how many people are unaware that wages earned over $168,600 are not subject to Social Security tax. So, someone earning a million dollars a year does not pay Social Security tax on $831,400. I’ve researched why removing the cap hasn’t been put on the table, and all I was able to find was that it “would effectively result in one of the largest tax hikes of all time.” Yeah ... on rich people.

Barry Muth, Willow Grove

I’d like to ask op-ed writer Joshua M. Cowen (“The false promise — and hidden costs — of school vouchers”) what he thinks of this idea: How about taking the $26,000 it costs for each student in Philadelphia and instead give them a voucher for $13,000, and put the remaining $13,000 into a savings account that would accrue to $200,000 for college or to start a business after high school? Does he think parents would prefer this over the current system their children are forced to use? Pennsylvanians should know that the concept of Educational Savings Accounts (ESAs) is already taking hold in over a dozen states. The time has come for Pa. families to have this same choice.

Janine Yass, Yass Foundation for Education

If op-ed writer Joshua M. Cowen wants to claim expertise on school vouchers solely on the basis of cost, then he has missed the forest for the trees. Not once did he mention the outcomes of public schools for our children — a school’s most important metric for value. The business adage quoted for customer service in the op-ed assumes competency in the goods or services; one cannot claim that about our public schools.

To quote from The Inquirer when Gov. Josh Shapiro backed legislation for a scholarship program for students and families in underserved and underfunded schools: “The Philadelphia School District is home to nearly 140 of the state’s low-achieving schools — or public schools that rank in the bottom 15% based on performance metrics. According to the latest statewide scores, 70% of Philadelphia eighth graders were not proficient in language arts and 90% were not proficient in math.” This in a country where we are close to last in academic achievement among developed nations, while still spending close to the most per student. Clearly, cost and spending do not predict, nor guarantee, the necessary good outcome for our children and their schools.

Adriana della Porta, Philadelphia

So much has been written about the pros and cons of charter schools, but no one seems interested in determining if they actually serve a meaningful purpose in the educational process. Charters only take students whose parents can complete the application process, and then they can quickly “dispose” of the nonperformers by sending them back to public school. If charter schools are capable of the learning miracles they claim, then they should prove it by taking the worst academic and disciplinary cases and — without the benefit of expulsion — turning them into, at the least, average students.

Gerard Iannelli, Haddon Heights

Columnist Will Bunch recently wrote about the dangers of a possible Trump administration should he win in November. I wish The Inquirer and other mainstream media would publish a series outlining each section of the Heritage Foundation’s blueprint for Republican governance if the party takes over the presidency and both chambers of Congress. This document — titled “Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise” — is over 800 pages long and very detailed. It would be helpful to the American public if this publication could be broken down, section by section, to describe what is being proposed and how it would impact the structure of the U.S. government and everyday Americans. This series would be valuable to inform voters before the election. Please consider doing such a series.

Patricia Dawson, Cinnaminson

I agree with columnist Kyle Sammin’s assessment that eliminating the civil service “rule of two” will absolutely not make for a more diverse workforce. Years ago, I was hired into a professional civil service training level position, not realizing that the only (two) women in full-level administration positions got there after taking the city to court or through direct contact with the mayor. Men were promoted beyond that training level, but women were not. The old boys’ network was strong. Even with the rule of two, we women only got the next promotion when we were Nos. 1 and 2 on the list. Had the city not had the rule, the hiring authority could have promoted No. 7 and women (and by the same logic, people of color) would never have been able to break through to their full potential. Even with the rule of two, if the minority candidates are only a small proportion of the pool of candidates, by making one hire/promotion at a time, it is possible to skip many qualified candidates.

Judith Samans-Dunn, Philadelphia

Join the conversation: Send letters to letters@inquirer.com. Limit length to 200 words and include home address and day and evening phone number. Letters run in The Inquirer six days a week on the editorial pages and online.