The U.S. eliminated the penny with the face of Abraham Lincoln engraved on each coin because it was too costly to produce; now, if your purchase costs 3 cents, you’ll need to pony up a nickel. Gov. JB Pritzker raves that the Land of Lincoln eliminated the 1% grocery tax to help residents with affordability. But cities and towns can institute and collect that 1% tax.
Now with the price of a gallon of gasoline challenging affordability for residents, Pritzker can’t think outside the box and defer the excise tax that his Springfield politicians recklessly passed into law, which is in addition to the federal tax. But states like Indiana and Georgia have helped affordability for their residents by suspending state taxes on gasoline at this critical time.
Remember the phrase “every penny counts.” It’s more important today for affordability.
— Robert Meale, Crystal Lake
Suspend gas tax? Stop the war.
The May 12 article “Trump: Ceasefire on ‘life support’” mentions that President Donald Trump wants to suspend the federal gas tax. Surely, we all want to see the per-gallon cost of gas reduced and made more affordable for all of us ordinary Americans. All we want to do is get to and from work, school and the grocery store without blowing our budgets.
However, this tax brings in $23 billion annually to the federal coffers. The ill-advised war in Iran has cost $29 billion so far. Federal tax collections are now a bit more than $5 trillion, and federal expenditures are now about $7 trillion. Our national debt is $39 trillion and growing.
Anyone with a basic understanding of math can see that the United States is functionally insolvent. Any corporation with these numbers would be in bankruptcy court. Suspending the federal gas tax would make us feel good and ease the strain on our pocketbooks, but unfortunately would put federal finances further in the hole.
Trump can jockey his private developments and investments into bankruptcy, but we should not allow him to do the same to the U.S. Instead of funding an unnecessary military “excursion” and suspending the gas tax, Trump should end this ill-advised war with Iran and get us out of this mess. His ego would take a hit, but that is better than the rest of us getting bludgeoned every time we fill up our gas tanks.
— Karen Meehan, Chicago
Consequences of policies
Lowe’s CEO Marvin Ellison recently predicted that 41% of U.S. construction workers will be retired in five years.
President Donald Trump claims to want to increase the supply of housing, but the reality of Ellison’s prediction, combined with Trump’s immigration policy, seems likely to undermine any such effort because of an impending shortage of workers to build houses. Immigrant construction workers have been staying away from worksites for fear of deportation, and immigration policies limit immigration by those likely to work in the building trades.
This is another data point in a pattern of Trump’s that I have seen from when he entered the presidential campaign in 2015: He does not understand systems.
When I was in engineering school, I was taught what was called the systems approach, under which one considers the entire system, not just the component being worked on.
More Top Picks Best Refractor Telescopes For Planetary Imaging
Trump sees reality through a keyhole that shows him only what interests him. That what he sees is part of a system that will be affected by what he does appears to be beyond his grasp, which is why he does things like deporting and excluding the people he needs to accomplish what he says is his goal. Obvious consequences to him, such as healthcare and the Strait of Hormuz, come as surprises, prompting “Who knew?” responses.
There is also the matter of priorities. If he is required to choose, which he is, it is clear that Trump would rather deport people than make housing affordable. There is ample evidence that he is a bigoted xenophobe who has surrounded himself with like-minded people. No more proof of this is needed than his drastic reduction of legal admissions of refugees, who, in 2024, were mostly nonwhite, and reserving the majority of the remaining refugee slots for white South Africans, but he has made more than a few confirming statements.
For decades, I have been unenthusiastic, not only about immigration but also about population growth, but I am realistic enough to understand the importance of evaluating the effect on our economy of immigration policies. Trump is renowned for his transanctionalism and willingness to deal with anybody if the dollar signs are there, but, when immigrants are involved, his interest in exclusion distracts him from the bottom line.
— Curt Fredrikson, Mokena, Illinois
Major contributor to defeat
Regarding the editorial “Democrats’ internal squabble over 2024 autopsy speaks to a bigger issue” (May 10): There is no mention of the biggest factor separating Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris and the Democratic National Committee from victory in 2024, despite an entire editorial purporting to address it. More than 70% of Democrats polled in 2023 said they wanted a ceasefire in Gaza. Harris lied when she said Joe Biden’s administration was working “tirelessly” toward that end. Nothing at all was done. Biden surpassed Ronald Reagan in permissiveness for refugees’ suffering.
The DNC sent a clear message during the August 2024 convention in Chicago when it disallowed any Palestinian American speaker from the stage.
That was heard, loudly and clearly.
— Murad Toor, Bolingbrook
Where are the real solutions?
Regarding the editorial about the Democrats’ internal squabble over 2024: I am a Democrat, and I couldn’t agree more with the sentiment of the editorial.
The November midterms are the Democrats’ to lose. Democratic leadership needs to face unpleasant facts to provide real solutions to non-millionaire/non-billionaire citizens’ problems because it has become abundantly clear that the pathologically lying, self-serving narcissist with an inferiority complex currently occupying the White House and his enablers have no intention of doing what is best for the whole of the country or for our democracy.
— Maureen McCarthy, Deerfield
What Democrats are in favor of
Scott Stantis’ editorial cartoon in the Sunday edition implies that Democrats are only against President Donald Trump and questions what Democrats are “for.” I guess everything has to be spelled out for voters because it is clear that Democrats are for affordable and adequate healthcare for all Americans. Republicans have consistently voted against healthcare reform. Democrats are for subsidizing childcare for working parents as well as providing food and housing assistance for low-income Americans. Republicans have slashed funding for these essential services.
Democrats are for violence prevention programs and stricter gun regulation. Republicans have lobbied hard for the rights of gun owners, even though gun violence is a leading cause of death for American children.
Democrats have always been for good public education for all Americans while Republicans undermine the struggle to make public education better. Democrats have fought hard for expanding voting rights to maintain our free and fair elections. Republicans are doing their best to restrict voting rights.
If voters are paying attention to what goes on in Washington, and in our state legislatures, it is very clear what Democrats are for!
— Judy Weik, Oak Park
Note to readers
In honor of our “Chicago 2050” op-ed series, we’d like to hear from you about your hopes for what Chicago will be like in 25 years. (Sincere thoughts only.) Send a letter of no more than 400 words to [email protected]. Be sure to include your full name and your city/town.
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email [email protected].