Readers write for Thursday, Feb. 17

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.

• • •

The Star Tribune Editorial Board is probably correct in saying that Minnesota is not an island that can retain those who feel overtaxed. Nevertheless, a graduated income tax is still one of the fairest ways for the state to raise money. A sales tax on food and clothing is not.

It looks as though the governor and Legislature are going to face off until state government shuts down.

DANIEL R. KRUEGER, MINNEAPOLIS

• • •

JULIE ERICKSON, WAVERLY, MINN.

• • •

I want to tell those who think the governor's proposed fourth tax bracket is unfair what I tell my own children: "It doesn't matter who is to blame. What matters is what you are going to do about it."

Dayton is asking the top 5 percent to pay more because they are virtually the only people in the state who can.

MICHELE CARBAUGH, COON RAPIDS

Last fall's election seemed to send a schizophrenic message, choosing a governor who promised to raise taxes and a Legislature that promised not to. What's an elected official to do?

The answer can be found by factoring in the results of a Star Tribune poll last fall. It asked if taxes should be raised upon the wealthiest Minnesotans. The majority of respondents said yes. The message is obvious: Most Minnesotans want taxes raised upon the wealthiest but not upon themselves.

Now stop the politicking and pass a budget bill that represents the will of the people.

JEFF MOCK, HOPKINS

• • •

Does a small decrease in a larger increase actually count as a cut? In DFL minds it must.

MIKE MCLean, Richfield

The Feb. 15 editorial ("Slinking away from U.S. budget reality") gallantly proposed that cuts in entitlement programs like Social Security must be faced if we, as a nation, realistically hope to cure our spending problems.

Thankfully, after attacking the defense budget and Medicare, the Star Tribune editorialists had the good sense to insist that the light-rail line between downtown St. Paul and downtown Minneapolis (a route currently served every 10 minutes in each direction by bus) deserves priority attention and should be funded with federal dollars.

MIKE GARBISCH, ROSEVILLE

"Creativity" is more challenging when most activities -- such as hiring, firing, purchasing, accounting, investing and so on -- are subject to extra federal and state laws designed to make public organizations transparent and accountable.

The group of public "stakeholders" is larger and more diverse than for most privately held organizations. Officials elected to oversee public organizations do not have to meet education or experience requirements.

The conditions in the public sector are not necessarily better or worse than those in the private sector, but they are different.

LINDA WAITE SMITH, NEW PRAGUE

• • •

Does the reader really believe teachers, police, firefighters, transportation workers and social workers, to name just a few, are superfluous feather-bedders?

Many public-sector jobs may not produce a product to be sold, but they provide and maintain the infrastructure without which there would be no environment for the private sector to operate in.

Yes, we pay for them. We should.