In her recent Forum letter (“What Are American Women Thinking?), Eleanor Farr asked what American women are thinking by supporting Hillary Clinton.
I am an American woman. Here’s what I’m thinking: I’m thinking millions of American women do indeed endure the grueling work, home and child-rearing crunch Ms. Farr describes. I’m thinking yes, money helps. But I am also thinking that trusting Donald Trump to bring us “more money in (our) pockets” is like believing we “cannot lose and (will) win, win, win” every time we buy a Megabucks ticket. Don’t bet on it.
I’m thinking I cannot trust Donald Trump to run the largest economy in the world. He is notorious for unethical and cheap business dealings. He has shorted payments he owes to honest workers; he has sent jobs overseas; he has entered into cozy deals with foreign banks; and he has stiffed America out of millions of dollars in income tax — shifting to the rest of us his share of what it takes to run our country.
I’m thinking Trump is no role model for our children and grandchildren. I cringe at the thought of the Frat-Boy-in-Chief leering at perfect 10 women, humiliating the rest, and bragging crudely about where he would grope them — because as a “star” he can do whatever he wants. I am thankful that the two American women I helped to raise have the common sense and the dignity to see this man for what he is: a boor, a bully and a misogynist.
In her years of public service, Hillary Clinton has stood strong for equality under the law for every American regardless of race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation or gender. That’s the presidential role model our kids and grandkids need. I will vote for Hillary Clinton. I urge all American women to do the same.
Rebecca Kvam Paquette Hanover
Everyone is talking about Trump’s despicable behavior from 2005 on.
Let’s think about what would have happened if Hillary Clinton had not enabled Bill Clinton to treat women as toys while he was in Arkansas, or if Bill was impeached after all he did while president, i.e., Monica Lewinsky, lying by saying, “I did not have sex with that woman,” or saying “it depends on what the definition of what ‘is’ is.”
Hillary Clinton would probably not have run for senator, nor would she have been picked to be secretary of state. She would not have had a “private” server while she was working on behalf of the American people, or deleted 33,000 emails.
Perhaps Bernie Sanders should have remained in the race and let the delegates choose their candidate. Now “we the people” must suffer the consequences.
Marcella Logue Enfield
Remember when:
You could walk in New York City and not be afraid? You could work a 40-hour week and keep most of your paycheck. You could buy most everything “Made in America.” Those products lasted for years, because they were made with pride by your neighbors. There were no EBT cards, because neighbors helped each other. Everyone worked and was proud of having a job.
You could mention God in school. Our nation was “One Nation Under God.” A person’s word was their bond,
We had “statesmen,” not “career politicians.” The federal government served the people instead of the people serving the government. You could do your federal income tax on one page. Killing an unborn baby was murder. The Constitution was the law of the land.
Make America great again — vote Trump, for your grandchildren.
Jean Liepold Grantham
Condoning Trump’s Behavior
To the shrinking number of voters who still want to elect Trump president, I ask, “Do you respect your mother, grandmothers, sisters and aunts, and do you care about how your daughters will be treated?”
If so, you may consider, as do I, President Obama the best role model we have seen recently. He demonstrates exemplary behavior toward the women and girls in his family, toward all women and girls, and indeed toward everyone, whether he identifies with them or not.
Trump supporters may be pilloried by every woman they know, since to support him is to approve his behavior. The measure of an admirable leader is how he treats people who can do nothing for him.
Michael Whitman Lyme
Regarding the lovely picture of the caretaker blowing leaves on Friday’s front page, I wonder: Can we retain this beneficial leaf mulch under trees throughout the year rather than removing it as soon as it lands on the grass? The answer is yes
As a 15th-generation Yankee and certified arborist, I recommend bio-retentive tree care practices wherein all leaves and trimmed branches from a tree can be conserved as a protective layer over its own critical root zone.
Generally, this involves constructing a short border fence to prevent leaves from scattering in the wind. It is possible to design a shape under each tree that reflects the size and shape of the canopy. An additional aesthetic benefit is that one gains extended landscape color until the leaves are covered by snow. This involves sacrificing a portion of the lawn around each tree, though if arranged properly the depth of the leaves will suppress any weed growth through the following spring and summer.
I would like to remind Valley News readers that the act of continually removing fallen leaves deprives the roots of organic matter, micronutrients, conserved moisture and shade.
In the spring, a tree’s fine-root system can activate with better insulation and less competition from the surrounding lawn. Plus, the real estate value of a tree can rise by 3 to 4 percent if permanent leaf mulch is kept around it. Please leave leaves under trees.
Nicholas Whittaker Dankers Plainfield
Let Market Forces Rule
I have an idea that I’ve never heard discussed: Why not bring market forces back into play with health care? We’ve started this with higher deductibles, but I think it should be taken a step further.
I think everyone should have a deductible that is 25 percent of their income. After that, a single-payer system could kick in. Funding that would be much less of a challenge, and could be done with a payroll tax. (I don’t believe 25 percent would be any worse a hardship than what we have now. With my Obamacare plan — which has been a welcome improvement — I am liable for up to 30 percent of my income every year if I combine my premiums and maximum out-of-pocket expense.)
For people with chronic illness, this percentage could and should be reduced. Businesses that pay for health care premiums would instead give an evenly distributed raise to covered employees. Medicaid would still cover those who qualify. People would research what treatments are worth it, compare costs of different providers and would also be rewarded for being healthy.
Health insurance companies could insure people who don’t want to risk 25 percent of their income. This form of single-payer could still work toward the goal of reducing overall cost, such as rewarding providers for improving health care outcomes in cost-effective ways, rather than fee-for-service. Many people would bypass the complications of the health insurance industry.
Katie Smith Norwich