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

•••

While I appreciated D.J. Tice's column on the causes of high inflation from the pandemic relief bills ("The inflated mystery of higher prices," April 17), I think his description of the recipients of the relief was incomplete. He seemed to focus on all the disposable income that became available and those who became much choosier about getting back in the workforce. Apparently this refers to a large group of Americans who had the luxury of spending money on extra goods and services and, if they had lost their jobs, didn't have to reemploy immediately.

My wife and I are retired and are very secure financially. We received two sets of stimulus checks as a result of this legislation. This was money we neither sought nor needed. How many other recipients of these funds are in a similar position? Why were there so many at higher income levels included in these distributions? My cynical side says it's because some in Congress wanted to give something to their base. I am not an economist, but is it possible that if the stimulus could have been more targeted, inflation rates would not have gone so high?

The funds and policies provided in these bills were supposed to benefit people with the least financial resources. Those who live paycheck to paycheck, who work multiple jobs to pay for housing, who can't afford child care and have to make decisions between feeding their families and getting necessary health care. They don't have disposable income or the option of being "choosy" about their employers. They work hard and struggle to make ends meet. Let's not lump them in with those who have the privilege of many more options and who didn't need the stimulus money.

Charlie Greeman, Minnetonka

Thank your reporting the story of the murder of two Minnesotans in Mexico ("Coon Rapids couple killed on Mexican highway," April 18). I believe the story warrants a bit more coverage of the couple, Leticia Carrillo Arellano and Miguel Abrego Hurtado.

I met their children, Miguel and Diana, their parents, and innumerable sisters, brothers, nieces and nephews. Each was as pleasant, warm and welcoming. All were welcome in Leticia and Miguel's home and lives.

I referred Leticia and Miguel to many of my friends and their families. Each and every person who met them adored them. Not simply because they were great cleaners, but because of who they were inside and out: loving, caring, thoughtful and generous people.

I fear, when people hear they were gunned down in Mexico, that people may misinterpret the situation. No, it wasn't a bad part of Mexico. No, they weren't bad people. They were good people, visiting relatives in a time when violence is so prevalent all over the world.

I am so sorry to lose two of my favorite people in my life. I am so sorry that Diana and Miguel have to become adults so quickly.

Minnesota just lost two of the best people anyone could ever know.

The April 17 report "Retiree distribution age may change again," detailing the Securing a Strong Retirement Act of 2022 passed by the House and awaiting action in the Senate, illustrated how Congress is out of touch with regular citizens.

The first paragraph says it all: "Retirees who can afford to sit on their nest eggs a little longer could win big from a bill that is sailing through Congress." Haven't we heard reports that many Americans have very small nest eggs, if at all?

The bill would delay the age when mandatory amounts have to be withdrawn from tax-deferred retirement accounts, the required minimum distribution, or RMD. Yet, professionals in the field say that about 80% of people subjected to these distributions withdraw more than the minimum required.

Taxpayers, of course, can always withdraw from their accounts without paying a penalty once they reach the age of 59½. However, having the custodians of the accounts provide guidelines of required distributions based on the IRS life expectancy tables can at least offer ideas of how much to safely withdraw.

No doubt, the financial service industry promoted this bill after observing heavy withdrawals in the past five years, when the oldest boomers reached the age of 70½. The industry should also see its revenue rise, as fees are based on the size of the accounts.

Hanna Hill, Plymouth

Lori Sturdevant's April 17 column "Gas costs, climate crisis fuel a dilemma" includes insight into one of Minnesota's best legislators — Sen. Dave Senjem. Sturdevant describes Senjem as a rare Republican. She got it right. Senjem is an old-style Republican created in the era before the party was highjacked by ultra-right Tea Party conservatives.

Old-style Republicans believe in self-reliance and self-responsibility while simultaneously looking after the fundamental needs of our neighbors. That differs from the current ilk, who are laser-focused on tax cuts, catering to the needs of the uber-wealthy, cutting public spending to the bone, and self-advancement at the expense of all else.

Senjem is a man who puts the needs of his community first (read that community as "Minnesota"), consistently sets his priorities on building for the future, understands that consensus is essential to achieve success and is self-sacrificing to a fault. He is truly an extraordinary man. Minnesota is blessed to have him in the Legislature.

Thomas P. Moyer, Greenfield

Jill Thomas, Plymouth

As a Minnesota native who lived in California for 25 years, I would strongly oppose the creation of any citizen ballot initiative or referendum system in this state. ("Curious Minnesota: Why doesn't state let public propose laws?" April 17).

My experience with referendums in California was that they were often poorly thought out, poorly written, confusing, and often pushed by narrow special-interest groups, some of whom were from out of state. Further, many of the initiatives greatly oversimplified complex issues that required nuanced solutions.

We elect and pay state representatives, and we should allow and expect them to do their jobs. They have access to lawyers and subject-matter experts, and can hold hearings to evaluate complicated issues from multiple, relevant viewpoints. The process may be slower than we would wish, but I believe that the well-considered end result is worth the investment.

Lawrence Merwin, Woodbury