Federal employees are being harassed, disparaged and fired. These aren’t lazy bureaucrats sitting in Washington, D.C., abusing your tax dollars; these are hardworking, honest people in your neighborhood who have devoted their lives to public service. Like a teacher or firefighter, career civil service employees are there, regardless of your political beliefs, to support during good times (vacations at a national park), bad times (national disasters) and, often, the mundane that doesn’t get much publicity (mine safety, tax filing, food policy).
Even after dozens of emails urging them to leave and threatening their livelihoods, these civil service workers are continuing to show up to do their jobs to ensure that their neighbors have the support that is needed. Whether it’s a weather event in a red state, a declared emergency in a blue state or a planned mission activity across multiple states — the country’s needs don’t stop just because of a change in administration.
Federal workers are having the worst day of their careers, day after day, and yet are still showing up to do their job to the best of their ability. I commend everyone continuing to work with dedication, professionalism and determination during this unprecedented time.
Yes, there are other jobs, but if all federal employees vacated their positions: who would be there to help you?
Flying for business? Thank Transportation Security Administration workers and employees at the Federal Aviation Administration. Retired and eligible for Social Security? Thank Social Security Administration staffers. Do you like your current freedoms? Thank a veteran. Do you have money safely saved in a bank? Thank the staff at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Do you work safely in an office or factory? Thank the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Have you visited a federal building for court or a congressional office for support or a historic building? Thank the General Services Administration. Mailed a letter or received a card in the mail? Thank the U.S. Postal Service.
Money earned through federal jobs based in the Chicago metro area stays local — we eat at your mom-and-pop restaurants, shop small businesses and send our kids to the same schools while paying the same taxes. I urge readers to remember that there are people and families at the other end of this chaotic decision-making who are genuinely suffering.
If you know a federal worker, check in. They need your support now more than ever.
— Joy Zuanella, Downers Grove
They’re not ‘entitlements’
Almost 55 years ago, I started paying income tax, Social Security insurance and Medicare insurance. I also started paying automobile insurance to a private company. I’ve been paying to all of these ever since. I am sure I also have paid into Medicaid through other taxes.
These are not entitlements, and I wish people would stop calling them that, as if the people who use these support systems are somehow getting something they don’t deserve.
It’s right that I’ve been paying all these taxes and insurance fees all these years. It’s the only way to equitably support each other in times of need. Do you know of anyone who hasn’t needed any services that these government insurance policies or auto insurance policies provide? Probably not.
What do you call it when a millionaire or a billionaire pays less taxes than the average working person? Or when they pay nothing at all or even get a rebate? Could it possibly be an entitlement for the rich? They certainly think they’re entitled.
How rich do you need to be to feel comfortable enough to be willing to pay your fair share toward the common good?
We really are all in this together, and supporting each other is a good thing.
Don’t blame the fact that there will always be scam artists of all income levels who will take advantage and get what they don’t deserve. There’s no such thing as perfection, and it’s like the teacher who punishes the whole class when they don’t know which kid is the one who threw a spitball.
There is enough to be helpmates to each other if we all contribute our fair share — even though there are some who cannot contribute money at all. We take care of each other.
— Elena Kelley, Chicago
Shrinking government
Having worked 45 years in the private sector in residential construction, my livelihood was never guaranteed and instead was determined by my ability to secure work. This was my choice, and I would not change one minute of it.
The recession in 1981 and the Great Recession of 2007-09 were moments of reckoning: belt-tightening, firings and layoffs. I was required to lay off our guys as the work dried up. I remained with the two owners and another project manager as our workforce was whittled down from 52 staff members to four. Yes, it was scary.
The point of this? Our newly elected president is making drastic cuts to the government workforce. The article “Fewer employees may hobble national parks” (in print Feb. 21) brought on moments of reflection for me. I remember the missed weddings, graduations, funerals, vacations and other activities enjoyed by many Americans. I had to decide: Do I work to support my family, or do I take a vacation?
Layoffs, terminations, firings and downsizing are everyday occurrences in the private sector but not so in the world of government jobs. With holidays, sick days, personal days and vacation days, my government-employed friend receives 35 days off with pay. Seven weeks as part of a benefits package and now the new administration is threatening his livelihood. Is it fair? Is that right?
The parks will be understaffed as a result of these layoffs, and the cleaning and garbage collecting will be affected. Perhaps the visitors take responsibility for the garbage they bring into the parks, and rather than dump it in a can, they carry it back out. Visiting a park, camping and hiking are a “want,” not a “need,” and now faced with new responsibilities, it is less attractive.
Have we become so soft and reliant on others that our entire life should be threatened by an administration that is slimming down government after years of a bloated system? One can argue these jobs are necessary, and I would be scared, too, if my existence were in the hands of others.
Is it being responsible and self-sufficient that we are afraid of, or is it that we feel we are losing rights we are entitled to?
I look forward to new challenges.
— Dale A. Bunner, Kansas City, Missouri
Trump versus Johnson
Thankfully, President Donald Trump is following financial common sense by attempting to cut spending and not burden future generations with unpayable debt.
Contrast that with Mayor Brandon Johnson’s plan to pile billions of dollars of debt on the backs of Chicago’s children to pay political promises. Disgusting!
— Tom Murray, Barrington
The value of our parks
Our national parks, really? America’s national park system is a treasure trove of nature’s gems crisscrossing the country. From Olympic to Pullman to Acadia to the Great Smoky Mountains, the National Park Service is these parks’ caretaker, guide and guardian. These are places where everyone is welcome to experience the natural beauty of the United States and escape from the urban and suburban life.
At the agency’s core are park rangers, the front line working tirelessly to ensure these wonders remain protected and preserved (and you gotta love those hats). They are first on the scene for fires, floods and park visitors in need, and they are there to intervene when individuals abuse park resources, endanger wildlife or otherwise threaten to destroy these majestic spaces of refuge.
If there was ever a place to hang an “America First” banner, it’s our national parks. These are places rooted in American history and culture, whether red state or blue. To risk damaging or losing our parks in exchange for arbitrary budget cuts and personnel reductions is shameful. They shouldn’t be just another line item on the Department of Government Efficiency’s scorecard. It’s politics over policy, shortsightedness over preservation, and most of all, it’s bureaucracy over beauty.
As President Franklin Roosevelt said: “There is nothing so American as our national parks.”
— Lindsay Resnick, Chicago
Don’t privatize USPS
The United States Postal Service is primarily funded by selling postage, products and services. It is generally self-funded and doesn’t receive tax dollars for operating expenses. So there is no good reason to privatize it.
While delivery of mail — bills, cards, envelopes, magazines and newspapers — is down nationally, package delivery has skyrocketed.
I sell online. I doubt most Americans realize how many Amazon and FedEx shipments are actually delivered by USPS. It’s a massive amount on a daily basis. Privatization of USPS will cost the consumer astronomically.
USPS, what it represents, is literally a cornerstone of democracy.
Lastly, if USPS is privatized, the Comstock Act of 1873, a federal law used to prohibit contraception and related information from being sent via mail, could be revived, meaning women would lose access to family planning drugs.
— Lisanne Freese, Chicago
Refuse ‘illegal orders’
Decades ago, when I was in Army Officer basic training, not long after the My Lai massacre in Vietnam became public knowledge, our training officers had a very frank discussion with us about the important concept of refusing “illegal orders.”
One real strength of the American military is that you are expected to think, not blindly obey. You must follow orders properly given but have the right to refuse a clearly illegal order. The training officers emphasized that we’d better be right but clearly wanted to impress upon us that we needed to be ready to refuse an over-the-edge commander who ordered us to do something clearly improper.
In My Lai, it was the slaughter of as many as 500 civilians — unarmed women, children, and seniors — whom the platoon leader, William Calley, thought were Viet Cong sympathizers and supporters. A number of U.S. troops refused, and some tried to stop the massacre.
More than 55 years later, we now have a president threatening to invade peaceful allies (Canada, Denmark and Mexico) in addition to apparently supporting an aggressive invading nation (Russia) while blaming a peaceful independent nation (Ukraine) for the unprovoked Russian invasion.
The new commander in chief has been acting erratically and without bothering to consider the legality of his statements or their impact on us and our allies. If he orders our military to invade an allied nation, will our military leadership have the courage to label the order illegal and refuse?
Or will military leaders “just follow orders” and invade a peaceful longtime ally, slaughter innocents and possibly engage in a massive My Lai?
Will they put their honor and oath of allegiance to the Constitution ahead of their desire to retain their position and refuse an illegal order? Personal safety is important, but honor is far more important.
I certainly hope our military leadership thinks this one out clearly and in advance. My Lai happened to a unit clearly in distress due to post-traumatic stress disorder. That’s not an excuse our senior leadership can fall back on today.
I hope these leaders make the right choice and refuse. Honor your oath.
— Robert B. Hamilton, Wauconda
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.
