Editor:

The implication is made that the removal of federal funding (at Donald Trump’s request) will doom further AmeriCorps activity in Chatham. Unless we are just far more worshipful of the president than I had thought, I have to ask, “Why?” 

If this is worth doing, let’s do it ourselves. And Mr. Trump will just have to accommodate himself to the idea that not everyone shares his preferences.

And doing it ourselves will actually benefit our pocketbooks (if not our consciences). Because our system of taxation is quite progressive. And because Massachusetts has higher incomes than all but one of the other states, we pay more into such programs than we get back. (Meanwhile, lower income states, like Mississippi and Louisiana, get back more than they pay in.)

So doing it on our own will allow us to only pay for the benefits we get back without having to also subsidize such efforts in the other 48 lower income states.

(And therein lies the conscience crisis referred to above: If you think projects like AmeriCorps are morally good, and that we in Massachusetts should be subsidizing them, then that becomes a second problem that will need to be worked on.)

Fred Anderson
Chatham and Pittsburgh, Pa.

Editor:

I was really disappointed to watch the Chatham Select Board meeting on July 8 and find that no resolution has been forthcoming for the new water charges residents will be billed. Because folks with irrigation systems refuse to either get a well or get a new separate water meter, this means the majority of us will now be paying double for our water. This policy has been in effect for three years and the town keeps letting folks get away with this and now those without irrigation must pay for these scofflaws. Fines were supposed to be implemented for up to $300 a day for those that continue to water their lawn without wells or a separate meter. Three members of our board were totally mute during this discussion. Mr. Smith asked two to three times why this continues to happen and no one said anything. 

We elected these people to represent us. We have a town manager making over $220,000 per year and yet no one can fix this? Why do folks that follow the rules always get stuck paying for everyone else?

Judy Patterson
West Chatham

Editor: 

It is less than refreshing to read letters that bestow accolades on Donald Trump for his unlawful, unconstitutional, cruel and callous treatment of law-abiding, hard-working, tax-paying immigrants, the vast majority of whom have never committed a crime other than overstaying a visa or crossing the border illegally for a better life or to escape war, religious or political persecution. According to the U.S. Border and Customs Protection data, less than 1 percent of the 12 million unauthorized immigrants in the country (about half crossed illegally) have criminal records, yet Trump proposes to deport them all, claiming they are criminals because they crossed illegally or overstayed their visas.

During his campaign, he promised to deport only illegal immigrants who were criminals and had past criminal records, a productive and intelligent solution and a promise that Democrats supported. So much for Trump’s promises. 

Recently, in an apparent about-face brought about by public pressure, Trump decided that the country needs those law-abiding, hard-working immigrant farm, meatpacking, restaurant and hospitality workers and temporarily paused their deportation. Instead of simply declaring them permanently exempt from deportation, he resumed their deportation awaiting congressional legislative action that will likely never happen. Surprisingly, legislative action or inaction never stopped Trump from taking unilateral immigration action, with Stephen Miller’s anti-immigrant, inhumane advice. 

Disdain for Trump is rife and rightly so. As for a George Washington/Trump comparison, Washington said, “I cannot tell a lie,” whereas Trump says, “I can only tell lies.”

George Myers
Venice, Fla.

Editor:

I am writing as a concerned member of the Cape Cod master’s of social work cohort (graduating 2027) to highlight a decision by Boston University that will significantly impact our local community: the discontinuation of its in-person master of social work program here on Cape Cod.

This move is deeply troubling, particularly as it seems to contradict the very principles of advocacy, justice, and equity that are fundamental to social work practice and vital for our region.

Ending this program represents a profound loss for Cape Cod. It strips working individuals and parents, many of whom specifically chose this local, in-person format, of invaluable learning opportunities, crucial networking, and the chance to collaboratively address our unique community challenges. This decision not only risks worsening the existing social worker shortage on the Cape but also removes a reputable and invigorating educational resource right when our families need it most. Not only that, but providers will experience greater difficulty in hiring highly trained social workers.

As a parent of a 2-year-old, the in-person format of this program was essential for me to balance my roles as a working mother and a student. The prospect of having to commute to Boston for in-person learning or learn online, a requirement never part of my original enrollment, is both frustrating and disheartening. This change disproportionately affects those of us committed to serving our own community. The decision to also lay off our director will significantly diminish our guidance, local knowledge, and support, which cannot be replicated.

I urge Boston University to reconsider this decision and to uphold its stated values — inclusion and diversity, service to society, integrity, and community and collaboration — in how it serves regional communities like ours. We hope this vital issue receives the attention it deserves, prompting a reevaluation that truly prioritizes the needs and future of Cape Cod.

We are calling upon our entire Cape Cod community to join us in this critical effort. Your help is essential to preserving this vital program and ensuring our region continues to have access to highly trained social workers. Please sign our petition at www.capecodmsw.com and make your voice heard directly by Boston University.

Rachel White
Eastham

Editor:

Two weeks ago I saw an article praising the current president. I thought to myself, what a remarkably different reality this person lives in, but it is a foundational right that American citizens have their own views. I am glad The Chronicle prints a balanced range for its readers. 

This week James Coyle from Harwich wrote in agreeing with that article claiming that “A majority of the left are even against the deportation of the millions of illegals, including criminal ones.” I did wonder where he saw this survey. Then he stated, “Most of us want productive and intelligent solutions…” Yes, of course so many Americans do, both left and right, and yes we want safe and secure borders, and an immigration system that really works for our country and all the hard-working, desperate people that live here and want to do it the right way. My question is: When is the president going to demand that Congress, that he controls, begin to work on reforming and fixing our immigration system? At this moment in history he can do much to fix this decades-long problem. 

Instead we see people treated inhumanely and illegally, costing the taxpayers millions if not billions of dollars, to make a spectacle of this very sad problem we have refused to fix for so long.

And it is ironic he chose to compare this president to George Washington, the very president who refused to keep power for the good of the country, but that is another story for another day.

Kathy Miller
Brewster

Editor:

I take utmost exception to Edward Fried’s letter in the July 10 edition of The Chronicle wherein Mr. Fried callously associated our esteemed Grifter-in-Chief to that of a “snake oil salesman.” In doing so, he has denigrated every self-respecting snake oil salesman who is simply trying to earn a decent living!

I must be brief as I am in the process of placing my order for more DJT- ETH tokens!

Richard Ellis
Harwich

Editor: 

Our nation’s treatment of people receiving government assistance has become disgraceful in many ways. One of the major impacts on our neighbors of limited means is the erection of barriers for their acquisition of sufficient food. Here is one of my experiences with this issue. 

When I was recently waiting in the check-out line at a local grocery store, I noticed that the cashier was removing items from the bag of an elderly man in front of me. Surprised, I asked what was happening and she explained that the man had collected more items than his available $35 could cover. I asked her to stop removing items and paid the difference. He was extraordinarily grateful and asked for God’s blessings on me several times. The point here is not that I acted in any special way — I didn’t — but rather to illustrate the genuine need of those among us who could use some assistance in dealing with the many financial challenges of their lives. 

I believe we all have an obligation to treat our fellow human beings with kindness and respect and not to allow our normally generous country to deprive the less fortunate among us. We must compensate for the incredible greed and deficiencies evident in the “Big Beautiful Bill” just passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by the president. I urge all of us who are able to help make up for the law’s gross shortcomings by contributing to the Family Pantry of Cape Cod and to many other fine organizations that provide essential support to so many of our neighbors.

Erich Bender
North Chatham

Editor:

Any of our political leaders who are concerned about climate change, which ought to be all of them, should support increased public funding for cultivated-meat research. For readers who are unaware, the new protein is grown from animal cells, without slaughter. Scientists believe when the technology is fully developed cultivated meat will require a fraction of the greenhouse-gas emissions that slaughtered meat does.

Animal agriculture is one of the leading causes of climate change, an inconvenient truth serious environmentalists must reckon with. Cellular agriculture represents a scalable solution to this problem. Ecologically-conscious politicians at the state and federal level should allocate more government money toward cultivated-meat development. Let’s establish cellular-agriculture research centers at universities across the country.

Jon Hochschartner
Granby, Conn.