To the daughters (and sons) of the 1 percent:

I recently came across a Facebook post titled “Food for thought from a daughter of the 1 percent,” written by a 25-year-old peer, explaining why she will vote for Donald Trump. She discusses her family’s struggles on the way to achieving financial success, concluding, “I’m a Republican, but I’m not racist, I’m not sexist, I’m certainly not closed-minded. I just believe that my parents shouldn’t be taxed more just because they make over a certain amount of money.”

I, too, am a 25-year-old woman who has been blessed with financial comfort. I understand why taxes are an issue — it’s natural to want to keep all the money you’ve worked hard to earn. But I also understand that necessary government services — roads, police, schools, assisting the disadvantaged members of our American community, etc. — require funding, and I believe that a truly progressive tax system is the morally preferable way to fund them. Of course, being a Republican has never meant that one is racist, sexist, or closed-minded. But this year, things are different. Voting for Trump is not just voting for the Republican Party.

Why have a host of GOP leaders refused to support the party’s candidate? Because those who know politics and leadership best know that the potential consequences of a Trump presidency are dire for their husbands, wives, daughters, sons, immigrant friends, LGBT friends, sick or aging parents, and for families still struggling to make the economy work for them.

Some elections are bigger than a single issue such as taxes. Some elections are about basic human decency. They’re about being on the right side of history, about not looking back and realizing we elected a self-absorbed demagogue who openly disrespects women, the disabled, minorities, entire religions, and, of course, the families of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our country. I’m happy that the author of the post is so content to be a member of the 1 percent, but our president needs to be an advocate for those in the 99 percent — particularly for those at the bottom. What we don’t need is someone who has spent his life isolated in a tower, surrounded by golden furnishings, someone totally out of touch with the millions of people who work for a living. For the sakes of their daughters and sons, all responsible citizens — including the 1 percent — should welcome strong, capable, and compassionate leadership from a uniquely qualified woman who has devoted her life to public service. They should tremble at the very thought of the alternative.

Michelle Tomkovicz

Hancher coverage appreciated

I am writing in response to “Sew it goes; Hancher reaches out to inmates” (DI, July 26). This article was well-presented on a very informational topic. I liked that it gave information about something that would not otherwise be known.

The comment from Chuck Swanson, “We lost our usher uniforms when we lost the building,” gives us a perspective about a small piece of the flood recovery. Not many people would think about uniforms, but the importance to the director of the auditorium just shows how much value is held in the whole project.

It was well-shown how little people from the state actually know about Hancher’s rich history, when Justin Opfer asked the prison inmates and only one or two out of 40 responded. The history of a particular building can be lost in the transition to a new location. It is nice to see that Hancher is trying to keep the history as alive as possible.

I anticipate reading more stories similar to this one. It would also be nice to read more ways that Hancher is trying to preserve its history.

Cody Holmes