Readers write (July 15): State budget deal, Michele Bachmann, stadium death, light bulbs

So the budget has been negotiated without a tax increase on the wealthiest 7,700 people in the state to bring their tax rate closer to what middle-class citizens pay. The argument against the tax increase by Republican lawmakers was that the increase would be a "job killer." Fair enough.

These 7,700 have had this lower tax rate for quite a while. I look forward to seeing them immediately putting the savings to work by hiring. Following Republican logic, those tax savings should -- any minute now -- benefit the state, with more of us employed.

And if not? Let us all remember the "job killer" argument at election time.

JENNIFER LARSON, MAPLE GROVE

• • •

While I'm glad the deal spares us from some of the worst cuts the Republicans were proposing, I find it abhorrent that we're again balancing our state budget using one-time money -- that we don't even have yet! -- and by "borrowing" from schoolkids. Everyone knows this is not a sustainable solution. What's more, it's dishonest. As usual, the hardest-hit schools will be in urban and rural areas.

To be honest, I would have rather endured a few more weeks of government shutdown if it would have meant a budget deal that would have been better for Minnesota's kids.

* * *

Recently it is almost impossible to pick up a newspaper without having to read something about Michele Bachmann. How a person that has spent so much time in Congress, has accomplished so little and has missed so many roll-call votes can become a leader in the current Iowa GOP polls is beyond me.

I would urge everyone to go to PolitiFact.com, a Pulitzer Prize winner in 2009, and read of all the nonfactual statements issued by Bachmann. She has the rare distinction of having the "All-False/Pants on Fire" record. It is obvious that when she speaks she does not let herself get confused by facts.

Recently on "Meet the Press," Tim Pawlenty said that "Bachmann's congressional record is nonexistent." Also, Tom Ridge, chief of Homeland Security under President George W. Bush, told the Washington Times that the job of president "requires a set of experiences that Bachmann just doesn't have in her portfolio."

All hat and no cattle. What more can I say?

• • •

It seems to me that Bachmann's rating for credibility, hovering near zero, would make it most difficult for any thinking person to believe her "facts" about a lack of negative consequences for failing to raise the federal debt limits.

Does she really think she knows more than lead economists and the president himself?Isn't this arrogance?

NANCY STONE, PLYMOUTH

* * *

Unfortunately, in even addressing such proposals, she has allowed others to define the issue too narrowly, while failing to address the larger issue: Is there a reasonable way to prevent such needless deaths?

It does not take a rocket scientist to realize the danger inherent in having a roughly waist-high guardrail 20 feet above a concrete surface (or high above a lower set of stands), in a location where it is entirely to be expected that, thousands of times over the life of a stadium where alcohol is served, people will reach over trying to catch a ball, sometimes jostling with others.

It is important to note that it is not only the overzealous or intoxicated person who might be at risk, but also others beside or below.

This is an issue that should be considered by codemaking bodies, and perhaps should have been years ago. All too often, code provisions are adopted only after multiple deaths make their advisability undeniable.

There may be legitimate disagreement about whether the number of deaths and serious injuries would justify the additional cost and/or undesirability (in some peoples' eyes) of increased safety measures such as higher guardrails, but at least the issue should be considered from a building-code perspective.

* * *

The people who oppose government-imposed standards on light bulbs are, aptly, generating more heat than light. The commentary that appeared in the July 12 Star Tribune ("The government's not-so-bright idea") was a prime example.

It failed to note that the legislation includes a long list of exceptions, including three-way bulbs, appliance bulbs and other specialty bulbs. It also fails to mention the halogen bulb, a type of incandescent that meets the standards, is dimmable and requires no warmup. Before you fill your closets with the old-style bulbs, get the facts.

DAVID CARPENTER, MINNEAPOLIS

• • •

The critical thinker, however, realizes that this is probably far from assured: If a home saves money by using energy-efficient lights, the money will probably be used to buy something else, and virtually everything has a purchase price based upon the energy it took to produce it and market it.

The critical thinker realizes that reducing energy consumption means to reduce economic activity. You could save energy by not working or by working shorter hours. You wouldn't have money to spend on energy content.

Even if you paid an energy tax, or donated money to a charity instead of buying stuff, it wouldn't save energy; it would just allow someone else to use up energy with your money.