Readers write (July 16): State budget deal

That we had a state shutdown is embarrassing. (We made it into the Economist, a leading foreign journal on politics and economics.) That we ended it with borrowing money is ludicrous.

Do any of you elected officials give a damn about our future? Why, in this day, when we are losing traction in international markets, losing jobs, laying people off, are we leveraging our future and making it more difficult to get ourselves financially healthy and solvent?

As a former mayor of Anoka, I would have been flayed alive for doing this to my citizens by my citizens. Gov. Mark Dayton should not have capitulated to this. Governor, House and Senate: For shame that you would allow borrowing billions to balance budgets.

This is a win for nobody. For shame on you all. Stay closed and get your fists out, or get reasonable and really compromise.

BJORN SKOGQUIST, ANOKA

• • •

I was upset at what I saw as Dayton's capitulation to the Republicans, especially on the issue of tax increases for the wealthy.

He is willing to give up his personal desires for what he believes his constituents want, and that takes courage. I disagree with the results, but I applaud your action, Gov. Dayton.

NANCY NEWMAN, MINNEAPOLIS

• • •

What was the shutdown about? The 2011 Minnesota Tax Incidence Study, conducted by the Minnesota Department of Revenue, reveals that a household earning $45,000 per year pays 12.3 percent of its income to state and local taxes, compared with households earning $450,000 or more who pay 9.7 percent of their income to taxes.

With his proposal to increase the income tax on the highest earners, Dayton thought it was worth risking a state shutdown to partially remedy this injustice. He tried to bluff the Republican-controlled Legislature and lost.

The Republican legislators knew all along that they held the better hand, loaded with wild cards provided by the wealthy benefactors who put them in office and who they would resolutely protect from a fairer tax structure.

PAUL BULTMAN, LAKE ELMO

• • •

A few years ago, several cities voted to raise property taxes to support schools, because the schools were not getting promised money from the state. Now the state is "borrowing" money from school districts to balance the budget.

So it seems that the Republican policy of "no new taxes" in effect really is raising taxes, just indirectly. They get the schools to take more money, then they take it from the schools.

• • •

After delaying the real budget crisis another year or two, and balancing it by again delaying payments to public schools, the state should suspend statewide testing by the Minnesota Department of Education.

After working in public education for 30 years and looking forward to more, all I can say is if you are not going to support us, then quit holding us to your standards. Sporadic funding of education is not in the long-term interests of the state.

But then long-term solutions that would be reached by true compromise with the welfare of the state in mind are sadly lacking these days. So pardon me while I pull the knife out of my back, then I'll show this budget to the door and out of the schools, where it's headed anyway.

MIKE MEYERS, ST. PAUL

It's funny to hear that the "compromise" is somehow a victory for the right. Let's look at it from the perspective of a conservative.

The budget "solution" is, of course, just an accounting trick, one that has caused the lowering of Minnesota's credit rating. This means the state will have to pay more to investors when trying to finance projects or, in other words, that the cost of any project the state might wish to engage in has increased.

Because of this, basic public-works projects such as road construction will have a higher price tag in the future, meaning that the number of businesses the state can afford to employ will go down. In effect, government has been made more expensive and less business-friendly.

Then consider the schools. Since the state is abjuring its responsibility of paying the money it owes school districts, it's clear that schools across the state will have to make drastic cuts.

And if conservatives are right and teachers unions really do ensure that the worst teachers survive while the best are marginalized, it's inevitable that the undesirable teachers will remain on the payroll after budget cuts.

And again, if we are to take the GOP as the "probusiness" party, cutting education is the last thing we ought to do. As conservative economists such as Gary Becker have noted, human capital (i.e., education) is the most important asset in the postindustrialized economy.

Don't let anyone fool you: By defunding education, the state is incurring costs far higher than any proposed tax hike.

Wealthy employers may want to think about their position on taxes when they are asked to foot the bill for training a workforce that increasingly is not taught the most basic skills, or properly socialized enough to be able to work with others at all.

While we are saving money today, we are severely constraining our productive potential tomorrow, and we're losing out to states that know the value of education.

All these points raise the question: Just who is the Minnesota GOP serving?

And for all the harrumphing about the need for a new style of governing, all that's been proven is that bad government is still better than no government at all.