Readers Write: (April 18): Bicycling in the Twin Cities, trade deals, estate tax, early childhood education, local government aid

The Twin Cities are blessed to have one of the finest bicycling systems in the country. Minneapolis and St. Paul are consistently ranked first or second among cities for cycling, both in terms of infrastructure and promotion of the use of bicycles. Having lived elsewhere, I can attest to the fact that motorists here are more courteous and respectful to bicyclists than places like Dallas, Houston or L.A. As a dedicated bicycle commuter, I read with interest recent coverage regarding bike trail speed limits, and have simply not observed this to be an issue. In 15 years of riding the trail along Lake Calhoun and Cedar Lake twice a day, I have never once seen someone going 30 miles per hour on a bike path. The riders who want to ride that fast are always on the road. What I do see, on an everyday basis, are pedestrians on the bike path — people using headphones or talking on cellphones, people walking dogs or pushing baby strollers. They do this despite having a well-marked pedestrian path 15 feet away. This is a far greater safety hazard than someone riding 14 mph. Unfortunately, as Will Rogers once said, you can't legislate common sense.

How ironic to have a front-page article on the downturn on the Iron Range in the steel industry ("Iron Range families steel for hard times," April 17) at the same time that "fast-track" authority to ratify the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement was being agreed upon. The article says that "at least nine countries have been accused of selling steel to U.S. companies at cutthroat prices that many deem illegal."

This displacement of American-made steel will only continue if the TPP is approved. Only the 1 percent benefit from these type of trade agreements as middle-class jobs are destroyed forever.

If anyone has any doubts about the corruption of Congress by the wealthy, they only have to look at the U.S. House's vote this week to repeal the estate tax. This tax is applied only to singles with a net worth of more than $5 million and couples with more than $10 million, and, for couples, is due only at the second death. I would suggest that taxes are a necessary evil of civilization and that the best of all taxpayers are those who are both wealthy and dead. This is a tax that dates back to at least the Middle Ages, and it has proved to be very efficient down through the ages.

The complaint that these people have worked hard for their money is in many cases true. That their children shouldn't have to work for their money, however, somehow lacks in logic. The estate tax captures capital gains that haven't been paid and are next to impossible to calculate over a person's lifetime. The argument that the tax closes down many small businesses due to their inability to pay does not hold up to scrutiny. "The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center estimates that only 120 farms and small business, where at least half the assets are in farm or business assets, had to pay the estate tax in 2013," the Washington Post reported recently on its Fact Checker blog. I would suggest that any congressperson who voted for the repeal is either not paying attention to their work or has been bought by those with big money. Check out how your representative voted and consider this the next time you are able to vote for them.

• • •

Consider a lifelong Minnesotan (not me) who was raised on a farm he eventually inherited. Decades ago he started a moderately successful business, bought a home on Lake Minnetonka, and then a property in Arizona, where he spends winters. Nearing retirement, he discusses his estate with a lawyer who informs him that after hard work, inflation and luck, it will be valued at $10 million. Although there will be no federal estate tax, Minnesota will assess about $800,000. To avoid that, he should become an Arizona resident, spend half the year there, and move all his banking, brokerage, legal, accounting and health business there as well. This is not a difficult decision for him, as he winters in Arizona. The Minnesota estate tax raises less than 1 percent of state revenues. It should not be a difficult decision to repeal the tax or conform it to the federal.

The logic behind the House and Senate proposals is that limited resources should get allocated to those with the most need. While these programs are preferred by some for the smaller amount of overall funding necessary, they might also have less overall payoff. According to the National Institute for Early Education Research, disadvantaged children benefit more from attending preschool programs with more advantaged children than from targeted programs. On the other hand, universal pre-K is open to more children but is also more expensive.

The point is, it's not an easy decision, and politicians should not pretend that there is a clear-cut "best answer." In years to come, Minnesotans may look back and wish a different early education plan had been implemented than whatever plan is (hopefully) settled on — and that's OK! What's important is that we know a decision has to be made and that politicians need to come together to reach the best decision they can. Scolding one another and being unwilling to begin negotiations will not get us to a decision. Of course we need well-informed discussion, but meaningful action is the only thing that will truly make a difference for Minnesota kids.

I agree that local government aid (LGA) to communities should be cut back or eliminated ("GOP seeks less aid to big cities," April 16). Cities should find ways to provide services cost-effectively instead of using the aid as a crutch to encourage spending on unnecessary services — such as a municipal golf course. The Pebble Creek municipal golf course in Becker has lost more than $2.5 million in the last decade. Becker found out a couple of years ago that LGA is not a guaranteed funding source, and the result was a steep tax increase to citizens and private business. However, the City Council gave the golf course money to cover another six-digit financial loss and additional funding for unnecessary golf course improvements

I think each city should be evaluated by identifying wasteful spending habits and then lowering/eliminating the LGA accordingly, forcing cities to find better use of taxpayer money to benefit the community as a whole. A city with a municipal golf course losing millions of taxpayer dollars should not receive any LGA. If local government aid were eliminated or reduced, it would make citizens in every community feel the real cost of the services each city provides. I think it would turn people's attention to making their city leaders focus on spending essential to the community and hold government accountable in relation to whom that spending benefits and whom it doesn't.