Bill Nemitz’s column (Sept. 2) about the St. Elizabeth’s Essentials Pantry was informative, enlightening, and moving. I am an Episcopal deacon in another diocese, and I applaud his generous and passionate support of this good work.

Unfortunately, his otherwise splendid article was spoiled by a political rant that was both irrelevant to his subject and without merit.

Here are some examples of his incendiary and gratuitous comments:

• He stated that hiring of additional welfare investigators makes “war on the poor.” Following his logic, hiring additional auditors at the IRS “makes war” on taxpayers. Human nature being what it is, enforcement in both areas is a necessary evil and exists without blanket judgments about the respective “targets.”

• He attacks the motives of those genuinely concerned about the moral hazard associated with large numbers of people paying no federal income tax. I don’t understand the connection between this issue and an outreach ministry in Portland.

• He claims that “we have conservatives (who don’t pause) to consider the greed-driven crisis of 2008 that swelled the ranks of the nouveau poor in the first place.” Well, who are they? And what does this rhetorical flourish have to do with this ministry?

Mr. Nemitz correctly argues that a “war on the poor” is under way. But it’s not the one he describes. Consider the following:

An overfunded and inefficient public education industry continually consumes more and more resources while it produces graduates (and dropouts!) unprepared for the 21st century. Mr. Nemitz and your readers should see the movie, “Waiting for Superman.”

Expenditures and future liabilities for Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and other entitlements are growing faster than is the economy that has to pay for them. Eventually, these programs are going to run out of money.

Today’s economic uncertainties reflect unease arising from the new governmental initiatives related to health care, banking, the environment and other areas.

Regardless of one’s personal opinions about the policies themselves, reasonable people can appreciate why businesses are choosing a “wait and see” attitude about them.

In each case, upper-middle-class and “rich” folk have options and flexibility; the poor do not!

I suggest that Mr. Nemitz limit his columns to one subject at a time and comment only on matters about which he is at least superficially informed.