PUBLIC RADIO
Fine for some, as long as it pays its own way
There is a substantial difference between National Public Radio and Fox News.
Fox is a commercial enterprise and is subject to whims of the marketplace. If people don't watch it, it will die a quick death or change to become viable.
NPR is taxpayer-supported, and private donations to it are tax-deductible. I am not a fan of NPR because it makes a point of insulting a broad variety of institutions I generally like.
I feel the same way about MSNBC, but I choose not to watch it nor support its advertisers. I don't get that kind of say with NPR.
If NPR is such a great thing and taxpayer support is rescinded, it will change its name, buy a license from the FCC and enter the rough-and-tumble world of free markets.
We will see if it flourishes like Fox has or goes the way of the dinosaurs. I don't object to its availability for those who choose it. I object to its hand being in my pocket without my choice.
JAY HUYCK, MAPLE GROVE
* * *
GOP LEGISLATURE
Evidently releasing some pent-up energy
Examining the initiatives brought thus far to the floors of the House and Senate has lead me to this conclusion: Let's throw as much much mud up on the wall and see what sticks.
Voters: Is this what you expected when you voted in a Republican majority in the House and Senate?
ALAN PETRI, APPLE VALLEY
* * *
UCARE
If there's a surplus, why did I get soaked?
Let me begin by saying that I have been very satisfied with UCare since my retirement. However, I also have questions for the insurance provider ("UCare donation raises questions," editorial, March 20).
In January, with little warning or justification, I received a 23.4 percent increase in my UCare supplemental insurance premium. Why?
Then, within weeks, I learned that UCare has donated $30 million to help Minnesota solve its budget problem.
I'm all for helping out the state financially. Indeed, it takes whatever money I have lying around. But why raise the premium for people on Medicare when it obviously isn't needed?
HAL MILLER, MINNEAPOLIS
* * *
REGENT SELECTION
Already a troubled process, and now this
Just when I think I can put my recent experience as a University of Minnesota regent candidate behind me as a bad dream, I get pulled back in by the disturbing disclosure that new regent Steve Sviggum is a U employee ("New regent's U job raises concern," March 12).
More outrageous, the regents need to study the issue until May to determine if a conflict exists. Let me help: It's a blatant conflict!
What they need time to do apparently is to try to come up with methods and procedures to make it workable. It is not workable.
I have no doubt that Sviggum is an honorable man who believes it when he says there is no problem. But his actions demonstrate that he doesn't understand what a conflict is.
He inked his new deal with the U on Feb. 4 when we all were in the middle of the candidate process. Why wasn't that disclosed?
Even a perceived conflict should be a concern, let alone a direct financial relationship.
The bigger issue is, of course, the well-documented political bias in regent selection that has resulted in the opposite of what the Legislature was originally charged to do -- have a truly representative body to oversee the university.
A proposal to limit the number of former legislators to one doesn't go far enough. The four at-large seats should be delegated to organizations that can do a better job of selecting talent and that actually spend time thinking about what the university needs.
Like the U of M Foundation. Like the U of M Alumni Association. Both have broad, diverse and impressive governing boards of their own. They, instead of former legislators, should "own" a third of the regent seats.
NORM RICKEMAN, WOODLAND
* * *
To offer an opinion considered for publication as a letter to the editor, please fill out this form. Letters should be no more than 250 words.
Follow us on Twitter @StribOpinion and Facebook at facebook.com/StribOpinion.