Letters to the Editor | May 3, 2026

In response to a recent op-ed on the proposed ride-share tax by Rachel Lefkowitz, I don’t understand why she, City Council, and the mayor don’t pressure the companies, Uber and Lyft, to absorb the $1 surcharge instead of passing it on to the customers. They have the resources, as do the cofounders and CEOs, because they are billionaires, and the companies are worth billions. So they can’t afford to pay it, but their customers or drivers can?

I’ve written to Mayor Cherelle L. Parker and City Council about this. And now I’m wanting to inform Ms. Lefkowitz, and the public, to put pressure on big companies to absorb these costs instead of always passing them on to consumers. Especially when they can easily afford to do so.

Michael Miller Jr., Philadelphia, michamille@comcast.net

Ideally, the U.S. Supreme Court should publicly hear arguments from both sides of an issue, then take adequate time to deliberate before voting. Two New York Times reporters got a series of leaked memos about how an important decision by the justices was secretly and hastily made in five days in 2006. Congress had passed President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan to regulate coal-fired generation plants. Chief Justice John Roberts said the plan was too costly and needed to be stopped immediately. The justices voted 5-4 to gut the plan, dealing a severe blow to air quality. Legal scholars say this action may have been the start of the “shadow docket,” which has become a common practice. Political observers believe Chief Justice Roberts has used the court to allow or block presidential initiatives in its rulings and has manipulated and used the court’s rules to advance his political beliefs.

The Supreme Court needs reform, and this should start with itself. It should have a code of ethics, as other branches of government have. Some justices have received generous gifts of travel vacations. It could follow how similar cases were decided. It could avoid using the “shadow docket” for emergencies. If the court doesn’t reform itself, the court will need to be expanded.

Wayne Olson, Philadelphia

Between 2018 and 2020, a contractor for the Internal Revenue Service leaked tax information about Donald Trump to two news outlets, for which he was sentenced to five years in prison in 2024. A year after reassuming the presidency, Trump initiated a lawsuit against the IRS, seeking $10 billion in damages. The disclosures violated IRS Code 6103, which provides a minimum of $1,000 per tax disclosure. While a federal judge has questioned the propriety of such a suit, when there are no real adversaries involved, Trump is seemingly still engaged in settlement discussions with the IRS, essentially negotiating with himself over how many tax dollars he will settle for. The likelihood of Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent or anyone in the IRS mounting a serious challenge to their master’s voice is nil. In essence, the POTUS is carrying out an act of attempted embezzlement in broad daylight. His claim that the proceeds will go to charity is laughable. This effort to extort a massive sum of money from the U.S. Treasury constitutes a “high Crime and Misdemeanor” warranting impeachment. Members of Congress who fail to condemn Trump’s corrupt act are themselves unfit to hold office. Lamentably, Trump’s constant avarice seems to have inured Americans to this latest abuse of power.

Stewart Speck, Wynnewood, speckstewart@gmail.com

Recent commentary on development in Norris Square mischaracterizes my position and the choices in front of our communities. I support development. I want more housing built in my district — and across our city. I support the city’s Turn the Key program. In fact, I have backed these projects in my district, which create new income-restricted homes for first-time buyers. Expanding homeownership opportunities for working families is essential — and I will continue to support it. But support for development does not mean every proposal meets the moment.

In the 7th District, the median household income is approximately $38,000. That reality matters. Homes priced for 50% to 60% of Area Median Income may meet the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s regional definition of “affordable,” but many longtime residents in Norris Square still cannot afford them. That is the gap we must confront — between what is affordable on paper and what is affordable in practice. There were also concerns about the process. Multiple community meetings were held, yet the proposal returned without meaningful changes. Adjustments came only after a final community vote. That did not build the trust needed to move forward between the community and the developer.

This is not about politics or personal relationships — it’s about getting development right for the neighborhood we’re building in. It is about making sure that when public land is involved, it is used in a way that reflects neighborhood incomes and includes residents in shaping the outcome. I agree that we cannot block our way to affordability. But we also cannot ignore when residents raise real concerns about whether a proposal works for them. There is a path forward. It requires development that matches neighborhood incomes and a process residents can trust — because stability and growth must go together.

Quetcy Lozada, Philadelphia City Council member, 7th District

I am alarmed by Philadelphia Gas Works’ (PGW) proposed $390 million fiscal year 2027 capital budget — $350 million for gas infrastructure, $182 million to replace the Port Richmond liquefied natural gas (LNG) plant, and zero dollars for clean energy alternatives. This project would increase gas production, directly contradicting Philadelphia’s goal of carbon neutrality by 2050, while creating a risk of stranded assets and future rate hikes.

Residents testifying before the gas commission said they had never heard of this LNG project. That reflects a broken public process. With gas demand already declining, approving such a massive investment without a full, public analysis of cleaner alternatives for winter peak demand is irresponsible. The cost of maintaining an expanding gas system will fall on fewer ratepayers — those least able to switch away from gas.

The gas commissioners should support the hearing examiners’ recommendation: exclude the $182 million LNG replacement from this year’s budget. Require PGW to produce a 20-year managed transition plan, engage the public meaningfully, and align investments with both climate goals and affordability. This is our chance to break the cycle of fossil fuel dependency.

Pamela Darville, Philadelphia

For most Philadelphians, the term “gas commission” will not ring any bells. Even fewer understand that the commission holds the authority to review budget proposals from the Philadelphia Gas Works (PGW). Yet, this obscure commission will soon weigh in on a PGW budget proposal that will impact all Philadelphians.

On May 12, the gas commission will consider PGW’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2027. This proposal is deeply at odds with the clean energy goals adopted by the city in 2021. It would allocate nearly all of PGW’s projected revenues — a full $350 million — to processing and delivering natural gas, a potent air and climate pollutant, to Philadelphia’s households and businesses. It would allocate exactly zero dollars to planning a shift to affordable, fossil-free alternatives. PGW’s largest single proposed expenditure — $182 million — would replace its liquefied natural gas (LNG) plant at Port Richmond, thus extending the city’s dependence on fossil fuel for decades. Distressingly, PGW proposed this huge investment with no public input and without any consideration of less costly and less polluting sources of energy.

It is time for the gas commission to come out of the shadows and proactively guide PGW toward a different future. No more passive approval of PGW requests. When it next meets, the commission should reject the Port Richmond boondoggle and instead recommend funding for PGW to plan a transition to providing clean and affordable energy.

Elaine Fultz, Philadelphia

I am writing to express my sincere gratitude to Reps. Brendan Boyle, Brian Fitzpatrick, and Juan Ciscomani for cosponsoring HR 2319, the Women and Lung Cancer Research and Prevention bill.

As a woman living with lung cancer, this legislation is deeply personal to me. Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer death among women, yet it continues to be underfunded, underresearched, and often misunderstood. Too many of us face not only a devastating diagnosis but also stigma and a lack of awareness that delays detection and limits progress.

HR 2319 represents something powerful: recognition. Recognition that women are uniquely impacted by lung cancer, and that more must be done to understand why, to detect it earlier, and to treat it more effectively. For patients like me, this bill is not abstract policy — it is hope.

Amy Grove, Lansdale

Having lost my son to the opioid scourge, I was angered and disgusted to read the recent article about the Purdue Pharma settlement. Lawyers for both Purdue Pharma and the Promethean Sackler brothers have engineered a settlement that shields their clients by tightening eligibility requirements and slashing payments to claimants. For countless families, what Purdue claims as “meaningful compensation” is just salt in a wound that will never heal. The tragedies fueled by OxyContin are Shakespearean in their scale and cruelty, and the accountability of Purdue and the Sackler brothers should be proportionate.

Richard O’Connell, Philadelphia

I’ve posted political jabs online that felt sharp in the moment — and embarrassed me an hour later. They land exactly the way you expect: likes, agreement, a small rush of validation. And then they curdle. Read back soon after, they feel thin and cheap. Not just because they flatten a complicated issue, but because they reduce the people on the other side of it.

I’ve shared things I didn’t really fact-check, leaned on statistics that made my point cleaner than it deserved to be, and said things about people I disagreed with that I wouldn’t say to their face. None of it felt very extreme at the time.

What unsettles me more is how familiar this has become. I’ve watched myself and people in my own political camp accuse their opponents of hypocrisy, then do something remarkably similar when it suits them. The justifications are always ready.

Something has changed in how we talk to each other. Social media amplifies outrage and speed. Political discourse rewards clarity over accuracy, confidence over reflection. Once that tone takes hold, it becomes easier to perform allegiance than to question whether the frame itself makes sense.

That tension is part of what has pushed me toward a more centrist posture. Not as a way to float above the fray, but as a refusal to let political identity do all the thinking. It’s an attempt to stay untethered enough to follow an argument where it leads, even when it’s inconvenient or uncomfortable. I value disagreement — it exposes blind spots and tests assumptions. Without it, systems don’t become harmonious; they become brittle.

What’s getting lost in all of this polarization isn’t disagreement — it’s the willingness to see the person on the other side, just as convinced and just as passionate as you are, as someone still worth understanding. Once that disappears, conversation stops being a genuine exchange and becomes performance. And when we perform instead of engage, everyone loses.

Susan Atkinson, Durango, Colo.

The Inquirer was first published in 1829. It is the United States’ third-longest continuously operating daily newspaper. The first White House Correspondents’ Association dinner was held in 1921. Although the dinner is a scholarship program for aspiring journalists, at its core, it is a celebration of freedom of the press and the First Amendment. This year marked President Donald Trump’s fifth year as president, but his first time appearing at the dinner while occupying the Oval Office. Before the dinner, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told Fox News: “He is ready to rumble. I will tell you this speech tonight will be classic Donald J. Trump … There will be some shots fired tonight in the room. So everyone should tune in.” But then there was a gunman, with real bullets fired. Any of the 2,600 attendees, including the president, senior administration officials, and journalists, could have been killed. Now, President Trump says he wants a redo in 30 days. Over the last decade, President Trump has viciously and continuously attacked the press — by one count, more than 3,500 times. Even after the shooting, he went on 60 Minutes and told journalist Norah O’Donnell she “should be ashamed of yourself” for doing her job. The venerable Inquirer should join the voices telling the correspondents’ association of Washington, D.C., that President Trump does not deserve a seat at the table with people in the very industry he is trying to destroy.

Lynn Strauss, West Chester

Join the conversation: Send letters to letters@inquirer.com. Limit length to 150 words and include home address and day and evening phone number. Letters run in The Inquirer six days a week on the editorial pages and online.