Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

I've always been pro-choice, including 30 years ago when I chose to place my child for adoption after an unplanned pregnancy. Knowing that the decision was mine alone (not the government's) was not lost on me — I was empowered, and I owned my choice fiercely. I agree with Matt Birk ("It's time for pro-choice people to come clean," Opinion Exchange, Aug. 11) that adoption as an option often gets lost in all the hyperbole, but putting everyone who is pro-choice in a tiny "abortions all the time" box is a completely inaccurate, simplistic caricature designed to turn a complex issue — one that is never one-size-fits all for any woman who faces it — into simple-to-digest partisan red meat. It's also, in fact, the polar opposite of "lead[ing] with love and compassion" as he claims he's doing.

Deb Kubes, Eagan

•••

Putting aside the religious zealotry and obvious fact that Birk has never for a second actually listened to the pro-choice side talk about why we're pro-choice, I do appreciate the Star Tribune printing the words of that spectacularly failed candidate because I actually do agree with him that the sides in the debate are labeled incorrectly. His side is not pro-life, and my side is not pro-choice.

The right-wing position of making sure each baby is born no matter what, no matter how miserable of a life they may be entering into, no matter how many physical, mental, financial or sociological disadvantages they may be having forced upon them or their parent(s)? Making sure that child is born and then leaving it to its own devices for survival can only be described as pro-birth.

But really, pro-birth, pro-life, right-wing religious nuttery ... however you want to describe Birk's and the Republican position on this issue as doesn't really matter right now. As long as they stick to it, they aren't going to win another election for a really, really long time.

Adam Skoglund, Eden Prairie

•••

As Minnesota begins to imagine a new state flag, I wonder if we might simply unfurl one that says "Anything goes"? Doctors and nurses are no longer obliged to offer lifesaving care to infants who are born alive and survive abortion procedures, and this evil evokes a line from Shakespeare's Richard III: We are "so far in blood that sin will pluck on sin."

Jeff Johnson, Avon, Minn.

Birk comments that "Abortion wounds women physically, emotionally and spiritually." I would love to know where he obtained this knowledge that led to such an inflammatory statement. I've known many women who have made a well-thought-out decision to terminate a pregnancy; they are not wounded.

Let's hope he stays out of the political arena until he's able to speak the truth.

Amy Lewis, Stillwater

Paul Krugman's propaganda piece "Is a U.S. debt crisis looming? Even possible?" (Opinion Exchange, Aug. 8) must be rebutted. Fitch's downgrade follows the S&P downgrade of 2011. That didn't trigger a catastrophe; Fitch's won't either. Does that mean we shouldn't worry, as Krugman suggests? Absolutely not. Krugman doesn't want you to listen to anyone "who rants about TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS ... ." Well, I'm about to rant!

Since 2000, the U.S. federal debt has increased by $27 TRILLION. The national debt is approaching $33 TRILLION, six times what it was in 2000. Through June 2023, federal revenue for the year were $3.4 trillion, down 11% from 2022. Meanwhile, federal expenditures were $4.8 trillion, up 10% from 2022. Thus, through June, we have a deficit of $1.4 trillion, likely headed to more than $2 trillion for fiscal 2023 — about 8% of GDP. The citations above are from the Bipartisan Policy Center and the U.S. Treasury Department, Bureau of the Fiscal Service, both of which also characterize this situation as unsustainable.

As interest rates rise together with debt levels, interest may soon be the largest expense item in the federal budget. Interest costs will crowd out investment in all other initiatives (public and private), including climate change, which Krugman wants us to worry about instead of our finances.

Krugman should include inflation in his formulae. Growth rates, unadjusted for inflation, are essentially meaningless. Just because inflation is starting to ebb doesn't make this situation any less urgent. No, the U.S. is not going bankrupt, but a monetary/fiscal crisis would have a devastating impact on lifestyles here and the entire world. And this impact may be more imminent than climate change.

Nick LaFontaine, Richfield

•••

The recent Krugman commentary makes the claim that the U.S. need not be concerned with a debt crisis as long as GDP exceeds the costs of debt. He goes on to say that economic growth has exceeded the cost of debt historically, and that relationship should continue. So we should not be worried about it.

It is glib to presume that economic growth will not fall below the cost of debt. It seems very likely it must.

Regina M. Anctil, Minneapolis

•••

I usually write because I'm unhappy about some column or letter that puts a burr under my saddle, but, perhaps for the first time, I come not to bury the paper, but to praise it. Tuesday's Opinion Exchange page offered not one but two beautifully written, wonderfully informative commentaries on — hang onto your hats — that dismal science, economics. Paul Krugman, writing about U.S. debt, and Claudia Sahm, writing about efficiency vs. resilience in economies, introduced two complex ideas central to economics with crystal clarity and not a hint of patronizing ("Is a U.S. debt crisis looming? Even possible?" and "Bidenomics and the battle between efficiency, resilience"). Both are models of how to present new (to this reader) ideas in transparent and logical fashion, in order to educate rather than proselytize. Thank you, Star Tribune. In one edition you've made my entire year's subscription cost worth the price.