Submit your letter to the editor via this form. Read more Letters to the Editor.

Dianne Feinstein wasbound by her word

Dianne Feinstein came to my parents home in 1977. My father and brother were arrested for destroying a swastika on the Nazi bookstore on Taraval Street in the Sunset. A demonstration was planned to “free the Weiss Men” in San Francisco.

Dianne sat with my family to make promises. She said that the charges against my father and brother would be dropped and that a swastika would never be allowed to be displayed in San Francisco. As she sat in our living room with my parents and other Holocaust survivors she displayed a warmth, respect and humanity that made all of those present feel like true members of the human family and proud Americans and San Franciscans.

The demonstration at the Hall of Justice was called off. The charges of malicious mischief against my father and brother were dropped. No swastika display was tolerated in the city. Dianne kept her word.

Norm WeissOrinda

Column miscasts Senatepromise by Newsom

Re: “A solid Senate pick — and a craven move by Gov. Newsom” (Page A6, Oct. 4).

I believe Mark Barabak misinterpreted Gov. Newsom’s statement that, in selecting a successor to the late Senator Feinstein, he didn’t want to interfere in the Democratic Senate primary.

I don’t think that was a commitment to nominate somebody who couldn’t or wouldn’t run in the 2024 election; the intent was not to boost one of the three candidates who had already declared for that office. The exact quote is “…unfair to the Democrats that have worked their tail off. … I don’t want to tip the balance.”

The selected successor, now-Senator Butler, clearly has not “worked her tail off,” so her selection does not constitute the governor breaking his commitment.

Merlin DorfmanLivermore

State spends too muchand on wrong priorities

Related Articles

• Letters to the Editor |
  Letters: Sleepy downtown | Artificial turf | Repeal Prop. 47 | Hold debates | Officer accountability
• Letters to the Editor |
  Letters: Solving homelessness | Newsom veto | ICE’s targets | False assumptions | Harboring hatred
• Letters to the Editor |
  Letters: Mahan proposal | Dumping PG&E | Congressional chaos | Republican cult | STEM careers
• Letters to the Editor |
  Letters: Transit hikes | Condor impresses | Sanity, civility | Power misused | GOP’s bad move
• Letters to the Editor |
  Letters: Paying enough | Making good | Security staffing | Republican chaos | Inaccurate picture | Ukraine support

Does the state of California spend too much money? A recent study compares 2023 state spending with that in 2013. Of course, spending has increased, but what if you adjust for inflation over those 10 years? And also adjust for population increases during the same time period. Would you believe that the spending of state taxpayer dollars has increased faster than the increase in the population and the increase in the Consumer Price Index? Why, yes it has.

California’s 2023 state funds budget is about $332 billion, but if it had just grown to keep up with population and inflation, this year’s budget could have been almost $3,862 less per person. Think of that the next time you vote.

And if they must spend so much money, don’t you think a little more could be spent on keeping the freeway signs in repair and the potholes fixed?

Mike HellerWalnut Creek