As we enter this Lenten season, we traditionally give up chocolate, social media or other small pleasures as acts of spiritual discipline. This year, I’m proposing something more radical. What if we fasted from the toxicity of national politics?
I don’t mean disengaging from civic life or abandoning our responsibilities as citizens. Rather, I mean stepping back from the outrage cycles, the tribal point-scoring and the dehumanizing rhetoric that has infected our public discourse. For these 40 days, what if we practiced something counter-cultural?
Instead of doomscrolling political news, we could serve at a food bank. Instead of arguing with strangers online, we could have coffee with a neighbor who votes differently. Instead of consuming hot takes about Washington, we could attend a local council meeting where our voices actually matter.
Lent asks us to make space — to empty ourselves of what distracts us from what’s sacred. And perhaps nothing distracts us more from our shared humanity than the performance of political hatred.
This isn’t about apathy. It’s about rediscovering that our neighbors aren’t enemies, that our towns need our energy more than cable news does and that the kingdom we’re called to build looks less like a political victory and more like radical, inconvenient love.
Forty days. One experiment in choosing connection over contempt.
Can we try after we wipe the ashes off our foreheads?
Steve Ballard, Addison
Keep the income cap
Re: “Here are some ideas about how to save Social Security,” Feb. 15 Letters.
Regarding Sunday’s letters on Social Security, I find it interesting that many of the letters propose increasing or eliminating the income cap on which Social Security taxes are applied. Currently, Social Security taxes apply only to income up to $184,500, yet several writers argue that high-income earners should contribute more.
As it stands, the top 50% of income earners pay 97% of all federal income taxes collected each year.In fact, the top 10% alone pay 72% of the total income tax. The proposals being suggested would essentially shift Social Security in the same direction — placing an even greater share of the burden on top earners.
While I appreciate that higher earners already shoulder most of the cost of running our government, I question whether it is reasonable to expect them to fund the majority of Social Security benefits as well. Some argue that top earners pay only a small percentage of their overall income in taxes. However, even a small percentage can amount to hundreds of thousands — or in some cases millions — of dollars in income taxes each year.
Is it fair to ask high-income earners to contribute tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars more annually than the rest of us so that we can benefit from their efforts?
Jim Jetton, Dallas
How about the talking filibuster?
The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed the SAVE America Act, which requires proof of citizenship to register to vote and a photo ID to cast a ballot in federal elections.
Both proposals are overwhelmingly supported by the American people who want integrity and fairness in our elections. The Senate Democrats have indicated their opposition to this Act preventing it from reaching the 60 votes required. I support the Senate move just as swiftly by following their own Senate rules with a talking filibuster.
The talking filibuster is pretty simple. If Senate Democrats unabashedly oppose photo ID and citizenship verification in our elections, they must stand and speak on the floor. Once they stop talking, debate ends and the majority can proceed toward a vote.
In this case, a majority of 51 votes by the Republicans will carry the approval of this ACT. This requires Senate Republicans to commit to the American people to stay in Washington and use the Senate rules to fight for election integrity. I call upon them to do just that.
Don Pearce, Dallas/Lake Highlands
Encourage remote work
Re: “Staff return to office — Report finds low number of hybrid, fully remote jobs in the city,” Feb. 11 Metro & Business story.
I was dismayed to see that the high percentage of companies in Dallas (85%) are abandoning remote work for fully in-office positions. I think the Dallas area should be encouraging remote work whenever possible. This could be either fully remote or a hybrid remote office model.
With traffic congestion getting worse, people spending hours in traffic and the contribution to the area’s poor air quality, you would think getting cars off the roadways should be a priority.
Remote work removes cars from the roads, thus easing traffic congestion and reducing air pollution. It also gives workers back the time they would spend in traffic.
Commuting via fiber optic cables instead of concrete highways is another tool that should be used to improve the area’s transportation infrastructure. It shouldn’t be ignored.
Richard Bach, Garland
A case of corporate welfare
In 2008, the city of Dallas lured AT&T’s headquarters from San Antonio by offering the company $11.5 million in tax breaks. Less than 20 years later, Plano is dangling $20 million of incentives to induce yet another relocation.
AT&T’s profits in 2008 were a mere $12.9 billion compared with $21.9 billion in 2025. Looks like the cost of corporate welfare is rising in tandem with the company’s profits.
Bernard Weinstein, Far North Dallas
Voting is her power
Today, I voted. Today, I felt like an American. Today, I felt like I mattered.
When the daily news seems to be so big and often disturbing, I feel powerless. But voting is my power. In a democracy, the majority will rule, but my voice is as important as someone wealthy, powerful, young, old and so on. I am not entirely powerless. Speak. Vote.
Catherine Cheryl Portele, Garland
We welcome your thoughts in a letter to the editor. See the guidelines and submit your letter here.
If you have problems with the form, you can submit via email at letters@dallasnews.com