To the Editor:
Regarding your article “Schumer Defends Stance on Staving Off Shutdown” published on March 15:
Your piece touches on Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s dilemma with the stopgap spending bill, aimed at averting a government shutdown. Schumer had to choose: oppose the resolution to satisfy his progressive allies on Capitol Hill, risking blame on the Democrats for a shutdown, or support it to prevent figures like Donald Trump and Elon Musk from gaining unchecked power during the governmental void. In choosing the latter, Schumer acted wisely. Had a shutdown occurred, it would have gone beyond political lines, disproportionately affecting the most vulnerable citizens, whom the Democrats claim to champion. It’s baffling that former Speaker Nancy Pelosi didn’t see this too.
Robert Lockwood Mills
Sun City Center, Florida
To the Editor:
After spending many years on Capitol Hill, you’d expect Senator Chuck Schumer to grasp the concept of leverage in negotiations; it only works if the opposition believes you’ll follow through. During the budget continuing resolution vote, Schumer and his Democratic leadership disappointingly missed this key strategy. Now, President Trump, Elon Musk, and the MAGA contingent are aware that under pressure, Schumer retreats. Although the government remains operational, the Democrats’ sway in public matters has waned.
Robert S. Carroll
Staten Island
To the Editor:
Senator Chuck Schumer took one for the team by supporting the bill. While the outcome isn’t favorable, it’s less damaging than dealing with a total government shutdown.
Peggy Davis
Atlanta
To the Editor:
Senator Chuck Schumer’s recent action epitomizes why Democrats are losing ground in elections. When we fail to oppose intimidation, we’re perceived as standing for nothing.
Gilson Riecken
San Antonio
To the Editor:
Referring to your front-page article “Upstart Democrats’ Anger Rises Over Old Guard’s Grip on Party” from March 16: I resonate with that frustration and agree there’s a need for fresh leaders and objectives in Congress and state legislatures. Returning to the days of Joe Biden or Barack Obama isn’t an option, when we were under the impression of curbing billionaire power and tackling critical issues like climate change and homelessness. However, due to the resignation of some representatives, these threats are escalating. Revitalizing our democracy calls for embracing a bold agenda that ensures decent housing and healthcare, environmental responsibility, a fair electoral system, and accountability for polluters and billionaires alike.
Pat Rathbone
Watertown, Massachusetts
To the Editor:
It’s not just younger Democrats losing faith in cautious politicians. At 78, I’ve invested hours mobilizing my network of mostly over-70 political allies last week, encouraging them to reach out to their senators about the spending bill vote. I’m convinced that countless other seasoned activists, who’ve been advocating since the ’60s, also demanded Schumer to vote “no.”
And yes, despite what your article suggests, we’re familiar with podcasts — many of us make them ourselves.
Liza Ketchum
Watertown, Massachusetts
To the Editor:
In your analysis titled “Out for Revenge, Trump Chills Law Firms and the People They Defend” from March 14, you underscore the threatening implications of executive orders against law firms that represent clients disapproved by the administration. This action undermines a fundamental component of our legal framework: the access to professional legal service for everyone. For lawyers, much like doctors choosing patients, client selection should depend solely on professional discretion, not the political leanings of the individual served.
William Andersen
Seattle
Emeritus Professor, University of Washington Law School
To the Editor:
Your March 13 news article “Amid Trump Freeze, Tuberculosis Is Posing Grave Threat in Africa” paints a concerning picture of the projected outcomes of the Trump administration’s actions on TB control in Africa. A critical takeaway is this: unchecked TB could put the entire world at risk. Discussions have covered the impact of USAID’s decline on patients reliant on its aid, but it’s crucial to remember its protective benefits extend to the United States as well. Lessons from COVID-19 show us controlling airborne diseases in high-incidence areas effectively curbs their spread on our soil. With diminishing support from USAID, our previous successes with domestic TB and multidrug-resistant tuberculosis are jeopardized.
Lee B. Reichman
Maplewood, New Jersey
Retired Professor of Medicine, Founder of the Global Tuberculosis Institute, Rutgers University
To the Editor:
I operate a small theater company that depends on the National Endowment for the Arts for support. The NEA has historically ensured arts access for all, regardless of financial ability. However, federal mandates have now coerced the NEA into placing limitations on its grants. Projects centered on racial justice, transgender issues, or systemic critique are excluded. Large theaters, with substantial budgets and endowments, could stand in solidarity by refusing such restricted funding. Such a statement could push public arts funding to serve the entire populace. These theaters have the power to make a difference and must act by April 7, the proposal deadline.
History is indeed watching.
Jeanmarie Simpson
Glendale, Arizona
Founding Artistic Director, Arizona Theater Matters
