STATE BUDGET
Readers respond to governor's proposals
Competitiveness is a concern ("Dayton plan misses competitive reality," editorial, Feb. 16).
But the governor is on the horns of a dilemma. Do we shred the safety net for Minnesota's poor and sick?
Do we force local governments to cut basic services like police and fire protection? Or raise the regressive property tax? Or do we ask the top 5 percent of earners to pay at least a fair tax rate?
Surprisingly, I learned that our family -- barely -- is in that top 5 percent. We don't feel "rich," and we don't live a lavish lifestyle. We're not happy to pay more taxes. Actually, my wife is.
But we can afford the governor's proposal -- especially knowing that it means state government will be there to do that which the private sector can't or won't. And we're not going to flee to Mississippi.
The majority of the state's budget is education and local government aid and health and human services programs. "Reform" doesn't get very far in balancing it.
You could lay off every single state employee and not get very far. So we're talking about tax equity, education and local government aid cuts that will increase property taxes, or a combination of both.
LOUIS HOFFMAN, MINNEAPOLIS