How many more lies can we take from our Massachusetts leaders (“Are migrant sponsors stepping up,” 7/3/24)?

The story says that Massachusetts senators are going to call out migrant families who entered this country on the condition their expenses were paid by a sponsor.

Two questions jump to mind, did we ever check out the sponsor to make sure that would happen and if that was supposed to be the case why did we give those migrants (who claimed to have a sponsor) all the benefits the other migrants without a sponsor received?

Michael Westen

Malden

The June 21 opinion piece  (“Taxpayers shouldn’t subsidize billionaires’ jet fuel”) about the value of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) needlessly distorts the facts about the fuels’ potential, and vilifies an aviation sector that is essential to the nation’s economy and transportation system.

First, with regard to the fuels: SAF, which is made from renewable biomass, waste-based feedstocks, and other sources can be used today, and it reduces aviation lifecycle greenhouse gas emission by as much as 80%. The need to advance the production, availability and use of the fuel is a priority for the White House and Congress, not dissimilar from bipartisan efforts to promote other eco-friendly energy sources, including electric, solar and wind power.

Second, with regard to business aviation (a term referring to the use of small non-airline airplanes for business travel): This sector – located in every U.S. state – supports more than one million American jobs, contributes approximately $250 billion to the nation’s economy, connects remote communities without airline service, serves as an incubator for new sustainability technologies, and provides critically needed lift for humanitarian missions.

In short, what the opinion piece chooses to ignore is that the need to support both sustainable aviation fuels and business aviation is well understood among Washington policymakers as essential in ensuring mobility and advancing sustainability.

Luigi Campanale

Senior Project Designer – The Jones Payne Group, Inc.

I found it hard to swallow when I read that Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman argued in the New York Times that we should not be too worried about the national debt given the vast scope of the national and global economies.  Anyone with half a brain understands that when you spend over your means and build crushing debt people declare bankruptcy and lose their home.  People pare down spending and purchase only essentials.  Big Government likes the snake oil Krugman is selling because it is easy to print more dollars and feed the beast.  Ballooning our National Debt should be a dangerous scenario to any economist worth his salt.

Donald Houghton

Quincy