Netlets for Wednesday, April 2

The patient lies, critically injured, on a gurney in the ER. After discussing his situation, the staff determines that the best course of care is to reorganize the hospital.

That pretty much describes the Bush administration's newly announced approach to preventing a recurrence of the sub-prime mortgage mess and the regulation of the financial industry.

JAMES KONDRICK, EDINA

Mark Benjamin's March 23 response to your cogent editorial of March 16 ignores many key points. What about the mental health of the families of the nonsmokers who died because they had to breathe tobacco smoke at work?

Before the law took effect, hundreds of Minnesotans were dying needlessly every year. Green wallets can't save the life of someone dying from lung cancer or heart disease caused by breathing secondhand smoke at work.

Concerning veterans, what about the thousands of veterans who have been unable to go into their own VFWs because of the smoke? Gary Kurpius, a former Minnesotan and the current national commander of the VFW, put it this way, "We are a democratic organization that is letting 20 percent of the population tell us that the post will fail if people can't smoke inside. That's bunk. I know many VFW members and spouses who will not attend post meetings or events because of the smoke."

Two summers ago, while handing out fans to promote the smoke-free workplace law during our annual parade here in Kenyon, one of the veterans on the VFW float made a special point of thanking me. Since the law took effect last October, I have gone to our local VFW a number of times and everyone I talk to there is very happy that the smoke is gone.

Perhaps opposition organizers such as Mark Benjamin are unaware that 76 percent of Minnesotans stand behind the Freedom to Breathe Act. I think I can speak for this majority when I say we have no desire to backtrack; instead of wasting our energy on the opposition, we wish to use our energy for future legislative acts such as keeping smokers at a safe distance from establishment entrances to prevent consumers from secondhand smoke inhalation.

ANNE HARRIS, WOODBURY

When a March 31 letter writer criticizes "Mitch Pearlstein's right-wing talking point about corporate taxes," she shows an obvious lack of knowledge how corporate taxes affect the economy. All expenses involved in operating a corporation are considered in the ultimate price of the goods and services offered to consumers; so more taxes (costs), higher prices follow and in the reverse less taxes (costs), the prices will go down. That is neither liberal or conservative but a fact of Econ 101.

Minnesota corporations that have profits "after a small range of deductions" in a ratio same as the "individuals" she cites, are taxed at one of the highest tax rates in the United States. Common sense would follow that again it is not a "right-wing lie" but a fact of life, if it costs less to be anchored in a less tax-punishing state, heavy consideration is given to move elsewhere. Happens a lot in Minnesota.

DENNIS MADDEN, MINNETONKA

STEVE DAHL, DENT, MINN.

Those who pay lower taxes get more services. They get unemployment pay, MinnesotaCare, food stamps, welfare payments -- just to name a few things they may "get." Anyone want to change places with them?

CHARLES JOHNS, ISANTI, MINN.

Your March 31 front-page article "Eating in" focused only on the cost of dining out. However, there are many more reasons why people maybe opting to eat in.

My husband and I used to dine out three and sometimes four times a week. Then, one evening as we were trying to converse in a very noisy restaurant, we asked ourselves, "Why?" Eating out is expensive, the food ranges from poor to good, many places do not take reservations so you have to wait in line, many are excessively noisy -- some to the point where you cannot even hear the person across from you, and if you want to have a bottle of wine, be prepared to spend two to four times more than you would if you were to purchase that same bottle at a liquor store.