Track your grocery prices at checkout

Re: “‘Secret shoppers’ challenge pricing,” May 16 news story

Even in ancient Rome, the advice to shoppers was caveat emptor (let the buyer beware). It does not matter whether the overcharging of customers at King Soopers is the result of understaffing — which does not allow the store to post accurate prices — or a deliberate policy to try to increase profits; the result is the same. Just as it was 2,000 years ago, it is up to the customer to make sure that they are receiving the advertised price.

When shopping at King Soopers, I make a habit of using my smartphone to take an image of the shelf price of “specials.” Then I use the self-checkout line to ensure that the amount charged matches the shelf price. If it doesn’t, I ask for assistance. The staff at King Soopers has always adjusted the price when they see the image on my smartphone.

Some may say that this should not be necessary. In an ideal world they would be correct. But bear in mind that your local grocery stocks tens of thousands of items. Even the best system will produce errors. It is up to you to catch them. It’s your money, so be careful with it.

Guy Wroble, Denver

Transgender troops expensive to recruit (and dismiss)

Re: “Recruitment: Military spent $6 billion in 3 years,” May 26 news story and “Removal of transgender troops: How the military is dealing with Hegseth’s order,” May 11 news story

Apparently, the military has spent a truly significant amount of money recently recruiting and training troops. So why would they want to get rid of 1,000 members? Defense Secretary Peter Hegseth announced that they will immediately begin removing approximately 1,000 transgender and transexual service members. Demonstrating an embarrassing lack of understanding, he proclaimed, “No more dudes in dresses. We are done with that (expletive).”

Men in dresses are not transgender or transsexual. Transsexuals are people who have gone through a long, arduous process of: counseling, hormone therapy, and operations. And one of their essential goals, from what I have been told, is to look like they fit in with their new sex. That is why it will only be at their yearly physical exam that their history will be used to identify them. So if transitioned people want to serve their country, and if recruiting and training costs between $50,000 and $100,000 per candidate, that translates to $50 million to $100 million dollars down the drain in the interest of prejudice and ignorance, not to mention the emotional toll of being fired simply for being who you are.

T. John Hughes, Denver

Air traffic control crumbles, warnings ignored

The current “mess” in the United States air traffic control system should not and is not a partisan issue. The safety of all Americans is a fundamental duty of our elected officials. They have failed miserably. I am so disgusted that so many of our issues are handled in a reactive mode instead of being proactive. The air traffic control system has been outdated for many years in both Republican and Democratic Congresses. Is it going to take a preventable air disaster where hundreds of lives are needlessly lost? The warning signs are on display on a daily basis.

In the same vein, the credit of the United States has just been downgraded. The blame lies in all of our politicians. However, I am afraid that it is too late to act proactively, and the reactive solution may not be enough.

Allen Vean, Denver

Opposed to the Boulder suit? How about a carbon tax?

Re: “Lawsuit would punish handful of companies for generations of global emissions,” May 7 commentary

The author, a lawyer writing on behalf of the National Association of Manufacturers, argues against lawsuits seeking damages from energy companies for outcomes linked to climate change. He states, “deciding how to pay for climate adaptation is a policy, not a liability, issue.” So who will pay these costs? If companies have to pay these costs, things will be more expensive, says he, and “this is the last thing people can afford right now.”  Better to just go along with the status quo: let industry do its best at cutting emissions. But that course of action has produced our warming world.

How do we move payment into the policy arena? The carrot-not-stick Inflation Reduction Act passed by Congress and signed by Biden in 2022, now under piecemeal attack by the Trump administration, is our best attempt thus far. A tax on carbon has been proposed for years in the U.S. Congress, referred to as “revenue neutral” when introduced with a tax rebate to offset the higher consumptive costs. Support for a carbon tax has been voiced in the past by ExxonMobil, now one of the defendants in the Colorado case, although they never went to bat for it. In a written brief for the Colorado case, the Chamber of Commerce argued for a “uniform approach” to greenhouse gas emissions. A carbon tax would fulfil their desire for uniformity. A carbon tax could also provide funds for loss and damage.

The primary cause of warming and its consequences are with us now. We must get better at cutting emissions and coping with damages. Let’s get started on a nationwide carbon tax.

Phil Nelson, Golden

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.