Richard Merkt complains that our New Hampshire representatives are dead last when it comes to bringing federal dollars to our state (“50th of 50 in pork nothing to brag about,” Nov. 26). He seems to conclude that voters should replace these reps with fresh faces. Assuming that what he says is true (it has yet to be confirmed in this paper), is his answer to this problem correct?

I think it isn’t. His comparison to Vermont, where per-capita pork is twice ours, is illuminating. In Vermont, they return their representatives to Congress year after year. When Sen. Leahy was first elected, I was schoolboy (a long time ago). This gives them seniority and the power to send dollars home.

Perhaps we should do this in New Hampshire. If the goal is federal largess, it makes sense to re-elect candidates whether or not we agree with their politics.

On the same page, in (“Op-ed attacking the right hateful”), Thomas Savastano expresses his sadness over opinion pieces that seem to express hatred to those on the right. One example he cites is Elayne Clift’s suggestion (“The unvaxxed and the nightmare of rationed health care,” Dec. 13-14) that hospital beds be rationed so that only 20 percent are available to the unvaccinated.

This rationing, according to the writer, is an expression of hatred.

But is this true? Rationing health care is nothing new. Smokers can’t get new lungs, drinkers can’t get livers and people of limited means do not have access to good health care. We don’t do this out of hatred; the sad truth is that we just don’t care.

Mr. Savastano also finds hatred in Will Bunch’s op-ed “Democrats can’t keep ignoring the culture war” (Nov. 13-14).

Perhaps there is another way to look at criticism that does not equate it with hatred. You know, love the sinner, hate the sin.

TOM REISH

Westmoreland