Readers write: Friday, April 1

While I agree with a March 31 letter writer that the government is not a charity and that disabled children are first and foremost a family responsibility, I part company on her willingness to accept government selection of the "most affected" who are to be supported.

My family is blessed with a reasonable degree of financial security.

We have educated our developmentally disabled and mental-health-challenged adult daughter well and have provided secure lifelong housing for her at our expense.

We cover all of the financial gaps that we can but most certainly could not provide the services provided by the government long-term, especially medical care, minimal basic income and life-support services.

Without us and the public supports, our daughter would most likely be impoverished and homeless, especially when we're gone. And we are among the most fortunate.

For those less fortunate -- in other words, the majority of Minnesotans -- the government is the only game in town.

How can we, as a society, willfully impose poverty on our least fortunate? I just don't get it.

• • •

I'm not sure what cutting $1.6 billion in care for the poor has to do with "jobs and the economy," but leave it to the Republicans to look to the have-nots for a solution. Maybe they'd like to just throw them to the wolves, or lacking wolves, to the coyotes that have been encroaching on the metro area. Nice, compassionate "big tent" you've got there.

MARC BURTON, MINNEAPOLIS

* * *

In response to former Minnesota Education Association President Don Hill decrying the legislative "witch hunt" on teachers (Readers Write, March 31):

I am not quite on board with the Jack Welch school of thought, where senior managers should fire at least 20 percent of their personnel pool annually, but you cannot rationally believe that everyone teaching is cutting the mustard.

We are spending way too much money and getting too little in return. I just want a rational system for flushing out the underperforming from a very costly system.

And to counter your last point, the reality is: A union that reflexively defends the nonperforming member without considering the consequences to the institution, or the reputation of the union, is the real cause of attacks on collective bargaining.

JAY HUYCK, MAPLE GROVE

• • •

We are in the middle of lambing season, and when the ewes have had their lambs, they are kept in small pens the first few days to make sure the lambs are doing OK.

We became concerned about one pen with twins because one of the lambs was not doing well. He was a "poor performer."

A careful observation revealed the problem. The ewe was letting the stronger lamb drink, but every time the weaker lamb tried to drink, the ewe moved away, just out of reach.

With no chance to get much milk, the lamb was getting weak, and the weaker he got, the less aggressive he was in pursuing his milk.

We had to buy lamb milk replacer -- i.e., spend more resources on the weak lamb -- to solve the problem. We didn't give more milk to the stronger lamb. He was OK!

If we had taken that approach the legislature is proposing with our lamb, the lamb would be dead by now.

DEB WRAY, CALEDONIA, MINN.

* * *

With just 10 games remaining on the Vikings' lease, we are in jeopardy of going down the same path as we did with the North Stars and Lakers.

In an economic crisis, a stadium actually benefits our local economy. If the Vikings were to leave, the Metrodome would not be able to function and would lay barren.

We as Minnesotans take pride in ourselves for leading the country in various polls and on best-places lists. We as a state felt so strongly about the integrity of our culture that we voted yes to a bill that diverts tax money to the cultural aspects of Minnesota.

The Vikings are a part of what makes us Minnesotans.

I urge all of you to take action right away. Do the simplest task of friending SaveTheVikes.org and Minnesota Momentum on Facebook or contacting your state leaders.

BEN THEIS, CHASKA

* * *

Surely he was ironically illustrating how utterly petty many criticisms of public officials have become, how driven they often are by an unreasoning ideological contempt that is divorced from common sense and reality.

And that's why the Star Tribune printed it, right, to make that point? Please tell me it was sarcasm.

The alternative is, quite frankly, too frightening for the future well-being of our commonwealth to even consider.

STEPHEN LEHMAN, ST. PAUL