TEACHERS UNION
Not epitome of power, but described that way
It seems like every time Education Minnesota is mentioned in one of the Star Tribune's editorials, it is described as "the state's powerful teachers union."
Just a few weeks ago, the newspaper reported on the lobbyist expenses of various groups in Minnesota. The Minnesota Chamber of Commerce outspent Education Minnesota 4 to 1, while the Minnesota Business Partnership outspent the teachers union by $400,000. Education Minnesota ranked 13th on the list of lobbyists.
Why are unions always referred to as "powerful," but the same does not apply to others? Of the $60 million spend on lobbying, unions accounted for only about 3 percent of total spending. Meanwhile, business groups outspent all unions 7 to 1.
What does that make companies like Xcel Energy who outspend all unions combined? It seems like the Star Tribune applies two different measurements, one for unions and another for über-powerful businesses. I wonder were businesses get all that money to spend on lobbyists?
MARC DOEPNER-HOVE, MOUND
* * *
Highway spending
Nondrivers just might cast wary eye. Touché?
How interesting to read the April 6 article "$1.1 billion in road work will bring drivers relief," considering that the majority (if not all) of these projects benefit car drivers. I find the hypocrisy appalling that car drivers were outspoken last year in their complaints about the hiring of a bicycle and pedestrian coordinator in Minneapolis with an annual salary of $61,000 to $84,000, but mentioned nothing of the extraordinary expenses to maintain their roads.
Every taxpaying citizen contributes to these project's funds, regardless if they use roads or bikes or whatever. I am a taxpaying citizen without a car, so is it fair that a greater share of my taxes pay for roads I do not directly use? No. But what can I do?