Readers Write: Fixing our government, defeating Republicans, tariffs, the Minnesota flag

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

On July 14, David Lebedoff commented that the problem bedeviling our democracy is the primary system we use to select the people who represent us. His hoped-for solution was some undefined action by the Supreme Court (“A funny thing happened on the road of democracy,” Strib Voices).

Here’s another thought: Instead of dumping the hacks, why not just require a certain percentage of legislators who are not members of the party in power to vote in favor of a bill in order for it to become law? So, for example, if the House were majority Republican, 10% of Democrats, Democratic Socialists, Left-Handed Vegans, etc., as a block, would have to vote in favor of any House bill before it could become law. The same process would be required on the Senate side.

For such a system to apply to state legislatures, changes would be required to state constitutions, which can usually be accomplished by citizen initiatives. To apply federally, it would require a U.S. constitutional amendment, but even that would be easier than overcoming all the election-slanting mechanisms bemoaned by Lebedoff. Also, there would have to be additional provisions to prevent gaming the system, such as using the party affiliations existing at the last elections, not any party switches since then, and also barring from voting with the out-of-power block any person who caucused with the majority party since the last election for him/her.

The result would be Lebedoff’s ultimately desired outcome — more representative laws, even without the intermediate step of more representative lawmakers.

Harry Roberts, Oronoco, Minn.

•••

I read the column by John Rash in the July 14 Star Tribune (“The debt effect of the One Big Beautiful Bill, by the numbers”). He wrote about the trillions of dollars in the Big Beautiful Bill recently passed by Congress (Republicans) and how many trillions it will add to the national debt, which is already roughly $36 trillion. Most people, including myself, can’t fathom what a trillion dollars is — much less 36 trillion — so let me put it this way.

If you opened a business 2,000 years ago, about the time Jesus Christ was born, and your business lost $1 million a day for the last 2,000 years, your business would not have lost a trillion dollars as of today. Do the math. Somehow these clowns in Washington lost about $2 trillion just last year.

Why we keep sending them back each year is beyond me. If we vote each election to send the same people back then we are part of the problem.

Greg Waterhouse, Hayward, Wis.

Dear DFL Party: Thanks to the incompetent and clueless Minnesota Republican members of Congress, the door has opened wide for you to defeat them in 2026. In the past week, they have:

Any one of these actions is a violation of public trust and a reason to be removed from office. But all three make it an Anthony Edwards slam dunk that they are unfit to represent Minnesota.

So, DFL, what are you going to do about it? Can you find four charismatic and qualified candidates to run against these incompetent and clueless Republicans? And will you financially support them?

Jerry Gale, Columbia Heights

It’s said that when the only tool in your toolbox is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. That seems to be the style and (lack of) substance of the Donald Trump presidency nowadays. It is especially true about his use of tariffs.

A blatant attempt to influence the Brazilian economy, judicial system and politics by threatening 50% tariffs is weaponizing the fiscal hammer for purely political purposes. That’s contrary to the very idea of tariffs as a way of leveling the trading field on the “bad players.”

Worse still is the threat to impose 35% tariffs on Canada in August using his hammer on one of our largest (and up to now most friendly) trading partners. Does anyone think like me that this is a blatant admission on the part of the president that in his first term when he ripped up the North American Free Trade Agreement to replace it with his U.S.-Mexico-Canada deal that he made glaring mistakes?

At that time, I was working in manufacturing and had to do several limited transfers of materials from my company’s U.S. plants to our plant in Mexico. What a nightmare! We had flatbed truckloads of steel sitting at the border for multiple weeks while we tried to produce the necessary paperwork to satisfy the customs bureau.

When you had to look up a “uniform code” for any piece of raw metal goods among the online book of trade codes (at that time a little over 4,000 pages in PDF form) and provide country of origin and all the other details of the producing mill, export location (complete with the company code), destination location (complete with company code), etc., etc., for every separate item on the truckload, it tends to make you not want to trade. Whee! Let’s add red tape to every trade we make!

That was the Big Bad Trade Deal. Let’s see how the Big Bad Budget Deal and his Big Bad Hammer play out in the months and years to come. Hope Congress and the Supreme Court can grow a spine and take back the powers that are being unseparated by the president.

Paul Schultz, Ham Lake

I rarely agree with Andy Brehm about, well, about much of anything. But his commentary on the new state flag just nails it (“We need a do-over to pick a new state flag,” Strib Voices, July 14).

Yes, the new flag is ugly and boring. But, as Brehm points out, it’s also dispiriting. The message of the new Minnesota flag is that Minnesotans have no interest in anything that’s uplifting aesthetically, spiritually or even patriotically.

Brehm’s proposal for a new flag replacement is spot on, too. The new Minnesota seal is as excellent as the new flag is dismal. Putting it on a strong navy background says we’re Minnesota so yes, we can, whatever the question was.

Finally, he’s right about returning our state’s motto, and its 1858 birth date, to the flag. Complaining that what is now Minnesota was here before the state was established is akin to refusing to acknowledge your own birthday because your atoms have always been, you know, around.

Peter Hill, Minnetonka

•••

I admit, I love my new Minnesota state flag. Its blue-on-blue with the big white star is fresh, and when it flaps in the breeze, you can still make out the Minnesota shape and star of the North. There is no turquoise and the darker blue looks navy to my eyes. As I recall, the decision process was lengthy and seemed fair to me. I would like to think that I would say that even if I hadn’t won this one. The basic premise was that it wasn’t the same as the seal and should be recognizable from a distance. I think it meets that objective beautifully.

If some feel nostalgic about the 1957 version — or just don’t care for the new flag — it is their prerogative to fly the old one. But let’s move on. Surely there are many more pressing issues for our state.

I respond to Brehm’s piece on the one-month anniversary of the horrific shooting of June 14. Many Minnesotans, especially the family of the victims, are really hurting. In that context, this flag thing feels hollow.

Anne Delaney, St. Paul