The vague verbiage that comprises the proposed constitutional amendment (Question 3) is especially odd, coming as it does from legislators who surely must know how to state something clearly.
Instead what we’re expected to decide at the ballot box can mean almost anything to anybody, and therein lies the problem. Question 3 is short on specifics, long on generalities, and does nothing to address hunger, except to offer a somewhat hollow proclamation instead of real help for those who need it.
Where it could have offered assistance, the amendment offers not a thin dime to families who struggle to feed their children, and then wants us to approve their lack of effort.
Question 3 is full of platitudes and empty rhetoric. It is confusing and clear as mud. It should be defeated.
Don Loprieno
Bristol
Send questions/comments to the editors.
