Growing up in northwestern Minnesota, I know the impact sugar has on our local economy. This vital industry directly employs thousands of workers right here in our state. Anyone who has driven through the region can tell you how prevalent beet farms and sugar factories are.
Importing non-American sugar will end prosperity in northwestern Minnesota ("High-stakes battle over low-cost sugar," Nov. 9). This will take tax money right out of the state and give business directly to Mexico and other tropical, Latin American nations.
I cannot stress enough the implications for all of Minnesota. If sugar beet farms can no longer sell their crop, they will have to grow different ones. This will lower all Minnesotan crop prices. Meanwhile, the Fargo-Moorhead region would see the loss of jobs, homes and pride.
All I ask is before we make an ill-informed decision to import Mexican sugar to save a few pennies on our pancakes at Perkins is take a step back and look at the impact cheap sugar will have.
Cole Hegg, Detroit Lakes, Minn.
CHILD PROTECTION
Maybe this state needs some outside scrutiny
I'm sure Brandon Stahl's eye-opening follow-up article ("Buried children, buried lessons," Nov. 9), concerning Minnesota's woefully inadequate care of our most vulnerable, has further shocked thousands of us. How could this happen in Minnesota, of all places?
The summary statement at the end quoting from Hennepin County's mortality review is most telling: "There did not appear to be system failure where something different could have been done to prevent [Cottrell's] death." Exceedingly lame at best, and at worst, a coverup — and heads should roll. A federal investigation in order from someone totally objective?
Carol A. Johnson, Eden Prairie
URBAN VS. RURAL
'One Minnesota' talk just didn't ring true
Lori Sturdevant's preference for "One Minnesota" ("This state's divide: Urban, rural, Nov. 9) had about as much validity as "Minnesota Nice." The greater effect of her column was to "shame" rural Minnesotans who decided to send or return a Republican to the Minnesota House. How dare rural dwellers choose a Republican? Sturdevant reports that they are older, less-educated and poorer. What a horrible thing to say.
The column was biased toward the DFL. Sturdevant did not truly promote bipartisanship, which the majority of Minnesotans, both urban and rural, desire to move the state and the nation toward.
A final comment: I was absolutely astounded to learn that the DFL-controlled House had assigned an urban person — Rep. Jean Wagenius of Minneapolis — to chair the agriculture and environment committee. It would have seemed logical to assign a rural person close to farming and the rural life.
Jim Mead, Minnetonka
MNSURE
Improve oversight of site's technology
Thanks to the creation of Minnesota's online health insurance marketplace, MNsure, 95 percent of Minnesotans have insurance and a lot of us are benefiting from new consumer protections and tax credits to reduce our monthly premiums.
MNsure's initial rollout did not go well, especially when it came to information technology systems ("Stakes high for MNsure, year two," Nov. 9). With the 2014 election behind us and more than 370,000 Minnesotans now receiving insurance through MNsure, Democrats and Republicans should work together to make sure 100 percent of our state's residents receive the care they need and deserve. We should not let IT glitches stoke another heated, partisan debate about the Affordable Care Act — a law that was upheld by the US. Supreme Court in 2012.
That's why I am hopeful state lawmakers will pass legislation I authored earlier this year (HF 3382) that improves oversight of MNsure's IT systems. Originally, MNsure was exempt from certain supervision by MN.IT Services, our state's information technology agency. My bill eliminates that exemption, a move that would enhance MNsure by providing more oversight and technical expertise. It also has support from both DFL and GOP lawmakers, including incoming Majority Leader Joyce Peppin.
State Rep. Phyllis Kahn, DFL-Minneapolis
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT
The issue at hand is government honesty
In "Hang on: Supreme Court is taking a new crack at ACA" (November 12), Noah Feldman says that: "Clever lawyers … argued that the exchanges are illegal because they were not established by states." The claim is not that the federal exchanges are illegal, it is that people who buy health insurance on those exchanges are not eligible for subsidies.
Before the Affordable Care Act was passed, the architect of the law said, "What's important to remember politically about this is if you're a state and you don't set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits — but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill." So, the law was intentionally written to encourage the states to set up exchanges by making subsidies available only on state exchanges, yet the federal government is making subsidies available to people purchasing insurance on the federal exchanges.
One of the key points in this case is: Does the government need to comply with the laws it passes, or can it interpret them to mean whatever it wants them to mean?
James Brandt, New Brighton
• • •
I must be one of the stupid voters who needed Obamacare obfuscation to make that mess attractive because I also do not understand how our unemployment problem (11.5 percent in October, not the publicized 5.8 percent — see Bureau of Labor Services U-6 report) will be solved by legalizing up to 5 million undocumented immigrants ("Obama to overhaul border system," Nov. 14).
Jerry Kassanchuk, Golden Valley
MINNESOTA TAXES
How about a tiered approach to residency?
The many ills, economic and otherwise, suffered in Minnesota due to the stringent residency rules for state income tax purposes can be alleviated by some common-sense considerations ("Few taxpayers survive the 'domicile swamp,' " Nov. 12). One of the main problems in the current structure is its all-or-nothing approach. A taxpayer whose residency is contested may have no choice but to fight the case or, because the stakes are so high, be compelled to reach an unfavorable settlement. From its standpoint, the state gets nothing on the occasions, albeit rarely, when it loses a residency challenge.
A sounder way to deal with the issues, and minimize the adverse impact the state suffers from driving Minnesotans away, is to have a tiered system in which partial or semi-residency is recognized. This would allow Minnesotans to live elsewhere for substantial parts of the year, but still contribute to the tax base in this state through an apportionment process.
A similar approach formerly was used for homesteading for real-estate tax purposes, allowing homeowners to claim homestead status in midyear. The same could be done to avert the zero-sum game now played to determine state income tax for those who choose to reside outside the state for periods of time.
Creating a middle ground for state income tax purposes would make the process far less muddled.
