SHUTDOWN
We're learning what's really essential in state
As the long fight drags on between those who believe government should match revenue and those who believe revenue should match government, I can't help but notice that the courts are conveniently compiling for us a handy list of what the state doesn't really need to be doing in the first place.
From what I can gather, many welfare payments continue, but many license renewals do not. Thus the courts seem to believe that the transfer of wealth, rather than the creation of wealth, constitutes the essential business of the state.
If this is the case, perhaps we should consider devolving business regulatory responsibilities to the cities and counties to deal with as they see fit. The state budget would thereby be spared the awful burden of providing such needless services. The citizens might then also escape the worst effects of those who aggrandize power and then refuse to exercise it.
ANTON TREUENFELS, FRIDLEY
• • •
That phrase "essential government functions will still operate during the shutdown" drives me crazy. Shouldn't all government services and programs be essential? Government should only step in where private ventures fail or prove unprofitable.
We've seen the extensive impact our squabbling state Legislature and governor have had on profits of our state's private companies. Take Canterbury Park: It's lost millions at the hand of representatives who aren't doing their jobs.
After all, that's what a shutdown is -- the failure of our elected officials to do what they are elected (and paid) to do. Rarely do I call for more regulation, but we need incentives in place to keep this from happening in the future. Eliminating our politician's paychecks during a shutdown would be a good start.