Editorial: A state tax to whack for growth's sake

Nov 20, 2009 at 10:26 AM

Organizers of last week's program at the TwinWest Chamber of Commerce may have been hoping for a tax policy fight. The lineup featured state Rep. Ann Lenczewski, DFL-Bloomington, head of the House Taxes Committee, and Mark Haveman, head of the business-oriented Minnesota Taxpayers Association.

But instead of an argument, chamber members heard considerable consensus around a key proposition: Minnesota's corporate income tax is too high, and it should be either reduced or scrapped. That would not be the universal view among DFLers at the Legislature. It might not be the first choice of Republicans or of most Minnesota businesses, since many small businesses don't pay corporate tax.

But it's an idea Minnesota policy leaders should seriously consider. State corporate income taxes generally top "worst tax" lists when economists and tax experts from around the country convene to dispense policy advice. State taxes on corporate profits are faulted for several reasons. They're highly volatile, rising and falling dramatically with the economic cycle. They're costly to collect, especially from big businesses that employ high-powered legal talent to dodge them. They're regressive -- invisibly so. They are paid by customers in the form of higher prices and by workers in the form of reduced wages and fewer jobs, all of which hits the poor disproportionately hard.

Minnesota's corporate income tax has one other defect -- its 9.8 percent rate. That's among the highest in the country. It's also deceiving because of adjustments that have been made through the years to the income base that's taxed. The effective rate most businesses pay is a good deal lower, particularly among those with foreign operations or those based in Minnesota with sales elsewhere. But the high rate creates a damaging impression among would-be out-of-state investors.

Filed under: Editorial| 12 Comments

Letter of the day: Resources are dwindling, and millionaires put hands out?

Nov 20, 2009 at 10:42 AM

Photo by Sl

Owners Zygi and Mark Wilf sent a strongly worded letter to the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission this week, saying they were questioning the future of the Minnesota Vikings franchise.

Nothing I've seen in the paper recently bespeaks the confused nature of our world more elegantly than Thursday's headlines, telling us that a) Hennepin County Medical Center is out of money and, b) the Minnesota Vikings want government to pay for a new stadium.

Are we so out of touch that we can't decide how to spend dwindling resources for true benefit? The owners of the Vikings should be told that they can build any stadium they want; all they have to do is charge ticket prices that reflect what it costs to build some glittering monument to beer-swilling and cheering for millionaires dancing badly and rolling around on plastic grass.

Either that, or the next time some unfortunate gets really sick, let him go to the home of football worshipers for health care.

GARY STEVENSEN, SHAKOPEE

•••

Why don't we just give TCF Bank Stadium to the Vikings? The Gophers have proven in less than a season that they can't draw a crowd, win a game, or recruit noncriminal players.

Let's kill two birds with one stone and move the Vikings into the Bank and the Gophers into the classroom where they belong.

DAVID CHALL, MINNEAPOLIS

33 Comments

Charles Lane: Over there, gays get less respect

CHARLES LANE| Nov 20, 2009 at 10:36 AM

If you had to guess, where would you say a gay couple has a better chance of legally adopting a child: France or the United States? The answer, of course, is here. We all learned a lesson about the social progressiveness of Europe, as opposed to the conservative United States, when a French court declared recently that a lesbian could legally adopt a child as an individual.

This breakthrough, which came in an appeal of a lower court's denial of the woman's petition, put French law on a par with Texas law. That state, like most others in the narrow-minded United States, already allowed gay individuals to petition to adopt. (This right exists on paper but may be subject to ideological variation among local courts.) In addition, several U.S. states allow same-sex couples to marry, which they still can't do in France. And some states -- California, Illinois and Oregon, for example -- do not license gay marriage but still permit gay couples to petition to adopt.

7 Comments

Four views on the new mammogram guidelines

Nov 20, 2009 at 12:03 PM

A new study advising women that there is little to be gained by having a mammogram before age 50 should spur politicians to address risk-reward and affordability in crafting a national health care bill, but it won't.

The report came from a government group called the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, whose findings influence coverage of screening tests by Medicare and many insurance companies.

The task force concluded that most women don't need a mammogram in their 40s. The government panel of doctors and scientists said getting screened so early leads to too many false alarms and unneeded biopsies without substantially improving women's odds of survival.

This new information flies in the face of what women have been told for years. Spokespeople for the American Cancer Society immediately disputed the new advice.

Nobody wants to have this messy debate. Politicians prefer flowery speeches about the need for "health care for all." Confused consumers wonder what to believe, and many just bellow that health care should be "free," and we can get the multimillionaires among us to pay for it.

In Wisconsin, the WEA Trust health plan, which covers most public school teachers, reports it is billed an average of $142 per mammogram by providers in the Eau Claire/La Crosse region. There are roughly 7,500 women in their 40s living in the city of Eau Claire. The federal government says about 63 percent of women in their 40s get mammograms, or roughly 4,725 women in Eau Claire if we're near the average. So the cost if each of those 4,725 women is screened annually is $670,950 per year that somebody has to pay. And that's just Eau Claire. Imagine the cumulative cost nationwide for a procedure the Cancer Society says will positively impact just one of 1,900 women in that age group.

Cost-benefit analysis is crucial to crafting a sensible health care bill. We can't collectively afford everything everybody may wish to have. This study should ignite a much-needed conversation about affordable funding levels in any government-subsidized health plan. But politicians see no benefit in going down that path.

That's why they fritter while Medicare creeps ever closer to insolvency and budget deficits skyrocket.

DON HUEBSCHER, EDITOR, LEADER-TELEGRAM, EAU CLAIRE, WIS.

Breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in women ages 40 to 49, with more than 4,000 deaths expected in this age group this year. The task force says routine mammography would reduce deaths by about 15 percent. With its new recommendations, the task force is essentially telling women that mammography at ages 40 to 49 saves lives -- just not enough of them to recommend that all women get screened.

The panel concluded that the harms associated with mammography outweigh its benefits. When experts talk about the harms of screening, they mean things such as having additional tests to better identify what seems to be an abnormality. That usually means another mammogram and, for a small percentage of women, a biopsy to rule out breast cancer. Naturally, these false alarms can cause anxiety, but the data tell us that women know about these limitations and accept them.

Studying cancer deaths among women in their 40s reveals some important trends. Death rates were dropping slightly in the 1970s, thanks to better awareness and better treatments. In 1983, the American Cancer Society began recommending that all women get screened beginning at age 40. By 1990, death rates began a steep decline that continues today. While some of that drop is due to improvements in treatment, conservative estimates are that about half is due to mammography.

The American Cancer Society continues to recommend annual screening using mammography and clinical breast examination for all women beginning at age 40. The test is far from perfect, but it's the best way we have to find tumors early. How many lives are enough to make routine screening worth it? How many mothers, sisters, aunts, grandmothers, daughters and friends are we willing to lose to breast cancer while the debate goes on about the limitations of mammography?

OTIS W. BRAWLEY, CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, American Cancer Society

Science routinely second-guesses itself, and women have often been caught in the middle. But here's what galls me: Not enough lives are saved, the experts say, to justify mammography as a routine screener for breast cancer.

Of the lives saved by mammograms, which ones weren't worth the effort? Certainly my sister's life -- saved not only by a mammogram's detection of something amiss, but by subsequent biopsies, surgeries and rounds of chemotherapy -- was worth the effort and more.

But, says the panel of experts, mammograms' potential for harm outweigh their benefits. In about 10 percent of cases, they produce false-positive results. Women are not to blame for false-positive readings. The solution is not to take away a woman's choice to have a mammogram, but rather to work to reduce the rate of false readings.

I can only imagine that if men were experiencing abnormally high rates of false positives on tests for testicular cancer, heads would be rolling in radiology departments nationwide.

Under health care reform legislation in Congress, the new recommendations would help set standards for what preventive services insurance plans would be required to cover. Have insurance companies just been given a green light to refuse to cover mammograms for women under 50?

I know science must operate in large statistical terms but people are not numbers. If the life saved by a mammogram is my own, I am more than justified in wanting early and routine screenings.

LYNNE K. VARNER, SEATTLE TIMES

The reversal of the seven-year-old guidelines, and the resulting uproar, demonstrate why reducing medical costs will be challenging. Ideally, medical practice should follow the evidence. When drugs or procedures are proven to do more harm than good, or to do no more good than safer or less costly alternatives, incentives should be used to discourage them. In practice, though, as new studies overtake old research and new advice contradicts previous guidelines, the result can be confusion and even cynicism -- and political pressure to ignore the results.

WASHINGTON POST

4 Comments

Readers Write for Friday, Nov. 20, 2009

Nov 20, 2009 at 02:59 PM

9/11 MASTERMIND IN COURT

A military trial would be too good for him

"The fiend of 9/11 attacks doesn't deserve civilian court" (Letter of the Day, Nov. 17) has it backwards. A military trial would give Khalid Shaikh Mohammed the respect he wants, but does not deserve.

Terrorists, whether jihadists or the so-called "militia" cohorts of Timothy McVeigh, like to think of themselves as "soldiers," deserving a measure of honor and respect. To try a terrorist in a military court would play right into his hands.

It is far better to haul him into civilian court and to treat him as the criminal he is. Indeed, a civilian trial will compound his humiliation, since there will likely be Jews and women on the jury.

MARK BRADLEY, ROSEVILLE

•••

While Khalid Shaikh Mohammed may well be destined for conviction and execution, it is utterly inappropriate for the president, an attorney, to declare prior even to an indictment that the 9/11 mastermind will be convicted and put to death. I wonder if KSM will now have a legitimate basis to claim he cannot receive a fair trial in New York City.

90 Comments

Kansas City Star: It’s time to move Treasury’s share of private business into a trust

Nov 20, 2009 at 10:39 AM

Historically, government has a lousy record of running businesses. The interests of politicians don't usually coincide with those of stockholders.

That's why Washington's investment in General Motors, as well as other big enterprises saved during the credit panic, should be placed in an independent trust under rules that assure taxpayers that the bailout is temporary.

Democratic Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia and Republican Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee are backing a bill that would do just that.

Independent, nonpolitical trustees would manage any federal stake in a private business greater than 10 percent.

That would include GM, Citigroup, AIG and Chrysler.

The trustees would have the fiduciary responsibility of maximizing return for the taxpayer -- not the politicians.

6 Comments

Editorial: Privacy rules when posting test scores

Nov 18, 2009 at 07:14 PM

At some point during our school years, most of us have likely had this experience: To encourage excellence and reward hard work, a well-meaning teacher displays graded papers or test scores from top students. Getting the equivalent of a gold star or smiley face sticker for being the best has long been common in classrooms.

That explains the buzz this week over news that the practice can violate Minnesota law.

Last year, a Northfield High School teacher wrote the names and grades of students with the highest scores on the classroom blackboard. A parent of one of the high achievers complained to the state that the teacher made the information public without permission. An advisory opinion from the Minnesota Department of Administration concurred that state law prohibits disclosure of individual scores without parental approval.

Being identified for outstanding work might seem harmless. In fact, many educators argue that acknowledging stellar students rewards them and motivates their classmates to do better.

But when it comes to important student data, privacy should be paramount.

Filed under: Editorial| 8 Comments

Letter of the Day: Cancer screening guidelines sound like a death sentence

Nov 19, 2009 at 10:19 AM

Photo by Star Tribune

A federal advisory panel has said that the benefits of screening women in their 40s are outweighed by the potential for unnecessary tests, treatment and anxiety.

C.S. WALLACE, MINNEAPOLIS

•••

MAUREEN LARSON, BLOOMINGTON

•••

Saturday will mark my sixth year as a breast cancer survivor. At the time of my diagnosis, I was 40 years old. I am alive today due to early detection and persistence on my part.

A mammogram detected my tumor early. It was 0.3 centimeters, which is a third of the size that tumors are normally discovered. I was initially told, "It is a common calcification -- come back in six months." I had to demand the biopsy that I was scheduled for. Surgery was done to remove the tumor, and although my margins were clean the cancer had spread to my lymph nodes. This little tiny tumor that was found very early had already spread.

To win this war on cancer, we need to discover it at its earliest, most treatable stages. Had the new guidelines been in place, my cancer wouldn't have been discovered until the tumor was big enough to feel. By that time it would have ravaged my body. This would have decreased my chance for survival and cost my insurance company substantially more to fight the disease.

DEBORAH WAGNER, EDINA

16 Comments

In St. Cloud, school administrators make a choice that hurts the cause

From an editorial in the St. Clouid Times| Nov 19, 2009 at 10:16 AM

This one will be hard to forget, especially the next time the St. Cloud School District has to ask local taxpayers to approve an excess operating levy.

That's our assessment of last week's 25-1 vote by the administrators union within the district to reject a school board proposal that would have ended an admittedly nice (but fiscally daunting) early-retirement benefit.

In basic terms, when district administrators, principals and assistant principals retire before they are eligible for Medicare, the district pays their health insurance costs until they are eligible. It's an expensive benefit for any taxpayer-funded entity -- and especially for school districts, given their unfunded mandates, unstable revenues and restrictions on raising taxes without voter approval.

Several years ago the school board convinced the teachers union to sunset the same basic agreement. Continually faced with budget challenges, it asked the administrators union to strike a similar deal. Current administrators would receive the benefit, but it would be dropped for future union members. The union rejected the proposal.

That's troubling on a number of fronts, none bigger than the impact maintaining the benefit will have on any future district pushes for excess levy referendums.

10 Comments

Washington Post: The president was friendly. Perhaps too friendly.

FROM AN EDITORIAL| Nov 18, 2009 at 07:16 PM

President Obama's central message to the Chinese government and people during his first visit there as president has been remarkably positive. Acknowledging and occasionally marveling at the country's rapid ascent toward superpower status, he has been saying that not only does the United States "not seek to contain China's rise," but "we welcome China as a strong and prosperous and successful member of the community of nations."

This rhetoric in part reflects simple realism on the president's part. But is "welcome" really the appropriate word? Obama's description of the new superpower, after all, did not contain the word "democratic." And throughout its history the United States has found it difficult, at best, to cooperate with nondemocratic powers.

21 Comments

Marshall Tanick: UnitedHealth's directive

MARSHALL TANICK| Nov 18, 2009 at 07:13 PM

UNITEDHEALTH'S DIRECTIVE

It puts employees in a tough spot

UnitedHealth Group (UHG), the nation's largest insurer, recently rankled many when the Minnetonka-based company implored its 75,000 employees to send letters to senators and newspapers, with copies to the insurer's lobbying arm, opposing a public insurance option in the proposed federal health care legislation as well as payment cuts to Medicare programs. A number of critics viewed the initiative as placing undue pressure on employees to advance UHG's self-interest.

To make matters worse, the insurer urged employees to advocate for stronger requirements for people to buy insurance. Detractors asserted that UHG's aggressive efforts were aimed at feathering its own nest while pressuring employees to toe the company line.

Company officials demurred, insisting that it was all voluntary and that no one would be punished for failing to conform. But assurances by management that the program is voluntary and will not have any repercussions on employees who participate, or refuse to do so, are suspect. The health insurer's heavy-handed overture also raised some issues about what are legal rights and remedies of the employees who are the subjects of the imploring of the insurer.

10 Comments