To the editor:

This is a tale of two young men, Joe and Brad.

When they are into their junior year of high school, Joe decides to drop out of school and get a job pumping gas. He lives at home and gets an old car to run around in. He earns minimum wage. Since his money is his own, Joe frequently takes long weekends to go fishing or hunting, resulting in his losing many jobs. Eventually, Joe marries and has three children. He lives in rent-subsidized housing, gets a little over minimum wage, often gets free food at the food banks, and is still driving a used car. At the end of 10 years, his income has increased to $20,000 per year.

In the meantime, Brad completes high school and goes on to college. He works part time, has some scholarship money, and takes out some school loans. When he finishes his B.S. degree, he owes $20,000 in school loans. He sees the need for a master’s degree, so he continues for another three years, again working part-time and getting school loans. When he completes the M.S. degree, he is another $20,000 in debt. He decides his future would be more secure with a doctorate, so he works and borrows for another three years, and graduates with another $40,000 in debt.

After about 10 years of school and work, Brad gets employment at $80,000 per year. He owes $80,000 on school expenses that he has accumulated over 10 years. He too drives a used car. He has no wife or children. He does have good prospects for the future, and an $80,000 debt to repay.

When tax time comes around, the government wants to take $20,000 of Brad’s money to help Joe who hasn’t had all the benefits of life that Brad has.

They call that “spreading the wealth” - Helping those less fortunate.

If you believe in this policy, vote Obama. If not, vote sensibly.

I approve this message.

Bob Hickey