The case for reserves is found in recent history

As I have been following the news about our latest budget surplus, one of the comments I’ve heard is that it is the largest projection since 1999. You may remember that surplus and the steps taken to deal with it. It was the result of efforts to fix the state budget after the recession in the early ’90s and the strong economy in the latter half of that decade.

New Gov. Jesse Ventura and the Legislature decided to give most of that surplus back to the taxpayers through tax cuts and rebates. Most of us were willing to take this largesse — although many also worried that the state was weakening its economic position and would be in trouble at the next downturn. Of course, there was another recession, and we paid the price for those overly generous tax breaks and rebates.

Are we going to learn from our mistakes of 15 years ago? Or are we going to use the current surplus to try to buy votes in this year’s election? My vote is to build our reserves and to invest in higher education and transportation.

Jim Weygand, Carver

• • •

I do think the ill-conceived business-to-business taxes should be eliminated immediately, with any applicable rebates specifically to those people. But the remainder of the surplus is a different story. When the economy is doing better (like now), we should be building reserves — budget cuts and tax increases during a future recession will be far more painful than allowing a surplus to run now.

Corey Redfield, Minnetonka

• • •

The surplus is projected at $1.2 billion. Some of it should be used to cut spending and, at the same time, make peace between the parties.

Republicans argue we are spending too much money. Democrats should agree, because it’s true. One of the biggest spending ratholes is the enormous cost of cleaning up the mess when our youths fail to grow into productive citizens. Too many children are lost due to a combination of inadequate brain development and poor physical health.

Research shows that a good start in life is crucial for kids. When that doesn’t happen, the social costs required include intervention, special education, corrective costs, social services, crime, courts, law enforcement and finally imprisonment. For just one child, it can run into millions.

The solution isn’t complicated — early childhood education for all. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll shows that 85 percent of Americans consider it an “absolute priority.” How good would such an investment be? Economists at the Federal Reserve Bank in Minneapolis concluded that the real return is an amazing 16 percent per year. They also compared early childhood education with other public investments like infrastructure (roads, bridges), and found that nothing comes close.

The lead researcher is Art Rolnick, a former vice president at the Minneapolis Fed who is now teaching at the Humphrey School of Public Affairs. See for yourself by googling “Art Rolnick” and “TED Talk.” If you are a taxpayer, it will knock your socks off!

David Strand, Aitkin, Minn.

• • •

I’d like to see some of the surplus dedicated to mental-health services and facilities, especially in rural areas of our state. I can think of few better ways to spend this money.

Lawrence Wichlinski, Northfield



Two words about blue law: Lost business

My wife and her family have been spending Christmas vacation on the Gunflint Trail for more than a decade. We spend a night in the Twin Cities on our drive north from Missouri and Kansas. The following day we head to the Gunflint Trail. A long time ago, we discovered Fitger’s Brewhouse in Duluth. It became an annual tradition to stop for lunch or, at a minimum, pick up a couple of growlers of delicious Fitger’s brew.

Two years ago, our trip through Duluth fell on a Sunday. I attempted to fill a growler, only to be denied by an archaic law. It was so disappointing for a craft beer fan like myself. We realized we would face the same situation on our return trip the following Sunday. We drove straight through Duluth. Didn’t spend a dime on anything in that city. We ended up grabbing lunch at a chain fast-food joint south of Duluth. No local Minnesota restaurant received our patronage.

How many other people experience this? I don’t know. Isn’t one lost sale too many?

Seth Trotter, Columbia, Mo.



Raise it slowly? That’s easy for you to say

I strongly disagree with the Star Tribune’s March 6 editorial (“Don’t rush to create a $9.50 wage floor.”) Wait until 2017 to totally phase in a minimum-wage hike? The people who’d benefit, largely service workers, can’t wait a year for a lowly buck an hour to be added to their paychecks. Who’s going to put food on the table and pay the rent and bills for the next three years?

Next time you see somebody sweating to grill and package your dollar hamburger quickly, or the maid changing the sheets on your hotel bed or the person tending to your beloved mom in the nursing home, do more than thank them. Give them a living wage. Let’s be honest, $9.50 an hour isn’t a “living wage.” But it’s closer. And time is of the essence.

Celeste LaMosse, Eden Prairie