Readers write (July 10): Founding Federalists, Katherine Kersten, violent videos, health insurance

Dane Smith distorted the founders' debate over the ratification of the U.S. Constitution almost beyond recognition ("The Founding Federalists," July 3). In Smith's recounting, the Federalists were the good-guy advocates of a national (not federal) government that would have virtually unlimited power to promote the "general welfare."

The bad-guy anti-Federalists were the 18th-century incarnation of crazed Tea Party types, whose antitax rhetoric and selfish concern for individual liberty were an impediment to the "values of equality, justice and community."

Instead of torturing the history of the founding, Smith and others who advocate the unfettered expansion of government power to promote "social justice" should look to the constitution of the former Soviet Union as their model.

PETER D. ABARBANEL, APPLE VALLEY

• • •

Smith is misguided in his logic. The reason the Federalists needed the power to tax was because they had no revenues whatsoever. A state cannot run without revenues. And that problem is completely different from now; our state has plenty of revenue.

Back in the 1700s, the Federalists had no government programs to cut, so their only solution to balance a budget and pay off debt was through taxation. We can now save money by cutting back on unnecessary spending, whereas the Federalists could not.

• • •

So Smith, president of the progressive think tank Growth & Justice, has dug deep into the vault of history and concluded that the framers of the U.S. Constitution actually liked big government.

Yes, these men, who risked everything to separate from an oppressive British monarchy, would have looked favorably upon a federal government that consumes 25 percent of U.S. gross domestic product, runs annual deficits in excess of $1 trillion, owes more than $14 trillion and has unfunded liabilities of more than $100 trillion. NOT!

Progressives have labored for decades to rewrite history to support their agenda. Unfortunately for Smith, the framers' attitudes are reflected in the Constitution, which lists the limited powers of the federal government, and reserves all other powers to the states or the people.

The progressives may have succeeded in subverting the Constitution in their quest for power and financial gain, but they can't rewrite the document and they can't change history. And neither can Smith.

* * *

Am I the only who is growing tired of Katherine Kersten and the other conservatives who continue to demonize Minnesota citizens who lean to the left ("Maybe this is what Dayton, DFL planned," July 3)? Why is it that those on the right always seem to think they own the moral high ground?

It seems to me that cutting aid to programs that benefit the less fortunate is not a reason to do so. At least Gov. Mark Dayton isn't afraid to let you know where he stands.

While former Gov. Tim Pawlenty stuck to his "no new taxes" pledge, most of us saw our property taxes double and were hit with a raft of increased "fees."

I'll take what Kersten calls the "left-wing nirvana," thank you very much.

• • •

It isn't surprising that Kersten devoted last Sunday's column to spouting some inane conspiracy theory about the DFL wanting a state government shutdown.

There is no conspiracy; the DFL simply underestimated just how unreasonable the GOP would be.

DAVID FREDERICK, COON RAPIDS

* * *

Violent video games increase violent tendencies and behavioral problems among children; they also cause isolation or decreased social behavior.

The Supreme Court's decision about California's law is unfortunate, as it allows opportunities for minors to participate in virtual violence ("Court protects violence, so long as there's no sex with it," June 29.

However, because of difficulties with enforcement and monitoring the industry, regardless of any laws, it's ultimately parents who must step up to restrict their children's selection of video games.

ELIANA CASILDO RONDON, DULUTH

* * *

True, the very poorest Americans who have Medicaid can get care, but the vast majority of the working poor don't qualify for Medicaid. They also can't afford health insurance, and an estimated 45,000 will die because they can't afford needed health care.

I suggest that the letter writer take her message to the families of these Americans and try explaining to them that they don't deserve health care because they didn't earn it.