Readers Write: Fraud, the White House ballroom, deer and logging

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

The widespread fraud in Minnesota’s Department of Human Services and other agencies exists because of leadership incompetence within those agencies and the governor’s office. No amount of new audits or scrutiny will recover the billions of dollars that flew out of many doors to criminal providers, scammers, swindlers and noneligible enrollees. Taxpayers, disabled children and adults, and able, compassionate providers are paying the price of this multiyear scandal.

I was DHS commissioner for 4½ fraud-free years from 2006 until 2011. I join former Gov. Arne Carlson and former and current Legislative Auditors Jim Nobles and Judy Randall in stating that this fraud would have been prevented if agencies would have initiated corrective actions to every finding by the legislative auditor. That was standard practice, which included reports of those actions to the governor and the Legislative Audit Commission. These audits and reports specifically identified issues of program integrity, documentation, background checks, inspections, contract management and more. Ignoring these business issues invited fraud behavior now at an epic level.

Now, years later and billions of dollars wasted, there will be a new agency, a useless “executive order” and an outside audit. All the actions needed by every agency are already defined in the eight years of legislative auditor reports of findings. Even the new programs of the last two years, which wasted hundreds of millions, can be pulled back to responsible execution if on-site employees were trained sufficiently and eligibility documentation of providers and enrollees was standard practice. Truly disabled Minnesotans require a legitimate process to maintain specific services provided by DHS and other agencies. Able-bodied and able-minded adult citizens should be independent from government services.

Gov. Tim Walz continues to act as an interested bystander and a speed-talking confessor of state government failures. He implies that good state employees are either guilty as him of incompetency or victims of smarter criminal conspiracies. Only he, his office and certain commissioners and managers have failed Minnesota. The accelerated fraud of the last two years were in his new programs and were unattended because of a national campaign, a Trump criticism campaign and a re-election campaign.

Minnesota’s reputation and good citizens can recover from fraud, crime and overtaxation but only with better and stronger leadership.

The writer is a former DHS commissioner.

•••

Evan Ramstad’s reference in “2026 will be tough in state politics” (Nov. 2) to “people with a proclivity to believe government is the answer to any question” demands a response, which I begin with a question: Why doesn’t Ramstad scrutinize business functions like he scrutinizes government functions?

Why doesn’t Ramstad ask how current American capitalism can be said to be working when millions of working Americans can’t afford housing, nutrition, health care or education? Even David Stockman, a Reagan-era engineer of “trickle-down” economics — the idea that success for those at the top results in success for all — admitted long ago that that’s simply not true.

Why does Ramstad criticize “the structure of the [government] agencies” when the issue is fraud in programs for the poor, but not criticize the structure of private-sector companies such as Target when they conduct massive layoffs with a one-hour notice to longtime employees — and bungle even that? Why doesn’t Ramstad criticize an internal climate where “loyalty and performance no longer mattered,” according to a former Target employee who spoke anonymously for fear of retribution? Why aren’t Ramstad and others as critical of business’ routinely rotten customer service as they are of public education?

Any analysis by Ramstad or anyone else of the way business operates in this country is empty and inaccurate unless it calls out the ugly, undeniable realities of capitalism as currently conducted.

Steve Schild, Falcon Heights

Recent articles in the Minnesota Star Tribune on fraud and the White House ballroom construction present quite a cautionary tale. So, if you are concerned with what has happened in Minnesota-run programs (and you should be), then you should be equally or exponentially concerned about what is happening in Washington. The Nov. 4 headline on page three, “Ballroom donors have $279B in contracts,” was a nice follow-up to the Sunday articles “State fights fraud, upends housing aid” and “Trump’s team offers to keep some ballroom donors incognito.”

The fraud in Minnesota-administered programs is very concerning for three reasons: One, the fraud is a deliberate theft of taxpayer funds. Two, those funds are earmarked for programs that were designed to help those less fortunate and so are a direct injury to the people those programs serve. Three, the fraud indicates a real failure to audit state-run programs properly. The good news here is that this fraud can be traced and guilty parties punished, as well as auditing systems improved, to ensure that going forward those administrative failures are rectified. The governorship is the place where the blame will land because that’s part of the governors’ job.

The story in Washington is quite different. The articles on the White House ballroom expose the potential conflict of interest in using private funds to expand the White House and accepting money from many individuals and businesses who have legal and/or business dealings with the government. The obvious potential for fraud here is in the hundreds of billions with donations of millions to a White House expansion that has no oversight. The absence of oversight in this program (you are welcome to replace the word program with “someone’s whim”) is breathtaking. The potential here for fraud is extraordinary.

The headline attached to Dennis Anderson’s column in the Nov. 2 paper, “On eve of Minnesota deer season logging takes a toll on northern whitetails” was clearly intended to stir up the angst among Minnesota’s deer hunters.

The premise of the article is that Department of Natural Resources forest managers are decimating the state’s deer herd by offering too much standing timber for harvest. Anderson’s view, as conveyed by a former DNR wildlife manager, is that overharvesting of aspen and other species is the primary cause of declining deer populations. While that might be an interesting take on a complex issue, it entirely contradicts the data.

First, the DNR, on behalf of the citizens of the state, manages less than a quarter of the timber land in the state. More than 40% of Minnesota’s timber land is privately owned; the rest by county, federal government and forest industry. So, unless deer have a plat map indicating ownership, they are much more likely to habituate non-DNR lands than not.

Second, the total timber harvest in Minnesota has been in steep decline for decades, dropping from 3.8 million cords in 2001 to 2.5 million cords in 2023. This decline is the direct result of the shuttering of five major and several smaller wood-consuming plants during this time.

Third, as mentioned in the article, during the Dayton administration, the DNR was committed to a goal of offering 870,000 cords for sale each year. However, “offered” does not equal “sold”; and “sold” does not equal “harvested.” Generally, each year about 15% of the wood put on the market by the DNR does not find a buyer. (For example, in 2024, 892,000 cords were offered, but only 727,000 cords were sold). And sold does not directly correlate to harvested. In that same year, only 578,000 cords were actually harvested.

Finally, and probably most revealing, is the correlation between timber harvest levels and deer harvest levels. During the peak timber harvest years of 2003-2006, hunters enjoyed the highest deer harvest levels in recent history (an average of 270,000, compared to last year’s 170,000). Don’t believe it? You can look it up.

As the article states, managing forests to achieve multiple desired outcomes is complex and challenging. But by fostering coffee shop rumors, Anderson does little to promote and support critical data-based decisionmaking.

Thomas Baumann, Isanti, Minn.