The old argument for higher taxes

Once again we get the same old “if only the wealthy would pay their fair share” argument from DFLers who are always eager to raise taxes. They never define what “fair share” means (or what “wealthy” means for that matter.) But we all know that it is always much more than whatever they pay now.

In Tuesday’s Pioneer Press, House DFL Leader Melissa Hortman was quoted saying, “If Democrats were setting (budget) targets on our own, these targets would, of course, look very different. We would have asked the wealthy and large corporations to pay their fair share in order to make additional needed investments” — the word “investments” always a euphemism for more spending — “in public education and affordable healthcare.”

Perhaps Leader Hortman needs reminding that, with the sixth-highest top tax bracket rate, we already have one of the most progressive of state income tax regimes in the nation. Or maybe she needs reminding about income tax rates in our neighboring states, with whom we compete to attract business and investment: North Dakota’s top rate is 2.5%, Iowa’s at 3.8%, Wisconsin at 7.7%, and of course South Dakota with no state income tax.

— Don Jacobson, Shoreview

We can see the results coming

I have a message for the recent letter writer and everyone else who urges people to “give Trump a chance” and let his policies play out before passing judgment. Although you may need to see the results of his actions in the real world in order to understand them, people in the know do not. Economists know how to predict the effect that tariffs on foreign imports will have on the price of goods sold in the U.S. They also know how to predict the economic effects of lowering taxes on the wealthy and increasing unemployment by firing many thousands of government workers. Medical researchers know how to predict the resulting rates of illness and death if funding is cut for preventive measures like vaccines and for research. Environmental scientists know how to predict the degree to which air and water pollution will increase if environmental protections are lifted. And the list goes on and on.

We can’t possibly understand all of the details that make up the complex world we live in. All we can do is rely on the knowledge of the people who’ve dedicated their careers to an area of study, and now is the time for us to listen to those people. We don’t need to actually destroy our economy, or democracy itself, to know that’s where this administration is leading us.

— Lori Wohlrabe, St. Louis Park

Fears

If I were a parent in Sweden or Japan, I would be afraid to send my child to an American university, where they can be disappeared for expressing an opinion.

— John Evans, St. Paul

Making America Corrupt Again?

In the first 70 days of his second term, President Trump is rapidly trying to implement his vision of Making America Corrupt Again. His actions have attempted to undo a century’s-worth of laws and institutions put in place to prevent conflicts of interest and abuse of power. Trump is rapidly breaking down the rule of law for his personal gain.

One example is the elimination of “watchdogs” — people and organizations set up to hold our leaders accountable to the laws of our nation. Trump fired inspectors general and prosecutors, eliminating independent checks on his actions. He removed the leader of the Office of Special Counsel. He fired the head of the government’s ethics office without cause. He fired top military leaders so that he cannot be challenged in his unconstitutional plans.

Trump has taken actions to protect himself by using the Justice Department as his personal law firm to defend him and attack his opponents. He also pardoned the violent Jan. 6 criminals, showing them that they can commit violence in support of him without legal consequences.

Trump and Elon Musk have tried to control the media and free press so that he doesn’t face scrutiny for his actions: lawsuits against public media companies, “CBS should lose their license”, controlling social media X and Trump Social, and trying to “rescue” Tik-Tok so that it will serve their purposes.

Trump ignores conflicts of interest. He brazenly aligns policies with his and his favorites’ business interests with schemes of personal enrichment. Examples: Gaz-a-Lago, and Donald and Melania’s novelty crypto currencies which allow people seeking influence or favors to give them unlimited amounts of money without any public record — the ultimate in corruption. Also, Trump’s and his Commerce Secretary’s open promotion of Musk’s Tesla cars and stock. Trump has put a stop to enforcing anti-money laundering laws to protect his shell companies.

Trump has opened the doors for international actors to influence him by gutting enforcement of statutes against foreign influence and suspending enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. He is strengthening his alignment with notorious corrupt leaders such as Russia’s Putin.

Many of these actions appear to be illegal and are being challenged in court.

While Trump claimed President Biden was corrupt, he produced no convincing evidence. But we all can see Trump’s actions toward a completely corrupt presidency. We The People must not allow this.

— Chris Lyons, St. Paul

How do teachers pensions compare?

What did I find missing in the March 30 article, “Bills would change teachers pension rules”? Any discussion of how teachers pensions compared to others in the public or private sectors. Rather, just a listing of statements that the current system was not sufficient.

How can one know that unless one compares it to pensions in other job categories? A quick internet search leads to AI generated statements like the following:

The percentage of workers covered by a traditional defined benefit (DB) pension plan that pays a lifetime annuity, often based on years of service and final salary, has been steadily declining over the past 25 years and while most private sector pensions do not provide any inflation adjustments to benefit payments, a majority of state and local government pensions provide adjustments; for the majority of retirees the lack of indexing of defined benefit pensions is obvious; millions of households have seen the purchasing power of their benefits decline by more than 20 percent.

So I would appeal to our state legislators, before you agree to spend more money, please convince me that the current teachers pension program is not competitive with other retirement programs.

— Ed Erickson, Woodbury

Loyalty over competence

The Peter Principle is only applied to those who get promoted. Now it seems to also apply to those who get appointed or elected. One would think if you were looking for a person or persons to fill a position your search would require someone who is completely capable of the task.

When filling the US Cabinet positions the requirements focused more on loyalty than competence. I would also apply it to those who voted to support their appointment. The ones who I call the enablers.

I know some, but not all, of elected senators knew better. I would have a different name for them. The ones who didn’t know better I believe could be included in “The Peter Principle of Maximum Incompetence“ along with some of the people they confirmed.

— Tom Kapsner, White Bear Lake