Untitled - the ultimate blog

SIR – I read your article on the quality of teaching in Britain and noted that “trainee teachers can resit
basic literacy and numeracy tests as often as they like” (“Those who can”, August 1st). At least they have
to pass the tests eventually. In the United States, we have weaker requirements for aspiring teachers,
and the result is apparent. A friend of mine spent several years sending back every teacher’s note that her
children took home, with spelling mistakes and grammatical errors corrected.
For decades teachers have been “facilitating” rather than teaching. Children are encouraged to “explore”,
rather than to learn; it is no longer compulsory to memorise multiplication tables, for example. Future
generations will have to either clean up this mess or resign themselves to living in a country with a skill
set restricted to serving up hamburgers.
Virginia Benton Morris
Carol Stream, Illinois
Rich man, poor man
* SIR – I must confess some measure of disappointment in your placid acceptance of Barack Obama’s
definition of “the rich” (“What now for Obamacare?”, August 1st). Mr Obama has famously promised that
no one with an annual income of less than $250,000 will see their taxes rise under his administration. The
clear implication is that anyone earning a quarter of a million is “rich.” Pardon the pun, but that’s rich.
My wife and I pull in very nearly the $250,000 mark between us. However, what with student loans, a
mortgage, credit-card debt from our college and law-school days, and the pesky expenses of simply living,
we often find ourselves limping across the line to the next pay cheque. Our combined savings would not
last us a month were we to lose our jobs, and our net worth is less than worthless.
I recognise that under the current proposals, we would supposedly not see our taxes increase (no matter
how fanciful that supposition may be, according to the Congressional Budget Office). My point is that
income is not a remotely plausible measure of “richness”.
To be “rich”, one must have wealth, not merely be a conduit for the flow of cash from employer to
creditor.
Michael Slocum
Aberdeen, New Jersey
Paying for Britain’s monarchy
* SIR – It is regrettable to see The Economist leaving unchallenged the claim that the assets of the Crown
Estate belong to the Windsor family and that its income is surrendered to the state (“Buck’s fizz for the
masses”, August 1st). The Estate was the property of the monarch before the end of the 18th century,
when the king or queen had some responsibility for meeting government expenses. But this changed once
the state and the person of the monarch became separate.
As a senior civil servant and before he became rector of Lincoln College, Burke Trend wrote, in an internal
Treasury memo, that “the hereditary revenues which it is now customary for the Crown to surrender at
the outset of each reign are simply a historical relic from much earlier days”.
Joanne Horton of the London School of Economics, an expert on accountancy, has been blunter, describing
the “surrender” of the Estate’s revenue as “a public-relations stunt”. The truth is that British taxpayers
bear the entire cost of the monarchy.
John Pratt
London
* SIR – You cited Robert Walpole’s famous remark to Queen Caroline that fencing in Hyde Park would cost
“three crowns”. However, you incorrectly said the crowns were those of England, Scotland and Ireland.
The third one should be France, which was still claimed (entirely legally, in fact) by the English.
Timon Screech
-18-