To the Editor:
When President Trump started the war with Iran, he said it would last two to four weeks. Then it was four to six weeks. Now he said it will not last as long as the ten-year long Vietnam war. He also said he does not care about the economic pain this war is causing the American people.
The pain is real, not just in the price of gasoline. Food, energy, electricity, rents, mortgages, and health care are all rising. The cost of living in March was 1.2 percent higher than in February and April was 0.9 percent higher than in March. This is an annual rate of 12 percent. Prices are still climbing in May.
Unfortunately, Trump’s party in Congress is unwilling to stand up to him and for the American people. It is time for the people to stand up for themselves by ridding Congress of those that care more about Trump than those who put them in office.
Walter Hamilton
Portsmouth, N.H.
Walter:
Just as brave Odysseus once navigated between rocky Scylla and the whirlpool Charybdis, today we, the beaten-up, trodden-down people, must find our way forward, though caught between Republican avarice and Democratic fecklessness.
Unfortunately, we’ve abdicated so much of our power for so long, many of us have forgotten how to citizen. Perhaps the energetic current effort to overturn democracy and reduce us all to serfdom will stir those vestigial impulses in enough of us to mount an effective defense.
The Editor
–=≈=–
The Department of What?
Gentlemen,
PLEASE stop referring to the Dept. of Defense as the Dept. of War. Only Congress has the ability to create depts and NO CHANGE OF NAME has been conveyed on the Dept. of Defense.
In the 6th, 7th, + 8th paragraphs of your front page article “An Unholy Fortnight” [April 17th] you continually used the name Dept. of War. WRONG!
Please refrain from continually using that term in the future.
Sincerely,
Linda A. Chiles
Phoenix, Ariz.
Dear Linda:
First, let us say most sincerely that we regret whatever distress you may have felt due to our use of the term in question. Our own experience tells us that these days life can seem like an endless succession of affronts, insults, and gratuitous indignities, and we sympathize completely.
In fact we find that the discordance between what the world is, and what we believe it could and should be, to be so grating and unpleasant that in order to live at peace with it, we are forced to publish this newspaper. By placing steady but manageable demands on our time, it keeps us out of the pool halls. Most importantly, its independence affords us the freedom to write as accurately and honestly as we can.
The points you make about Secretary of Defense Hegseth’s transparent effort to hide his own, no doubt justified, insecurities by fiat, unsupported by the law, are, of course, accurate and relevant.
However, you have asked us, most emphatically, to voluntarily curtail our own freedom of speech. That is a request to which, on principle, we cannot and will not comply.
Respectfully,
The Editor
–=≈=–
Our Healthcare System is Sickening
Dear Editor:
One of the great debates in American politics is how to provide healthcare for the population. Almost every other industrialized and even many poorer nations provide universal healthcare through a national tax system where everyone pays in and everyone is covered. In America, most healthcare coverage is provided through an employer or a government program such as Medicare, Medicaid, the VA or the military. The argument that many politicians use to oppose a national healthcare system like other nations have is that it would be too expensive and it would require more taxes.
What the politicians fail to mention is that everyone is paying for healthcare, even those who do not have health insurance themselves. When a person purchases any good or service, part of the cost of those goods and services include covering the healthcare insurance costs of almost everyone involved in providing those goods or services. For example, when you buy food at the local grocer, part of the price of every item purchased includes the cost to provide health insurance to those who were involved in getting you that product, from the producer to the grocery store worker.
When you pay taxes, either local, state or federal, part of those tax dollars are to provide health insurance for local, state and federal employees. Which they rightly deserve. When you pay rent, you pay for the health insurance of the property owner as well as their property taxes which help provide health insurance to government workers, or those receiving government supported healthcare.
So, what does that mean with regard to how much we are paying for people to get healthcare insurance? While no single percentage applies to every product, the GDP provides a good estimate. With healthcare representing 18 percent of GDP, that implies that for every $100 in goods or services purchased, nearly $18 supports the overall healthcare system. According to AI, health insurance (both private and public) covers the vast majority of total healthcare expenses in the United States, accounting for approximately 74 percent of all national healthcare spending as of 2024. As such, for every $100 a person spends on goods and services, $13.32 is to cover healthcare insurance. In effect, we are paying a 13.32 percent tax on goods and services to provide health insurance for people, even if the person paying the 13.32 percent tax does not enjoy health insurance because they cannot afford it and/or their employer does not provide it. And this 13.32 percent hidden tax is above any other state or federal taxes we pay.
Of course, in addition to this 13.32 percent hidden “healthcare tax” we also pay a great deal more for healthcare with insurance copays, deductibles, premiums and other out-of-pocket healthcare expenses people living in nations with a national healthcare system do not directly pay for. Yes, those folks in other nations pay higher taxes, but when you account for the hidden tax, deductibles, copays and other expenses, we may pay much more. According to AI, as of 2023, U.S. out-of-pocket healthcare spending—including copays, deductibles, and coinsurance—averaged approximately $1,514 per person, per year, over $6,000 for a family of four! And beyond that, they never fear losing health insurance if they become unemployed, never have to worry about not being able to pay for healthcare, and never need to face bankruptcy because of healthcare expenses. The freedom from not having to deal with the stress of healthcare expenses, access and coverage is priceless. So, when a national politician claims that we cannot have a national healthcare system because it would be some kind of “Socialism” and/or “too expensive” ask them where their health insurance comes from and who pays for it.
Rich DiPentima, RN, MPH
Portsmouth, N.H.
Rich:
First of all, thank you for alerting us to the parts of this letter in which you relied on AI. We know you know the health care business. We hope you carefully evaluated the alleged facts provided by our new silicon overlords. We went ahead and published this because we believe it probably represents a fairly accurate assessment of the cost of the health care system with which we are currently saddled.
We are all paying for a so-called system that is so convoluted it makes Rube Goldberg’s most extravagant contraption look like it was designed by Apple. Each element seems to be powered by its own barrel full of burning currency. Every doctor and patient enmeshed in the damned thing seems to hate it. Meanwhile millions are forced to do without it—but, as you say, have to pay for it anyway.
Have we all lost our minds? No. We’re all just stuck in a political system that allows profitable enterprises to finagle elections and elect compliant politicians.
The Editor
–=≈=–
Watching China Eat Our Lunch
To the editor;
Trump’s China visit offers the opportunity to compare his approach to geopolitical strategy with Xi Jinping’s and to evaluate the current positions of China and America in terms of geopolitical rivalry. Trump’s preferred bargaining posture is to negotiate from a position of power and bully an opponent using threats and intimidation to gain concessions. When he perceives that he has “the cards,” Trump’s decisions are often impulsive, ego-driven, and ill-considered. The initiation of the war with Iran is an example. With Xi, Trump was more circumspect. Weakened by failure in Iran, domestic economic issues and facing a powerful rival, Trump relied on personal diplomacy, using flattery and assumed friendship in an unsuccessful effort to gain concessions from Xi. As usual, Trump focused on short term, commercial bargains. In contrast, Xi’s positions remained consistent with China’s well-defined long-term strategy and core national interests. Xi took the initiative on the first day of negotiations by emphasizing that Chinese control over Taiwan was non-negotiable and warned against any U.S. action supporting Taiwanese independence. Moreover, Xi appeared confident throughout the meetings, secure in China’s status as an equal to the U.S. While Trump sought commercial deals that would help him politically, Xi remained focused on long term stabilization that would consolidate China’s economic and geopolitical goals.
The contrast between Chinese and American methods of geopolitical strategy-making is striking. In 2026, Xi implemented China’s fifteenth five-year plan to guide economic growth and stabilize social development. China’s economic and geopolitical strategies are guided by the principles outlined by Mao Zedong in a 1938 book, On Protracted War. The book is often cited by Xi and other prominent Chinese strategists. In it, Mao outlines a long-term strategy for how a weaker power can defeat a stronger adversary. The process unfolds in three phases; the first is the Strategic Defensive in which the weaker power avoids direct confrontations while building its capabilities. The second is the Strategic Stalemate where the adversaries are equally matched and engage in struggle. The end phase is the Strategic Counter-offensive, where power shifts and the hegemon is replaced.
Chinese planners have adapted Mao’s strategy to geopolitical rivalry. Economic planners have identified critical industries that are likely to dominate global economic growth. Industries tagged as critical receive incentives such as direct subsidies, below market interest loans and various tax incentives. A major focus is on creating technological self-reliance to ensure that China will not be vulnerable to American technology dominance. China has achieved considerable success following this process. It has developed substantial leads in electric vehicle manufacturing, green energy technology, high tech battery design, and in the mining and refining of rare earths essential for high tech products. Moreover, its Made in China 2025 initiative plans to extend their dominance in global manufacturing, moving from low-cost production to high tech products such as robotics and aerospace. As part of their geopolitical strategy, China is forging trade and financial partnerships with the Global South to counter the global hegemony of the U.S. Given these successes, Xi clearly believes that China has moved beyond Mao’s phase one and is currently in the Strategic Stalemate phase in which China no longer must defer to America on the global stage.
The U.S struggles to compete with the Chinese process. America operates on a 24-month election cycle in which the majority party may be voted out, and its policies overturned. Moreover, the current dysfunctional relations between the two parties make it even more unlikely that long-term economic policies will survive. Since the development of modern technologies often takes years, it is difficult for the U.S. to sustain a national technology strategy. Additionally, many conservatives and neoliberals adhere to a free-market ideology that discredits the government engaging in formulating a national economic policy. They believe that free market solutions to any economic problem are superior to government intervention. These ideologues apparently have not paid attention to China over the last four decades and prefer to leave American economic development to the tech companies that make up our current oligarchy.
Robert D. Russell, PhD
Harrisburg, Pa.
Robert:
Why are we reminded of the hare and the tortoise? Science fiction writers figured out long before our politicians that the future probably belongs to China. It takes a special kind of stupid to underestimate a system that lifted out of poverty in just forty years twice as many people as now live in the good ol’ U.S.A.
The Editor
–=≈=–
Where the Lady of the Lake is Now
Dear Editors,
W.D. Ehrhart wonders in the May 1st edition if it wouldn’t do just as well to have strange women lying in ponds handing out swords to determine our government’s leaders, like in Monty Python. Where is the Lady of the Lake when we need her, you ask?
Those were the good old days, when women were so often mythical objects serving men. But alas, those days are gone. After two decades of standing frozen in that filthy lake handing out swords to self-important brutes day after day while her law degree and PhD in environmental engineering lay dormant, Arthur was the last straw. Anyone who calls a woman a “moistened bint” deserves to drown in that damned lake, which is exactly what happens to the lemming-like arrogant pricks who continue to visit the lake today waiting in vain for some “strange woman” to gift them unearned confidence in the intelligence and leadership skills they never had.
The Lady of the Lake has long since been running things as CEO of a law firm fighting for climate justice, and gets a special satisfaction sending to prison the conniving bastards whom she otherwise would’ve had to serve with swords.
Oh, and by-the-by, she’s running for election next season, and she sure as hell isn’t going to wait around for some ethereal buffoon of a man to hand her a sword in a lake, because she’s smart enough to know he’d stab her in the back with it before he ever handed it over. Sorry to break the news.
Sincerely,
Daughter of the Former Lady of the Lake
Exeter, N.H.
Dear Daughter:
We’re glad to hear that the Lady in question is making better use of her time these days. Please extend to her our best wishes.
The Editor
–=≈=–
The Trump Crime Family
Dear Editor:
Anyone who still believes that crime doesn’t pay has not been paying attention.
For example, recent government disclosures reveal that since the start of the Iran war, Donald Trump’s brokerage account executed thousands of stock transactions, purchasing millions of dollars worth of oil, defense stocks, and gold. The account, which is not in a blind trust, purchased defense company shares before Trump made many of his market-moving announcements. Talk about insider trading!
Also, yesterday, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, a former Trump lawyer, announced an agreement which states, “The United States releases, waives, acquits, and forever discharges” Trump, his sons, and the Trump Organization, “and is hereby forever barred and precluded from prosecuting or pursuing, any and all claims” that, as of yesterday, “have been or could have been asserted” by the IRS against them or “related or affiliated individuals” or companies. As such, Trump’s Justice Department is giving a blanket promise to stop all IRS audits of Trump’s taxes and not to prosecute any crimes Trump, his family, his businesses, or his associates might have committed.
Last but not least, yesterday the Department of Justice announced it is creating a $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” to compensate what it calls victims of the Department of Justice under former President Joe Biden. Acting attorney general Todd Blanche said the fund was “a lawful process for victims of lawfare and weaponization to be heard and seek redress.” The agreement sets up a fund made up of five people, four of whom Trump’s hand-picked attorney general will choose. The fifth will be chosen “in consultation with congressional leadership,” but Trump can remove any one of them “without cause.” This fund will be used to give monetary compensation to almost 1,600 criminals pardoned by Trump who attacked the Capitol on January 6, 2021, killing a police officer, and desecrating the Capitol in an attempt to overturn an election. The amount of the fund, $1,776 billion is not a random number. It represents how the insurrectionists represented January 6th, as Independence Day 1776. So not only were they pardoned for their crimes, they will be heavily compensated for their crimes as well.
The Trump administration has made it an official policy that crime does pay if you are Mr. Trump, his friends and family.
Rich DiPentima
Portsmouth, N.H.
Rich:
One would like to think that these blatant crimes might be enough to snap a few cultists out of their comas. But, having lost our taste for dashed hopes, we will withhold judgment for the nonce.
The Editor
–=≈=–
What Was the N.H. Senate Thinking?
To the Editor:
The New Hampshire Senate just passed a bill that would remove all oversight of home-schooled education. If parents are drug addicts, they can withdraw their children from public school and receive thousands in taxpayer funds to finance their habit instead of educating their children. The same is true if the parent is addicted to gambling or pornography.
Sending parents the message that the state does not care what they do with the state’s money for education is a clear invitation for waste, fraud and abuse. This is not what New Hampshire voters sent people to the state house to do.
Walter Hamilton
Portsmouth N.H.
Walter:
Curious, isn’t it? Going back at least as far as the administration of William Howard Taft, Republicans have blathered on ad nauseam about their unique capacity for fiscal prudence. Whatever those miserable rabble, the people, begged for, they could not have it because Republicans in their wisdom had determined that it—better education, better healthcare, better housing, whatever—was simply too expensive.
How did we go from that to “Want taxpayer money? Here, take this!” We only have room for a short answer: William Loeb III prepared the ground. Craig Benson—unceremoniously ejected from the corner office after a single term—courted the Free Staters. They run under the Republican banner because too many voters see libertarianism for what it is: a half-baked mish-mash of crackpot theories.
The Editor
–=≈=–
The Abject Object of Their Adoration
To the editor:
President Trump’s comments on world affairs lately really tell a story. For example, regarding Cuba he says, “The place is a mess. They’ve lost control.” (CBS News, May 20th.)
This commentary might just as well have been directed at America’s constitutional republic, which is clearly a mess and has lost all control over the despot in the White House.
Regarding China’s communist leader Xi Jinping, Trump says he is a “great leader.” (May 14th.) Wow, the party leader who subjects more innocent citizens to the death penalty than even Iran is “great,” huh? I guess what makes you great is your ability to kill off freedom-loving folks.
President Trump also announced to America that he didn’t even finish reading a recent Iranian proposal to end the war before rejecting it. (CBS News, May 10th.) Similar bragging was evident in his accomplishment of the destruction of the Iranian navy, “159 ships at the bottom of the sea.” (Full Measure, May 10th.)
Possibly at the bottom of the barrel is his recent announcement, “I don’t think about Americans’ financial situation.” (PBS News, May 13th.)
No matter, however. All these messianic statements only excite his base to greater heights of adoration.
Kimball Shinkoskey
Woods Cross, Utah
Kimball:
Our best Republican president led the nation by appealing to the better angels of our nature. He had the advantage of growing up in poverty, though. Our worst—who was raised by a racist who was raised by a pimp—had everything growing up. No wonder he’s such a schmuck.
The Editor