As expenses continue to rise, government officials continue to cut costs and budgets; however, they are cutting from the wrong areas. Why should programs be cut when costs could be cut from the top?

I always wonder why elected officials are compensated so generously while the country and states continue to struggle.

Local elected government officials do not live off their stipends (nor should they). The stipends given are not meant to provide financial stability but, rather, a way to show appreciation for representing the people and so they do not suffer any financial hardship while performing their elected duties.

I do understand the necessity for reimbursement for mileage and any additional costs outside of a small stipend but, seriously, do they need annual salaries in addition to pensions, medical insurance and any other extras they may get as a result of their position?

Finding alternative ways to accomplish things should be considered in all areas of government. For example — use those incarcerated who have trades to lower costs. They could be compensated by paying off fines, fees, child support, etc. Also, those who receive state assistance could help in areas such as cleaning offices, helping with mail, assisting in schools, etc.

We need to stop running the state and our country the way it has been for so many years. The world is changing, so our way of thinking and doing things should be changed as well.

Virginia Harris, Lewiston