Readers Write (April 23): Minnesota's budget surplus, Steve Bannon and "The Fourth Turning," war and peace

The Easter Sunday editorial ("How to handle a $1.65B surplus") was flawed. The $1.65 billion "surplus" is only a surplus if you ignore inflation for pre-K-12 public education. If you include inflation in your distribution plan, you would have only $650 million to spread around and I suspect you would spend it differently. The vast majority of public school money is spent on teachers' salaries and benefits. Across the state those budgets are negotiated by union representatives that have developed salary schedules that include annual steps for experience and lane changes for advancing their degrees in education. Those step-and-lane increases generally run between 2 and 2.5 percent each year for most school districts even before any new contracts are negotiated. That means annual inflationary costs for school districts run between 2 and 3 percent (or about $1 billion) and should be accounted for in any thoughtful budget planning.

Without an inflationary increase in funding, all school districts will again be making significant cuts. Those cuts will be amplified considerably if enrollment is declining. The Minneapolis and St. Paul school districts will be hit particularly hard in the budget distribution plan the Star Tribune Editorial Board is recommending. At a time when there is a rising shortage of teachers, an unacceptable achievement gap and political leadership that will advance vouchers in lieu of funding, this plan seems poorly conceived. Additional conversations with those in the field of education are encouraged.

The writer is an educational consultant and retired superintendent.

• • •

I applaud the Editorial Board for laying out its vision for how the state should invest its budget surplus, and also for pointing out that even with a surplus, the governor and Legislature will have some tough decisions to make in the next five weeks.

When we set a state budget, we are setting the state's priorities for the next two years. In that respect, I have some concern with the Editorial Board's approach. I believe that its budget recommendation significantly shortchanges Minnesota's justice system, calling for less than one-third of the new funding for the courts and public safety than the budget proposed by Gov. Mark Dayton.

The Editorial Board's approach significantly underfunds Minnesota's courts, public defenders, civil legal aid organizations, and other parts of the justice system. Our judiciary is not just another state agency. Our court system is an independent branch of government, and access to justice is one of the first promises of Minnesota's Constitution. The Editorial Board's proposal fails to make the judiciary or public safety a priority, and that is a mistake that would affect all Minnesotans. Nothing could be more bipartisan than to uphold the promise of justice in Minnesota. Justice system funding must be a budget priority.

• • •

I wholeheartedly support the Editorial Board's proposals with the exception of one egregious omission: water. Water is a prime resource for the whole state and supports manufacturing, tourism, fishing, water sports and agriculture. Yet it is daily under threat from overuse, climate change, acid rain, lack of attention, invasive species and pollution, agricultural and other.

I could not find one word about water in the list of approved uses for the present budget surplus. The "other agencies" mentioned may include the Department of Natural Resources, which is doing what it can already but needs more appropriations. I urge the Legislature to be more intentional about protecting and improving and maintaining this important resource. I wish legislators would worry less about getting more money to rich people and more about saving the water for all people.

• • •

The Editorial Board omitted one important area that needs to be addressed: the mental health system. While significant gains have been made to build our mental health system, it is still under construction. School-linked mental health grants cover a little more than 40 percent of the school buildings in Minnesota. Innovative effective programs such as First Episode, supportive housing, crisis homes and Assertive Community Treatment teams are not available to all who need them. Workforce shortages result in long waiting lists to access basic treatment. NAMI Minnesota urges the Legislature to continue investing in the mental health system. Without access to treatment and community supports the outcomes are poor — high dropout rates, homelessness, unemployment, criminal justice involvement and suicide. We know what works. Let's fund it.

• • •

I am puzzled by the apparent quandary over what to do with the state's surplus. Isn't there some sports team that needs a new stadium?

• • •

What to do with the surplus? Seriously? Just make a down payment on Wisconsin! Some say our state is for sale, anyway. Gov. Scott Walker and his team gave away $1.6 billion with income/property tax credits and tax breaks for manufacturers, agribusiness and others. (Even we, in our modest home, may have "saved" the price of a couple pizza suppers a month.) The "new" Wisconsin idea expected to sway decisions about where businesses would invest. However, there have been costly losses. With total control, our governor and party have shattered Wisconsin's long tradition of bipartisan support for all levels of public education, for teachers, public workers, for protection of natural resources, for clear air and water — all sources of state pride.

There's no strong evidence this has been good for growth, but surely there is potential that it's been bad. Tax credits are good for bottom lines in big businesses already here like John Menard and Diane Hendricks of ABC Supply Co. Wisconsin was recently ranked last for start-up activity — lack of entrepreneurs, new business. While the fiscal carrot is a lure, we believe in the long-term view that quality of life and good schools are the bigger draw. We're long-retired folks who are so proud of our local schools, but who fear for the future of Wisconsin education values. We know U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos will find the stage already set for taking tax money from public schools and giving it, and more, to private non- or for-profit ventures.

D.J. Tice provided a watered-down commentary about Steve Bannon and "The Fourth Turning" as simply interesting ideas ("Bannon fear fuels 'Fourth Turning' freakout," April 16). The theory of "The Fourth Turning" is based on cycles of history and generations from the experience of white Euro-America and the predominantly white-male culture for a reason. In Tice's commentary about the book, he failed to consider the experience of nonwhites and of women in each of the seasons/generations.

For example, the life stage of finding a spouse and trying to figure out what you wanted to do for a career was quite different from the female perspective, because until recent generations those things were often defined for her. For people of color, growing up and living during the so-called "High" period of the 1950s was probably less great than today considering this period included the Jim Crow era and segregation. The chaos during the 1960s and '70s was felt by the dominant white culture, with the expansion of civil rights and women gaining independence in their lives. Interesting that Tice references a Jewish man and an African-American woman as examples for what was labeled the "prophet" generation, described as idealistic and selfish.

The apocalypse or brewing "Crisis" period of today perceived by white nationalists like White House adviser Steve Bannon and his ilk is the browning of America (personified by the first African-American president) that includes a more diverse culture and loss of privilege for the white majority.

After a few deep breaths, I'm calm enough to write this comment about Francis J. Gavin's essay about war and peace ("In a dangerous time, naiveté is itself a danger," April 16). And reading it in full twice also helped. He toned down his rhetoric toward the end.

Here is a person who probably has never been in the military nor in a war zone or he might not be so sure that any benefits of war outweigh the downside. Any casual reader of history can tell that no one country, even as powerful as the U.S., can determine the rules or terms of a war, and the risks of its escalating out of control to disastrous proportions is more likely now than ever in history.