Sir, - The fact that your letters page moved so quickly from "Poverty and the Emerald Tiger" to "Tax and the Celtic Tiger" powerfully reinforces the argument of your two fine columnists, Nuala O'Faolain and Fintan O'Toole, that there is an alarming separateness between the realities of the poor and the rest of society.
Whether in "reservations", as Nuala O'Faolain describes them, or all around us, but unseen, as Fintan O'Toole asserts, we would want to do something about that separateness if our preference is for a caring, cohesive society rather than one of self interest sectors.
Of course Nuala O'Faolain and your correspondents of January 10th are right that politicians have the primary responsibility to "distort the system in favour of the poor". But when Nuala goes on to excuse individuals from being part of the decision making process "because they don't know what else they could be but be part of the system" I have to challenge her.
Leaving it to us, the politicians, with the vicarious pleasure of kicking us out and in every few years, is no substitute for individual Irish people, rich, poor and in between getting out of all those boxes full of "people like us" and trying to reach some consensus, through public debate, about what kind of a republic we want to make for ourselves, all of us, for the next millennium.
In my view, Northern European countries like Denmark and Sweden, have a good distribution of wealth, not so much because they have good politicians as because their people buy into a system of social concern.
Here, we haven't had too much wealth in the past but now that we have a thriving, well run economy it is a crucial time for such a public debate as your columnists provoke. But your paper, and all the others, illustrate the same separateness. Poverty has its boxes.
Business and property writers don't even seem to be interested in examining how massive investment in houses for renting out by those with money to spare might be making it harder and harder for young couples to ever aspire to owning a home, leaving more and more to be housed by local authorities; or how private investment in small indigenous firms rather than offshore accounts might help to create and sustain jobs; or how the banks with their £350m plus profits could he hugely more positive in supporting industry. Economic commentators who give such sweeping advice about cutting public expenditure, rarely if ever balance their argument with the necessity of ensuring that all children live in a decent house with enough to eat and a good education.
Those who write about politics and current affairs rightly report and investigate controversies, scandals and party confrontation. But there seems to be little interest in following up and assessing the effectiveness of measures, taken to change the prospects of those caught in the trap of poverty.
Two such measures are the Local Employment Service and Breaking the Cycle. Has the LES identified gaps in the system, training needs reasons why some people stay out in the cold? Is it finding jobs for people? Is Breaking the Cycle making a significant difference to the children concerned? Should it be extended? Schemes like these have the potential to alter the predictable course of people's lives and I think it important that questions like these are asked. I think we need an engaged public debate about how wealth is to be used and shared now that we are getting our economy into good shape.
Haven't we evolved far enough in the land of the Emerald Tiger to ensure a much richer system than the survival of the fittest? - Yours, etc.,
7 Lanahone Avenue,
Corbally, Limerick.