Working hard doesn't always pave the way for success

Editor,

When I read Paul Rumrill's analogy of Sen. Barack Obama's economic plan in Monday's Opinion section, I was insulted. Rumrill attempts to compare Obama's plan with students in a school, and he essentially compares the upper monetary class to "very good students" who "go to class every day" and "study every night," earning themselves As. He then compares the lower economic class to students who "rarely show up for class" and "party every night," earning themselves low Ds. But because of this newfangled equality thing, everyone earns a C.

Is Rumrill really comparing the sufferings and hardships of the lower economic class to the consequences of bad students? Is Rumrill really implying that the poor of the nation are there because they are slackers? I feel the need to point out that this analogy is hardly an accurate interpretation of an economic policy. Grades are individualized for a reason - they are almost solely dependent on the performance of one individual. But the poorest people in our nation aren't in the lower economic class because of any lack of effort on their part.

A recent discussion I had with a representative of Albuquerque's Health Care for the Homeless said a significant number of those who use their services have part-time or even full-time jobs. Hard work does not guarantee success in this nation, despite the fact that some people, usually those in the upper class, may tell you otherwise.

I'm tired of hearing people say the poor don't deserve help because they are unmotivated or lazy. I wonder how much their tunes would change if their job options were limited to those paying less than $8 per hour - which, by the way, is higher than New Mexico's minimum wage. The rich will still be rich in the end, whether they are taxed more or not. And call me socialist, but I am much more worried about a struggling family getting enough to eat and paying bills than I am about a CEO's new yacht upgrade.

Elena Creamer

UNM student