To the Editor:
Thank you, Jean. I agree with you on this important point: taxpayers have every right to demand accountability for how public money is spent.
But I notice that rather than address the question I raised, you shifted the discussion to California’s education system, healthcare administration, and state spending decisions.
My question was simpler and more immediate: when public dollars are available, should they be directed toward the things communities actually depend on — schools, healthcare, infrastructure, fire prevention, disaster preparedness, scientific research, and the everyday financial well-being of ordinary citizens?
You argue that institutions sometimes fail. I would agree. But institutional failure is not an argument against public investment itself. It is an argument for better oversight, better governance, and greater accountability.
What concerns me is the growing pattern of public federal money being diverted toward projects and priorities that do little to strengthen the lives of ordinary citizens: enormous tax subsidies that disproportionately benefit private interests, political spending designed primarily to consolidate power, cuts to essential public agencies while billions are directed elsewhere, and proposals that weaken the very institutions communities rely on in times of crisis.
And when questions are raised about these priorities, too often the response is not to address the issue itself, but to redirect attention somewhere else entirely.
The real question remains unchanged: are federal taxpayer dollars better spent strengthening the systems communities rely on, or concentrated in ways that primarily serve political power and private interests?
That is not a question of left or right.
It is a question of public responsibility.
And it is a question every taxpayer should be asking.
Pat Collins,
Fillmore, Ca
***
To the Editor:
Martin, since, as of this writing, we don’t know what comprises the so-called “peace deal” with Iran, there is no point in speculating about it. It sounds to be a Memo of Understanding (MOU) to identify the status of some issues rather than an “Agreement.” We will know more on June 19, the WH tells us.
What if the President of the US had a huge birthday party, masquerading as a national semiquincentennial celebration, much of it at your expense (government personnel participation, including Secret Service, and other security, and Paramount will take any loss off its taxes) at the People’s House, but only select citizens were invited? Last Sunday, having dug up the South Lawn, Trump and his friends thew a shindig but invited only VIPs. Ordinary folks in DC could watch, by lottery, from the other lawn. Anybody else interested in “Celebrating America,” by watching a bunch of steroidal gladiators batter each other for the amusement of old rich people, were SOL unless they had purchased a Paramount subscription (chief sponsor of the event which recently received DOJ approval for a contested merger with Warner Bros.).
Our carny-barker president tried to call it an “early United States Birthday celebration” (“UFC Freedom 250”). But, since only people who really matter to Trump were invited, no one with a 3-digit IQ was fooled. Fighters were paid in a digital currency called USD1 through World Liberty Financial, co-founded by the Trump family and friends. Earlier this year, Trump purchased stock the UFC parent company, TKO. Trump made money off the bash in branding $12,000 gold-plated coins, advertisers plastered their ads in front of our WH and made money.
A specimen named Josh Hokit won the last “round” and roared a “shoutout to Trump for having the balls to put some sh*t like this on.” In a transient moment of humility, he complimented “Jesus Christ” as being even more incredible than himself. Then he informed an apparently renowned fighter that, “I wanna chama on your mama.” And lastly, “Michelle Obama is a man. Am I right, America?”
There is little that should be said about a man making those comments, except that men of quality do not reflect on interaction with each other’s “mamas.” Spanish speakers can enlighten on the meaning of “chama”, but I understand that it is a term used by women with familiar females, or is a vulgarity used by males about young women. The misogynistic “joke” about Mrs. Obama reportedly drew a smile from Trump. Perhaps this is why she refuses to attend events where protocol requires her to sit next to the jackass.
For some levity: last Sunday morning, the Weather Channel forecast a 60% chance of late afternoon rain, wind gusts, and thunderstorms. The Trump WH did what it always does, it attacked the source of the unwelcome information. The WH declared that the “celebration of America’s [Trump’s] unmatched greatness,“ was just an opportunity for the Weather Channel’s “friendless loser”, who published the forecast, to try and ruin the party.
And this WH is negotiating a settlement with Iran.
Kelly Scoles,
Fillmore, Ca