It has been reported that it cost Portland $21,000 and South Portland $8,000 – a total of $29,000 – when the president visited Maine recently.

There were other costs which have not been reported.

These are the cost to the businesses along Commercial Street that were subjected to an early closing because the president was going to pass by.

I own a business and an office building on Commercial Street.

We were told that we needed to let employees out early or they would not be able to leave until after 8 p.m.

This forced closing from 3 p.m. to 8 p.m. was costly to my business, tenants and other businesses along Commercial Street.

I have been on Commercial Street for more than 40 years and have seen many presidents visit Portland and South Portland, and do not recall any businesses asked to close early.

Steve Scharf suggests that the federal government pay for this instead of the local taxpayer.

That would great for the cities, but who is going to help the small business?

Joe Schmader

of Gowen Marine in Portland

Scarborough

Recently the presumptive candidate for the Democratic nomination to the presidency of the United States came to the Portland area for a campaign fundraiser.

All three network TV stations gave it full-blown coverage.

Streets were blocked off to traffic, parking was limited and, as it turns out, the cities of Portland and South Portland had to pay more than $27,000 for overtime for police coverage.

Granted, the man is the incumbent president, but he was not on any function related to that office.

His visit was purely to raise campaign funds for the upcoming election.

Why, then, were the local taxpayers made to cover the overtime pay?

Are the taxpayers also going to have to pay for the use of Air Force One to fly the candidate into the area?

Those costs, as well as all others, should be paid by the Democratic National Party or from Obama’s own campaign funds.

Can I assume that other candidates who might campaign in the Portland area later in the year will be given the same red carpet treatment?

Or am I just politically naive?

R. Cecil Eldredge

Topsham

Tradition can be changed when doing the right thing

Ron Malberg has a right to his opinion on seders.

But to say “leave your feminist views at home … women serve hand and foot,” somewhat bitterly presents history as current fact (“The seder: separating the mystery from the matzoh,” April 4).

It is neither current fact nor inevitable scenario.

At the last seder I led for 30 people, as one man and two women went to the kitchen to get the matzo ball soup, I asked the women to please sit down and said to the men as a group, “You have the opportunity right now to contradict thousands of years of sexism. Would you please serve the soup to the women?”

All the men got up from their seats as one, regardless of any mixed feelings they may have had, and went to the kitchen and served each woman her soup at the table, as she lounged and talked and was amazed and appreciative to receive what she has given for so long.

There is a very important tradition in Judaism to do the right thing, even when it does not precisely match what has been done before.

Malberg’s personal reminiscences do not give the full picture.

The power to change tradition and to make an important impact on the people in our lives is present at every moment if we take it and use it lovingly.

Asherah Cinnamon

Portland

Better remedy is not to take from some, but give to all

 

Instead of working to improve our state, the members of the Labor, Commerce, Research and Economic Development Committee, voting along party lines, introduced L.D. 1894 (“Bill would end union rights in child care,” March 29).

If passed into law, the bill would cause many of our citizens to lose their right to join together to have any grievances addressed, including those of workplace safety and equitable pay and benefits.

Yes, it is “unfair to give some who receive state subsidies those collective bargaining rights but not other independent businesses,” (“State calls for child-care staff unionizing ban”).

The better remedy for this inequity is NOT to take away the rights from some, but to allow those rights for all.

I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican, as neither party seems to be able to focus on the needs of the nation, or its people.

Nor am I categorically a supporter of all of the actions of all of the unions.

This is neither just a labor issue, nor just a political issue, in spite of the vote of the committee, but one of freedom and universal rights.

Carole Sargent

Brunswick

Questioning transplant based on age is an insult

Since Dick Cheney is a much maligned “celebrity” it isn’t surprising that his heart transplant received so much negative reaction, including by some members of Congress.

They all question the wisdom of the team of surgeons performing the transplant on a 71-year-old.

It is an insult to older people, as if they are some useless baggage.

Nowadays people live much longer, and many lead active productive lives up to 90 and 100. Many organizations would not survive without volunteer service by older people.

Cheney was on the waiting list for 20 months, not exactly a speed-up priority list.

I wonder where was the outrage not many years ago when a convict on death row in California received a heart transplant.

But he was younger, so maybe that made it a wise decision.

Olga Meleshkova

Portland

Does the future of English lie or lay with newspapers?

So I’m reading page A3, and in the middle of it you’ve got a headline that reads, “Winners of the big lotteries generally LAY low.”

If the newspapers in America can’t get it right, there’s no hope. No wonder foreigners have a hard time learning English.

Jim Burke

Cumberland

Copy the Story Link