In English, por favor.

The headline says, "Federal Budget: Cuts threaten poor seniors." None of us wants to see poor old people suffer, so I read the article. And I found an entirely different story than the one suggested by the headline.

Esmeralda Calderon, age 65, has a community service job through a federal program. It is her only source of income, we're told. She lives alone in a public housing project in Hollywood, California. My first question is why Esmeralda doesn't have social security. Could it be that Esmeralda doesn't have a social security card and never paid into the system? But how could that be? Could it be because she's not even supposed to be here? My second question is why Esmeralda hasn't planned for her old age. Sixty-five is relatively young to have already run out of your retirement funds. But I digress.

Esmeralda's job, paid for with tax money, is in a daycare center. The name of the daycare center? Para Los Ninos. The program that funds this job is being slashed by 45%. My questions are these: if Esmeralda's job is essential, won't the private sector have to fill it in some form or fashion? And wouldn't Esmeralda have an advantage in acquiring that job in the private sector since she's already been doing it? And if it's not essential, why are we paying her? And why are we funding a daycare center that doesn't even have an English name?

"Cuts threaten poor seniors." The Dallas Morning News; April 18, 2011; p. 4A.