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

•••

The next act in the Washington political circus will be action (or lack thereof) on raising the federal debt ceiling. Each side will retreat to its talking points and amplify its message on the appropriate news channels. What will likely be missing is an honest description of the problem and discussion of unavoidable solutions.

First, the problem: Our debt and fiscal structure are unsustainable. The debt is eight times the five-year average in total tax collections. Interest on the debt is the fastest growing part of the federal budget and is currently 8% of spending. In 2022, the federal government spent $1.30 for every dollar collected in taxes, thus adding to the debt. Starting in 2021, annual Social Security payments exceeded collections. This will continue and get worse. The reserve built up over decades will be gone in 2034.

Next, the solution: Sacred cows will have to be slaughtered on both sides of the aisle to address the problem. Entitlements will have to be restructured, likely raising the retirement age and increasing contribution levels. Overall taxes will have to be increased. Spending will have to be reduced, including defense spending.

We must get our fiscal house in order. I recommend that the Republicans agree to increase the ceiling in exchange for the Democrats agreeing to a bipartisan panel to address the debt, with a goal to reduce it to a manageable level in 10 years. Not a solution but a step in the right direction.

Casey Whelan, Plymouth

The GOP is preparing to take the U.S. economy to the brink of chaos (again) by demanding budget cuts before it will raise the debt limit ("McCarthy seeks debt talks with Democrats," Jan. 18). The GOP accuses Democrats of overspending. The GOP paints itself as fiscally responsible in making its demands.

I don't want to hear one more word from the GOP about fiscal responsibility until it agrees to roll back the tax cuts for the wealthy that it aggressively sought and until it agrees to fully fund the IRS so that the agency can crack down on tax evasion. Both of these GOP pet policies significantly contribute to the current budget imbalance.

We should all recognize that tax cuts are a form of spending. And we should demand that the GOP stop contributing to the budget imbalance by funding the lavish lifestyles of the wealthy through tax cuts.

Kathleen Winters, Roseville

•••

The letter echoed a popular opinion among Democrats. Of course, to put the proper political finger-pointing spin on it, the writer declares that any debate would merely be useless Republican "political mischief."

The writer seems to imply that the mere passage of a budget is almost all that is necessary for an adequate analysis of the budget's effect on the national debt. Hence, the solution is to remove the legal requirement for such a limit. But believe it or not, Congress established a debt ceiling requirement to assure us of an orderly, thorough and ultimately effective budget and funding process.

Unfortunately, the approval of budgets and debt ceilings have drifted apart over the years, now often separated by several months. Arguing that these two issues are not related, and that they shouldn't be deliberated together, warns us of poor financial discipline. In fact, maybe we should consider requiring any budget approval to be invalid unless it contemplates and concurrently approves any necessary increase in the national debt.

The writer wants to remove the bothersome debt ceiling debate by simply removing the offending law that requires a ceiling. That would remove the angst, but the problem of a flawed budget process would remain.

If a budget is passed, we should require that the necessary revenue and borrowing levels have also been finalized.

I would like to comment on the current public discussion regarding marijuana legalization. I speak as a scientist who has earned a doctorate in medical pharmacology, with a special interest in neuropsychopharmacology (drugs affecting the brain). My thesis project involved prenatal exposure to pharmaceutical (prescribed) medications and the effect on brain development. I was also a NIDA fellow (postdoctoral instruction in psychology and pharmacology related to drug abuse).

The scientific literature addressing the effects and addictive potential of marijuana goes back some 60 years. Yet it was deemed illegal around 100 years ago (without science to support that step). Marijuana is by no means harmless, and exposure at different ages poses different risks. However, alcohol and tobacco do far more damage at all ages than marijuana. Proper regulation and restrictions on access and use should be sufficient. The special treatment of marijuana when it comes to federal status as a Schedule I drug and the legal penalties for physicians and users alike have never been warranted. The statement from the surgeon general under Donald Trump, that marijuana has no legitimate medical use, was patently false. Yes, our legislators and the general public should listen to the science. But the science they should listen to is from scientists, not anti-legalization policy consultants, lobbyists and politicians.

Glenn T. Livezey, Minnetonka

I am tired of hearing how removing competition in health care will somehow strengthen it. As I read through the endless self-platitudes and industry buzzwords in "Merger will strengthen health care for Minnesotans" (Opinion Exchange, Jan. 9) like "harness[ing] innovative technologies" or "investing in new care models" I was looking for the one thing that affects Americans the most in the health care industry: cost. Other than a passing comment about virtual care, there was not a single line addressing the 800-pound gorilla in the room: that skyrocketing costs have destroyed the ability of most Americans to obtain even the most basic care in this country. If America provided the finest health care in the world it would at least explain the expense. Yet America produces among the fewest numbers of positive health outcomes of any industrialized nation on earth. Further removing the incentive to rein in costs will only exacerbate the affordability problem in this country, and the only people who will profit from this merger are the same people who really don't care if any health care is actually administered: the stockholders.

This massive boondoggle has absolutely nothing to do with people, and everything to do with profits.

The piece from the Washington Post on password security is excellent and, finally, accurate advice on improving passwords ("Just 1 step 2 improve password security," Jan. 16). Except for one major blunder. Using familiar phrases like "LittleMissMuffetSatOnATuffet" may be better than the short familiar words many use but are becoming obsolete now.

One thing modern computers can do really well — including the kind you can construct yourself with home PCs and multiple graphics cards — is pattern matching with large sets of data. Think in terms of billions of key matches per second. A data set with every word from every dictionary in the world, lists of book, movie, poem or song titles, famous quotations, popular lines from poems, books, songs, etc., is well within their capability. And don't think that substituting characters or changing case for letters makes any difference. It used to — doesn't as much any more.

As also recommended, if you use sets of random words, they can't match known patterns. You force an exhaustive search through all permutations. Even at billions of matches per second, a good password can take years to crack. Make it total to about 20 characters. At that length, passwords can safely be all lowercase for ease of touch-typing or tapping on phone keyboards.

Length and randomness. Go forth now and be safe until passkeys take over.