Border relief could have started much earlier if not for Trump interference
Re: “In Arizona, relief along the border now that Trump is back in charge,” March 9 commentary
It’s great that Arizona Rancher John Ladd has less stress because of border issues. I’m not sure he knows his relief could have started a year earlier. A solution to the border crisis was ready to be implemented and could have helped him 12 months ago.
After months of negotiations, Sen.James. Lankford (R-Okla.), Sen.Chris Murphy (D- Conn.), and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.) unveiled a bipartisan $118 billion border bill in February of 2024. It focused on Congress funding critical solutions facing border officials, border towns, and border residents like Ladd.
Neither Republicans nor Democrats got everything they wanted, but it did concentrate on making the border more orderly, secure, fair, and humane. About $650 million was allocated for the border wall and $4 billion for hiring new asylum officers to reduce backlogs. It required the president to shut down the border if the number of migrants hit specific thresholds. It sped up the process for deciding asylum claims and authorized migrants to work while waiting for their claims to be adjudicated.
Republicans got funding for the border wall. Democrats got increased border personnel. Ranchers, like Ladd, got relief.
But it didn’t happen. Then-candidate Donald Trump squashed the bill because he wanted the border problem to continue. His candidacy was more important than anything positive for our country.
Instead, Ladd had another 12 months to stress out, and there is still not a permanent solution. There is still a backlog of asylum claims and what’s being done now is certainly not fair or humane.
Ronald Fischer, Lakewood
Let’s get the facts straight on the need for food
Re: “Families need to learn there is no such thing as a free lunch,” March 9 commentary
Before she rolls out the tired cliché that there is no free lunch, we’d ask columnist Krista Kafer to dig into the facts around a current legislative proposal allowing people who use the Supplemental Nutrition Program (food stamps) to spend that money on restaurant meals.
As planned, the program would allow people who are 60 years or older, are living with a disability or who are unhoused to participate. These are the very individuals who are most likely to struggle to shop and prepare home-cooked meals. And nothing in the proposal is an expansion of benefits. The only change is an expansion of where the dollars they receive can be spent.
And before we all buy into Kafer’s “eating out on other people’s dime” mentality, just a brief note that this program will allow a direct reinvestment into small businesses and local economies around the state. The Colorado Restaurant Association notes that every dollar spent in local restaurants contributes $2.21 to the state economy, and every additional $1 million spent generates 16.8 local jobs.
We should be encouraging smart evolutions of existing programs like SNAP when they can make this kind of impact for both individuals who deserve a program that meets their needs and small businesses and communities who deserve the economic development these small enhancements can bring.
Greta Allen, Denver
Editor’s note: Allen is the policy director for the Colorado Blueprint to End Hunger.
Drawing conclusions in a news story
Re: “Trump is right. AP is not as trustworthy as we think it is.” March 9 letter to the editor
The letter writer states that an Associated Press story reporting that President Donald Trump is tearing down federal government “in an attempt to increase his own authority” is opinion, not fact. The writer italicized that part for evidence. Well, that is indeed fact. Any AP reporting less would be journalistic pablum.
Jeff Baysinger, Lakewood
I applaud the letter. The writer separates opinion from fact by referring to a byline by the Associated Press. I read these types of bylines and articles endlessly, not only by AP but also by the New York Times and even The Denver Post. Journalists skew the facts and offer up opinions that sound like facts all the time. The letter writer puts things into perspective and his analysis is thinking in a clear-cut and objective way. Journalists need to take a look at their job description, and possibly the ship could be righted, but I’m not holding my breath.
Kay Robbins, Denver
Already underfunded, lung cancer research must be protected
This year, more than 226,000 new cases of lung cancer will be diagnosed in the United States – the number one cancer killer. I live with this knowledge every day because lung cancer has touched my life.
This letter is for my sister, who was diagnosed with ALK+ lung cancer in 2023 at the age of 44 and is currently in daily treatment with quarterly scans. This treatment has kept her alive and I’m afraid of what may happen if funding for this research is taken away.
Recently, I was honored to join health care experts, people with lung cancer, caregivers, and others impacted by the disease to educate Congress members about the urgent needs of the lung cancer community at GO2 for Lung Cancer Voices Summit. New developments in lung cancer research and treatment hold promise for people like my sister. We requested immediate action to reverse policies that disrupt critical cancer studies and delay new treatments. Lung cancer is one of the least funded cancers yet is the leading cause of cancer death.
Together, we can confront lung cancer and save lives.
Lindsay Soukup, Denver
Erasing DEI from history dishonors our veterans
Re: “War heroes, military firsts among images flagged for DEI Pentagon,” March 8 news story
Our veterans’ memories are being buried alive. Will anyone play “Taps?”
I’m disgusted by news that the Department of Defense has flagged tens of thousands of photos, videos and stories for removal. The Associated Press reports that nearly all these records purges will target women and minorities.
Some of this torching of our veteran’s history may be pure incompetence, like flagging for deletion a photo of the “Enola Gay” B-29 that dropped the first atomic bomb because the airplane’s name includes the word “gay.”
But it’s obvious that the president and his Fox News host secretary of defense mean to remove stories of our fighting men and women so that, they hope, Americans will forget that others besides straight, white, Christian men sacrificed for America.
These stories are not just “propaganda” for the American military; they are the personal stories of ourselves, our sons, daughters, fathers, neighbors and loved ones.
We are assured that these products are being “archived.” You and I will be forced to request our own history via the very bureaucratic processes Pete Hegseth and others claim to be tearing down on our behalf.
I spent 32 years serving as a military public affairs officer. My military and civilian co-workers told stories about everyone who served, regardless of their age, sex, race, religion or political affiliations. We were all Americans, working to make the world safer and, God bless us, more stable.
The current rush to delete our veterans’ history is shameful, misguided and cruel.
Michael Pierson, Colorado Springs
Is there any hope for a middle ground in Congress?
We learned nothing from the State of the Union except that most of our representatives to Congress act like teenagers at a pep rally in high school. The president said nothing that we have not already heard before.
The State of the Union should be a dignified event where Congress and the citizens learn what is happening with our nation and what the president wants to happen. Instead, we see the members of the president’s party cheering on anything he says, regardless of the merit or lack thereof. The members not of the president’s party boo anything he says, again without any consideration of the merit or lack thereof of the proposal. The actions of both parties are despicable.
I wish our representatives to Congress would act like adults rather than adolescents who blindly do whatever the current boss wants. They should sit and listen instead of acting like they are at a football game. What Congress does or does not do affects all of us and is not a matter to be treated like the outcome of a sporting event.
I used to think that when a proposed law came before Congress the members would determine the benefits and detriments before deciding how to vote. It seems now if the proposal was suggested by a member of the opposing party it is the most horrible idea ever conceived; if proposed by a member of the legislator’s party it is the greatest idea ever conceived.
No wonder more than 40% of the registered voters in Colorado are unaffiliated.
Wayne Patton, Salida
Rugby a strong choice for female athletes
Re: “Female athletes deserve to be championed, not challenged,” March 9 commentary
Strong, fast young women should play rugby — and others should support it — for the simple reason that it is a fun sport.
I played women’s rugby when I was in college over 25 years ago. I was previously a track & field sprinter, but when I got to college, I wanted the experience of a team ball sport. In rugby, I usually played wing, sometimes fullback. When I scored a try in my first game, I knew I loved the sport.
Promoting self-esteem, health, and fitness can be valuable side benefits of those women’s sports that focus on performance rather than image. Playing rugby might have helped me get past the narrow ideas of feminine beauty of the 1990s when the “waif” look was in fashion, and many women refused to lift heavy weights for fear of looking “muscley.” While other women were starving themselves to attain some manufactured image, I was staying strong and fast and having fun.
The bottom line is that sports are a way to have fun, and women’s rugby is exhilarating.
Ruth Moore, Conifer
Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.