My wife and I have been blessed with four wonderful daughters. They are smart, caring, and unbelievably bright and resourceful. I've said often that if I were to start another business they would be the first four people I would try to hire. I wouldn't be hiring them because they happened to be my daughters, or because they are women ("It's time for Hillary Clinton; it's time to empower all women," April 24). I would be hiring them because of my confidence in their ability to get the job done.
The role of the president of the United States is to govern this nation in this most troubling of times — not to fill a social experiment by being the first woman to hold the office. I'm simply hoping that we will be able to elect the right person for this unbelievably trying job (Democrat or Republican) who has the right temperament and skill — one whose only agenda is serving this great nation.
Dennis Walker, Rosemount
HILLARY CLINTON's CONTROVERSIES
Another revelation, and another reason to doubt her capability
The New York Times is a liberal news source that traditionally supports Democrats, the Clintons in particular. Thus, it is important that the Times, in an article published in Friday's newspaper, exposed the activities of both Hillary and Bill in connection with the Russian acquisition of strategic uranium assets in the United States, while in the same general time frame Russians donated $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation and paid Bill $500,000 for a speaking engagement. The donation had never been disclosed and had to be dug out by Times reporters. The State Department, while Hillary was secretary, was one of the government bodies that had to approve the sale of the strategic uranium asset. Surely, a matter of this importance rose to the attention of President Obama, and he did not stop the sale. Russian President Vladimir Putin, no doubt, was smiling as Obama "reset" the Russian relationship. This is beyond the pale.
Bill Halling, Edina
• • •
The media circus about the possibility that Clinton accepted "bribes" in her role as secretary of state may or may not be true. The circumstantial evidence at this juncture, however, demonstrates that she, at the very least, used extremely poor judgment during her time in office. The fact that the Star Tribune did not even discuss this growing story in Friday's paper demonstrates equally poor judgment.
Barbara Brandau, Eden Prairie
SUBSIDIZED HOUSING
Met Council is following a historically ineffective agenda
During his 1964 State of the Union address, President Lyndon Johnson declared "unconditional war on poverty in America." His goal was noble: a new generation capable of supporting themselves out of poverty without government handouts, i.e., as he said, "making taxpayers out of taxeaters."
Twenty-two trillion dollars (excluding Social Security and Medicare) later, the U.S. census reports that the poverty level has decreased to 14.5 percent (in 2013) from its 15 percent level in 1964. The war is not going well, but the dependency state is alive and thriving.
Most "progressives" believe in the forced redistribution of wealth. Not to be outdone, the Metropolitan Council wants to redistribute poverty by moving poor people into the suburbs ("Suburbs target of subsidized housing push," April 24). Even if you accept the premise that by such redistribution "poor families … will be able to avoid the poor, segregated neighborhoods with higher crime rates," it does not follow that poor people moved to the suburbs will somehow no longer be poor. Simply put, there is no causal relationship between where people live and poverty. Housing does not cause poverty, but the dependency state reinforces it.
Although landlords must comply with fair-housing laws, they are not yet required to participate in the Section 8 program. That must cause social engineers to lose sleep, and there's nothing worse than a sleep-deprived social engineer. It'll be interesting to see what "recruiting" tactics the Met Council employs to overcome resistance to Section 8.
Michael Bates, Ham Lake
R.T. RYBAK VS. SCOTT WALKER
Minnesota's way may yet prove to be inferior to Wisconsin's
I tried to read former Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak's April 23 commentary ("Gov. Walker, welcome to a state that works …") with some objectivity, but it was difficult. I wasn't aware that government ran a state's economy, as Rybak suggests. To a student of economics, the systems in which government runs the economy are socialism, fascism and communism.
Yes, Wisconsin faces some budget issues, but it also spends approximately $7 billion less than Minnesota, despite having a larger population. Wisconsin's economy is much different from Minnesota's in that industry is heavily oriented toward the paper industry, which is in decline. Minnesota has the benefit of multiple Fortune 500 companies, which were established long before Gov. Mark Dayton took office. Minnesota chose to raise taxes (its go-to solution for almost everything), but the long-term impact of that decision is yet to be felt.
I suggest that we let voters decide if Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, a possible presidential candidate, is the right person to "run" the country rather than have the former mayor smear him because he is not in the grips of the public unions and insists on some accountability for spending taxpayer dollars.
Frank Pintens, Orono
NORM COLEMAN VS. TERRORISM
Sounds like someone's trying to scare up some future votes
Is Norm Coleman going to run for office again soon? The former U.S. senator's bombastic article about how afraid we should be of potential terrorists/Somalis ("In the Land of 10,000 Terrorists," April 24) smells to me like campaign rhetoric.
He rants: "Over two years, more than 20 Somali-Americans from Minnesota have left the state to fight with ISIL/ISIS or Al-Shabab." On to phrases deafening with alarm sirens: "past frightening and straight into alarming," "concern about our potential status as the Land of 10,000 Terrorists," "the evil that is lurking among us," "growing threat to our state and national security," and on and on.
Coleman has little to offer: "The governor should appoint a statewide task force to begin reviewing what our options are. … The Legislature should begin holding hearings ... ." Occasions for more blustery yelling, no doubt.
At one point, he states that "policymakers should not seek to fan the flames of fear and mistrust." Yet that is just what he does in most of the article.
How about treating the Somalis among us (the thousands minus 20 not having left to fight with terrorists) as valued contributors to our state's culture, a fact that Coleman touches on only briefly?
Jane Thomson, St. Paul
AL FRANKEN VS. MONOPOLIES
A serious senator was on the case and made a difference
Kudos to U.S. Al Franken for his early leadership in questioning the Comcast-Time Warner merger ("Comcast cutting cord on deal," April 24). If approved, it would have achieved such market domination that cable fees would have floated even higher. There have been few recent denials of proposed mergers on antitrust grounds, and without Franken blowing the whistle on this one, it would have sailed through like so many others. He is recognized as a serious senator who doesn't speak until he understands the issues well; then, agencies listen. Net neutrality, anyone?
