Letters to the editor for Saturday, Feb. 23

Gov. Tim Pawlenty and most of the Republicans in the Legislature seem to have had no problem shifting the tax burden to property owners in Minnesota. They ignore these increases like they don't exist. Maybe they are also ignoring the need for road and transit funding like it doesn't exist. This is like reading "Alice in Wonderland."

TOM HANSON, SHOREWOOD

Invest wisely With the focus on the state's transportation woes in recent months, have we stopped to consider how the transportation dollar is being spent? Have we seen value in the HOV lanes or do they just add to the traffic problem?

Last time I looked, the transportation budget included money for buses, light rail and even railroad in addition to the roadways. Are we getting the most bang for our buck on the LRT project? Is the subsidy for the production of ethanol tapping the transportation budget?

Look hard, legislators, before you ask a state that already has very high taxes to spend more on your foolish pork projects in the name of transportation.

MIKE BATT, APPLE VALLEY

Spend now or more later As Midwestern district director on the Institute of Transportation Engineers' International Board of Directors, I cannot urge Minnesotans enough to support the Legislature's transportation bill. Minnesota is lagging far behind other states in terms of investing in our future generations' transportation infrastructure.

Transportation impacts every aspect of our lives -- the cost of goods and services, the travel time to and from work, the safety of our loved ones and employment for several industries. The cost of improving our transportation system is an investment in Minnesota's future -- don't waste this opportunity another year!

STEVE MANHART, BURNSVILLE

It is a sad day for journalism when a story that belongs in the opinion section instead lands on the front page of the New York Times as "journalistic truth."

The Star Tribune's Feb. 22 story ("McCain allegations trigger political, journalistic firestorms") points out the questionable nature of such an article.

When the Times decided to print this tale regarding John McCain, it seemed to have focused on unsubstantiated information as well as nameless sources for the story. To this reader, that is a dangerous road to go down for any newspaper that is supposed to be informing the public, not pushing its own agenda.

MINNEAPOLIS

Honestly, who cares? Omigosh, did John McCain mess around with a blonde lobbyist? As a citizen, I don't really care. A candidate's private morality is not a negligible matter, but ranks rather low among the factors that determine fitness for office. (Consider Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lucy Mercer.)

I understand that the media engage in scandal-mongering because they must compete for an audience. But because the media do this, people who are clueless about the issues consider themselves qualified to choose the leader of this nation because they know the gossip. And so the ignorant cast their votes when they would better serve the republic by staying home.

Years ago, a young woman said about Bill Clinton's alleged infidelity, "He can have all the affairs he wants as long as he gets health care through."

If more voters were that discerning, we would have better leaders in government and more wholesome and relevant material in the media.

Notably absent from David Kreutzer's Feb. 15 commentary on how wage mandates won't help the poor is any positive recommendation as to what measures might be taken that would benefit low-income people.

As chief economist at the Employment Policies Institute, he surely must have an opinion or two about what could be done to improve conditions for the poor. I wonder why he didn't express them, for the sake of a balanced perspective.

My guess is that he thinks government should do nothing because those at the bottom of the economic scale are solely to blame for being there, and any positive government action would only encourage their dependency on outside assistance.

DICK THOMAS, MINNEAPOLIS

Two comments on Charles Krauthammer's Feb. 19 column warning us that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is all promises with no real substance:

I've yet to see anyone -- right or left -- do any more than say that. I guess if Obama is the only candidate capable of holding an audience's attention, his opponents have to say he can't be as smart or good as his speeches.

Second, Krauthammer writes that Obama's hypnotic spell on people will be broken after Inauguration Day.

If that's not a promise with nothing to back it up, then there's no such thing.

JOHN HUMPHREY, MANKATO

In a Feb. 16 commentary ("Scouting out the line between principle -- and camping"), Jay A. Fernandez, a self-described regretful Eagle Scout, writes that his wife's 14-year-old son had expressed an interest in becoming a Boy Scout and has "the personality" for such.

Fernandez's consent doesn't square with the recollection of his own Scouting experiences -- "the degenerates and bullies I went through Scouting with" -- and, as he describes it, the Scouting pledge's "dreadful phrase" -- to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.

Fernandez frets, "Does the spirit of that pledge mean that you will never lie, or that you will never lie with a guy?"

The answer to each of the question's two components is yes. And, by consenting to his stepson becoming a Boy Scout, it would appear that Fernandez just might concur.