Government's job

is indeed social justice

The Nov. 15 letter, "Quest for social justice will destroy the nation," incorrectly claims that the Constitution gives the federal government the power to "promote" the general welfare, but not to "provide for" it. It's true that the preamble to the Constitution states that one reason for the establishment of the new government was to "promote the general welfare." Evidently the author of the letter read no further in the document than the preamble.

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution grants the government numerous powers, among them the power to "provide for the ... general welfare of the United States." So our government is empowered to both promote and provide for the general welfare of our country.

According to the author of that November letter, the contention that the government has the broader power to provide for the general welfare is nothing more than a "liberal talking point." But in fact that "talking point" is entirely consistent with the philosophy expressed in the words of Article 1 Section 8. And one way in which the government provides for the general welfare is to ensure social justice.

We deem ourselves to be a devoutly Christian nation. We do not deserve that acclamation if our government of the people, by the people, and for the people simply stands aside like a disinterested observer yawning and "tsk-tsking," ignoring our professed Christian values, while social injustices are perpetrated.



Obama voters getting

what they wished for

Regarding Dec. 11 article, "The 'fiscal cliff'/Charities could take hit":

I think we can assume that the recipients of food stamps, welfare, unemployment, etc., are also in need of the services that many charities supply. We can also assume that they voted, overwhelmingly, for President Barack Obama. His mantra that the wealthy should pay their fair share resonates with these voters.

But elections have consequences. And if the wealthy pay more in taxes, then there is less for charity. Those who depend on charity will have fewer resources for their needs. It is quite simple: Be careful what you wish for.



Keep beaches free -

for year-round residents

Regarding the beach-fee issue:

My idea would be not to charge anyone who lives in the county year-round where they go to the beach, pay taxes and support all the local businesses. For instance, I live in Cape May County, so all county beaches should not cost me anything. If I go to a beach in North Jersey, I should have to pay a fee. And, of course, anyone from out of state would definitely have to pay a beach fee. I think this is fair for all.


Del Haven

Other coastal towns

don't have beach fees

Beach tags have long been a way for local politicians to rip off visitors and homeowners. They claim beach tags are needed for lifeguards (a three-month job) and public safety. But most coastal states south of us do not have beach tags. Florida, for example, has year-round lifeguards and no beach tags.

As taxpayers, we pay for beach replenishment and deserve the right to a free beach. Now, if beach replenishment were stopped, then I would agree with local towns' right to have beach fees. And stopping beach replenishment and doing something more permanent would go a long way toward improving local surf fishing and inshore fishing