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

•••

Well, Gov. Tim Walz and his DFL majority were given a tidy sum of money and, needless to say, power. Have they wielded the power nobly and spent the money wisely? Time will tell. I feel for the emasculated Republicans a bit, though; while they complain about the DFL's grip, they did have power and a chance for bipartisanship last session but failed to effectively engage with the governor.

I feel more sorry for Minnesota that our state government has gone the way of states like Florida and California and their one-party rule. Yet, this is the American experiment (not to be confused with the right-wing think tank of the same name) and we have our choices as to where we want to live and where we think we'll be able to thrive. My faith tells me that living in communion is necessary to our salvation, so I'm hopeful when we put laws on the books that will help those that are not like me — male, white and heterosexual. I also know that there is plenty of wealth in this state and more than enough that many of us can share via personal generosity or through taxes. I am also a believer that money in a capitalist society, while earmarked for good, can be lost to graft as well as being simply wasted — think of the federal attempt at providing food for the young during the pandemic.

I hope I'm around in five years, as it will be interesting to see how the states of Minnesota and Florida may or may not have prospered. One thing is close to certain, though: Even with climate change, it will likely be brutally cold here in the winter and a steamy swamp in Florida in the summer — that is, if the ocean and hurricanes have not claimed the Sunshine State. So, let the spending begin.

Garth Gideon, Clear Lake, Minn.

•••

Bruce Harms, Plymouth

•••

What a disappointment! I don't think I qualify for a single tax cut, refund, credit or rebate ("Landmark $3B tax bill goes to Walz," May 22) from this year's Legislature.

I make too much (over $75,000) to get the $260 tax credit.

I don't have any young children, so there goes that $260 credit.

It certainly doesn't seem fair* for those of us who are financially comfortable, have no dependents who need support, are in good health, owe no college debt, carry no credit card balances, own substantial IRAs and HSAs and have affordable houses in safe, quiet neighborhoods not to be able to take advantage of the state's largesse. Why should just those lucky, lucky low-income folks get these enormous checks? Now I won't be able to give my housekeeper that $5 raise.

And I was so certain of getting something back from the state that I had already upgraded my cabin on the cruise I'm taking this summer.

* "'Fair' is a word that was invented so idiots and children would have a way to argue." — Scott Adams

Doug Johnson, Burnsville

•••

Fredrick L. Butler, Rosemount

In his May 20 commentary, Noah Feldman completely ignored the case for raising the U.S. debt ceiling as recently articulated by top constitutional lawyer Laurence Tribe ("Can Biden raise the debt ceiling on his own? Uh, no ..." Opinion Exchange). Feldman argued that President Joe Biden cannot "raise the debt ceiling on his own" because "The U.S. Constitution puts Congress squarely in charge of both borrowing and spending." This argument would be valid if raising the debt ceiling created new debt. But it doesn't. It would also be valid if Congress had the right to threaten default. But it doesn't: The 14th Amendment clearly forbids this. Meanwhile, the president is constitutionally duty-bound to enforce all laws made by Congress. Biden must therefore decide between two contradictory laws: the debt ceiling vs. the 14th Amendment. The latter is an explicit constitutional mandate. The former is not.

Ronald Mahler, Eagan

•••

The article about the debt talks ("Leaders' debt talks ready to resume," May 22) says that the talks are "aimed at averting a default on the nation's debt." That is not correct. The U.S. is not going to default on the nation's debt even if no agreement is reached. If no agreement is reached on raising the debt limit, then the federal government will not be able to increase the debt through deficit spending. In other words, it will only be able to spend the revenue it receives and will not be able to increase the total amount of debt. It would not be able to spend as much money as Congress had planned for it to spend, but it would not have to default on payments to creditors. Federal tax receipts were $313 billion in March and interest on the debt is around $62 billion per month, so servicing the debt would not be an issue. If an agreement is not reached, the result would be a partial government shutdown, not a default on the debt.

James Brandt, New Brighton

•••

We are standing on the edge of a cliff with the debt limit. The U.S. has never defaulted on its debt, and we should not start now. The debt we are paying off is debt that was approved by Congress during the last administration. Tax cuts that predominantly went to the wealthy have also added to the debt. Rather than agreeing to pay for the debt that they accrued, Republicans are demanding cuts to programs that help veterans and the poor.

I would like to know how many citizens accrue debt on their credit cards and then demand concessions from the credit card companies before they will agree to pay what they owe.

It is time to pay for what you have spent. Send your proposals to reduce spending to the Senate and let the debate take place there. Do not try to legislate by holding the debt limit hostage.

Recently we saw news articles and TV news segments concerning a woman who had feces rain down on her vehicle in Burnsville ("Sometimes it rains. Sometime it pours ... poop," May 19). Rep. Angie Craig was contacted about this and wrote a letter of inquiry to the Federal Aviation Administration to try to understand what is being done about these "crappy" things happening to her constituents.

As a former airline manager, and a professional pilot, I can tell you that what the woman saw on her car did not come from a commercial airplane toilet discharge or leakage. Every single airplane that has onboard toilet facilities uses the familiar "blue juice" that is relatively effective at reducing odors. If this substance came from a commercial aircraft, it would have had a blue tint to it.

Most likely, the excrement came from a prankster flying a drone over the area. This is even more evident in that the area where the substance fell was rather confined. It would have spread over a greater distance if it fell from a relatively high altitude.

It seems this was a rather "crappy" prank pulled off by a real stinker!