Readers Write: Woe to the Legislature

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

•••

Every Minnesota resident gets health care. The question before the Legislature was when, not if (“Minnesota lawmakers strike budget deal, protest erupts on ending health care for undocumented adults,“ StarTribune.com, May 15). House Democrats want to provide that care through a system, MinnesotaCare. The sooner care is given to anyone who needs it, the better the outcome for that person. Instead of waiting until an emergency vehicle has to take someone in crisis to a hospital, who can argue that an earlier visit to a community clinic would benefit society, let alone the person and their family?

The Star Tribune quoted GOP lawmakers as wanting to repeal health care for undocumented workers. What is House Republican leadership thinking? Smaller, rural hospitals all over the state are in financial trouble. The costs of crisis health care, that all hospitals must provide, are huge. Pure economics as well as retention of statewide health facilities made the bill to put undocumented families in some kind of system something we all could support.

Pat Davies, Minneapolis

•••

The May 14 column “Don’t rush decision on immigrant health coverage” examining the budgetary impact of extending MinnesotaCare to undocumented immigrants was disturbing on many counts: the significant strain on state finances, the high level of benefits provided at minimal or no cost, and the inequity when many hardworking citizens lack access to similarly affordable coverage. Coincidentally, on the same day this column was published, California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced that California must scale back its medical program for undocumented immigrants due to substantial budget constraints. One must question why Minnesota legislators led our state down what appears to be an unsustainable path.

David Bollig, Big Lake

After the trifecta for the DFL in the last legislative session when it spent our entire $17.5 billion surplus, and tacked on $5 billion more, now we find ourselves $5 billion in the hole.

Is it going to surprise anyone if the governor has to call a special session? Especially when half of our duly elected officials decided to not show up for three weeks?

Craig B. Larson, Lino Lakes

As a former University of Minnesota regent, I worked hard to address college affordability and am concerned about state funding trends. Last week, the Minnesota House and Senate passed higher education budget bills with no new funding for the University of Minnesota or Minnesota State systems, continuing the underfunding that is forcing public institutions to consider steep tuition hikes, like Minnesota State’s proposed 3.5% to 9% increase.

Despite recent gains, today’s funding reality reflects decades of disinvestment. Since recession-era cuts in 2001 and 2008, U funding has not recovered.

This disinvestment has flipped the university’s revenue model. In 1990, state funding was 39% of the U’s budget and tuition 12%; today, it’s 16% from state funding and 23% from tuition. Despite this, from 2013 to 2025, the U kept average annual tuition increases to 1.92%, well below the average annual inflation rate of 2.56%, while achieving record graduation rates. Notably, half of the 2024 Twin Cities undergraduate class graduated debt-free.

The U has proven to be a strong steward of public funds. According to a recent report, for every $1 the state invested in the University of Minnesota in fiscal year 2024, the return on investment to the state was $16.75. Sixty-two percent of alumni remain in Minnesota and power the state’s workforce.

Lawmakers must prioritize closing the funding gap and restoring Minnesota’s commitment to affordable, world-class public higher education.

Tom Devine, Chanhassen

The writer is a U regent emeritus (2012–2017).

Peter Hutchinson’s “unreasonable” plan for improved reading scores is just that: another unreasonable, ill-conceived, quick fix hurled at a complex education dilemma (“Mississippi and Louisiana improved reading scores. We in Minnesota haven’t — yet," Strib Voices, May 9). And his “fix” is unfortunately fraught with threats. Last-minute funding for his panicky 10-week summer plan to train every Minnesota teacher relies on “outing” legislators who do not comply with his as-yet-uncalculated costs. That threat extends to the governor, the commissioner of education and all superintendents who would stake their jobs on the success or failure of his plan.

And for teachers, he provides an unrealistic reward/punishment strategy: If you show proficiency in phonics, you are rewarded. If not, your teaching license would be downgraded to probationary. (Now there’s a great recruitment tool!) These bully tactics seem more aligned with our current unreasonable president, rather than someone who waves a flag from “the Independent Center.”

Until we sustain the highest levels of consistent funding for all of our diverse Minnesota students — as if they are the most precious and vital human resource — we will be pummeled again and again with quick-fix follies like this.

Steve Watson, Minneapolis

In response to “Google ramps up lobbying in state: Lawmakers debate tax breaks and regulations on data centers” (May 13), could someone please explain how the world’s richest data companies need a tax break to build data centers in rural Minnesota?

Downtown St. Paul has many empty multistory buildings that have air conditioning, water and, likely, uninterruptible power supply. Perhaps Minnesota legislators could ask Google to search for “urban re-use” when looking to Minnesota for locations to host their AI data centers.

Paul Hager, Northfield, Minn.

It’s really too bad that cities — made up of individuals living in Minnesota — see their preferences as being a higher priority than the real-life needs of their constituents, or of the state they claim to love (“Cities reject proposed rules for new housing,” May 12).

Minnesota is short 100,000 homes. The need for more housing is something 80% of Minnesotans agree on. That’s an unbelievable consensus. Who exactly do city leaders think they’re serving by blocking crucial legislation? Established homeowners, whose children can’t afford to live nearby, in the places they grew up? The teachers and workers who make their communities livable and desirable, who have to commute in and out of them every day?

This is an attempt to freeze communities in amber, and a place that’s frozen won’t survive. City leaders’ decision to ignore an increasingly severe housing shortage robs Minnesotans of the agency to make decisions to improve their own lives. Nothing in this bill was radical; most of it simply restored the choices and possibilities that Minnesotans had when they returned from World War II. The ability to build a starter home or an accessory dwelling unit. Leaders weren’t afraid to make choices that gave constituents the freedom to choose how to run their lives then; what’s made them so cowardly now?

Alana Hawley, St. Paul