I sat one morning reading the op-ed “I worked for USAID for 16 years. I saw the profound difference it made.” (March 25). Author Gavi Rosenthal identifies the cruelty in canceling our nation’s collective efforts to treat the people of the world to our true benevolence. Whether it has been to feed the starving, house the homeless, cure the sick or simply console the bereaved. Those are the exact qualities I’d like to think we subscribe to and want our government to facilitate on our behalf across the earth each and every day.
No, they do not make us wealthier, which seems to be the only thing our disgusting government seems to care about these days. And yes, it does cost money to spread compassion across the globe to those suffering in the farthest reaches. The fact is we are economically well off — sometimes more than at other times, but all in all, we do all right. We can afford to spread goodwill, food, knowledge and financial assistance to less fortunate others, especially those who are suffering from calamitous events. Most of us were raised to reach out to those in need both at home and abroad. I can’t do it myself, and I’ve always been appreciative of many like Rosenthal out there doing it for us.
It is despicable what this administration has done to hurt so many. I am no longer proud to be an American, and why should I be? We bully our neighbors, we turn our back on our friends, we renege on our commitments and we don’t even care to feed our own hungry children. We have become the definition of an enemy who can’t be trusted.
Thanks to USAID, we have helped many over the years. We need you now more than ever.
Rural and urban America
The divide between conservative rural America and liberal urban centers feels increasingly insurmountable. A common issue might prove fertile ground to sow much-needed unity in our nation: economic pain.
Political rhetoric perpetuates misunderstandings that obscure the economic struggles that unite these groups. Farmers are feeling the effects of changing policies that they themselves affirmed. Their loyalty to certain political ideologies, reinforced by cultural identity and distrust of government intervention, has placed them at odds with their own economic well-being.
Farmers face rising costs, climate change and trade policies that put them in precarious financial positions. An example of this is the gutting of the U.S. Agency for International Development. While the immediate shockwave was felt internationally, American farmers received a black eye from the slashing and burning of the humanitarian group as well. USAID bought about $2 billion of products from American farmers annually. Food programs run by USAID have been supplied by American farmers for decades. A healthy portion of contracts with USAID were legally mandated to American farmers — but no more.
These economic pressures have been further exacerbated by tariffs and now trade wars, particularly with China. In 2018, during the last trade war with China, it was estimated that farmers lost about $27 billion.
On the other side of the spectrum, small business owners in more urban areas are grappling with their own set of challenges. They face increasing costs due to inflation, a shrinking consumer base and endangered financial support from federal programming.
A productive path forward lies in focusing on the shared economic interests. The first step is to recognize that both rural farmers and small business owners want the same thing: a thriving local economy, fair market access and a stable financial future. Instead of viewing each other through the lens of ideological divides, we must acknowledge that both groups are victims of a system that has failed to prioritize local economic development.
The truth is that both groups are critical to their local economies, and both groups face hardship. For rural farmers, it’s about ensuring fair pricing for their goods, protecting agricultural jobs and having effective policies that don’t leave them battered by unending trade wars that threaten their livelihoods.
For urban small business owners, it’s about ensuring equitable access to capital and adapting to rapidly shifting economic conditions — while retaining access to critical funds and federal programming.
And for both groups — it’s about succeeding as Americans.
— Emilia DiMenco, CEO, Women’s Business Development Center, Chicago
Putting our nation first
The entire point of President Donald Trump imposing tariffs on foreign-made products is to get Americans to buy American products and to strongly encourage U.S. companies to build factories in the United States. Apple, for example, has already pledged $500 billion to expand facilities and teams in nine states in the next four years. That is how good jobs are created.
Trump created a roaring economy during his first term and low unemployment until COVID-19 arrived. He can do it again. The U.S. Department of Agriculture this month reported that egg prices reached a five-month low. Illegal border crossings have also dropped. We are on the right path, despite what the angry Democrats say, and it is up to every one of us to buy American and put our nation first.
If you’re not with us, you’re against us.
— Mike Kirchberg, Chicago
Tree trimming analogy
Perhaps the following analogy would help the author of the letter “Government is bloated” in the March 25 edition. Staff members of the Forestry Service are tasked with trimming the trees in a popular local park. The trees serve a purpose for the community by providing not only removal of carbon dioxide but also beauty and shade. For knowledgeable foresters, the first step is to evaluate the situation with the purpose of removing dead or tertiary growth. Removal of major limbs or improperly removed limbs and the chopping off of the top of the tree could result in significant stress and perhaps death of the trees. The result would be unnecessary destruction and a detrimental effect on the community.
Tree trimming involves careful evaluation, experienced judgment and prudent action. The point is not that the task is completed but how it is completed. Is there a path of ruin and waste in its wake, or are the members of the community serviced positively in the process? Is the job done carelessly so the foresters look busy, or with care and the understanding that the end product is restoration and continued growth?
The richest people running the government do not care about the trees in the local park or the purpose the trees serve to the community. The trees do not increase revenue. The park has nothing to do with expansion of a business model. There is probably waste in government, none of which has been specifically detailed, just as there are branches growing on trees in the park that need to be trimmed, but that does not preclude caring for the trees that are struggling, nor does it include cutting down the trees at the base to eliminate need for the Forestry Service.
The purpose of big biz is to make big money for big biz. The purpose of government is to promote the general welfare of society. Having the intellect and luck to be successful at one does not imply success at the other; the goals and mindset are very different. The decisions of the richest in Washington are not being made with careful evaluation, experienced judgment and prudent action.
If the park in my analogy becomes diminished or destroyed by the less knowledgeable forestry managers, more saplings can replace the mature trees, but how many years will that take and at what cost?
— Lorraine Klabunde, Chicago
Pulling a cannonball
There are a lot of baby boomers — among the most populous of generations — who are dependent on Social Security to augment their savings or merely to subsist. President Donald Trump’s tampering with Social Security will alienate a large contingent of his own base. Usually presidents go through a water-wings period before sticking a toe into incompetence. Trump seems to have cannonballed directly into ineptitude.
— Jim Arneberg, Hoffman Estates
