Readers Write: Archbishop's request for clergy not to vote, 2020 presidential race, coronavirus, taxing Social Security

I cannot imagine what was going through Archbishop Bernard Hebda's head when he advised priests not to vote! And, yes, I meant that exclamation mark. ("Catholic clergy is asked not to vote," Feb. 29.)

There is no valid reason to deny priests or other clergy members a right given to them from the foundation of our government. All humans have the right to their own opinions, despite the fact that there are inappropriate times to exercise those views. In this case, the inappropriate time is when preaching from the pulpit or elsewhere. Voting in the United States is a privilege exercised in private. No undue pressure is effected when priests and other clergy simply hold a political preference. That privilege is sacrosanct — something Hebda should appreciate. This kind of interference from "on high" is one reason our young people and enlightened elders have slipped away from organized religion.

Please, Archbishop Hebda, reconsider your advice, rescind your request and apologize for speaking out of school.

I am very disturbed by the Star Tribune article saying the Catholic clergy has been asked not to vote.

From reading the article, it identifies Archbishop Bernard Hebda as being the source of this request. I am not, nor do I want to be, a constitutional scholar, yet I think the Constitution gives me the right to vote at local, state and presidential elections. Accordingly, I do not understand Hebda's request to the priests in Minnesota. Further, I am a Sister of St. Joseph of Carondelet, St. Paul Province, and I could never envision our province leadership sending such a message to the members of province community. Each one of us has the need to educate ourselves about societal and political issues, then to vote accordingly.

We have such noisy coverage — left and right. It is easy for me to want to plug my ears and shut it all out. I don't think that is the right thing for me to do, but it certainly is tempting.

The noisy mess doesn't really interest me much anymore. Who is elected might matter, but probably not as much as we would like to believe. It is really up to us. It is us, living our small lives, connected to our small communities, making small differences every day.

I have people near and dear to me on both sides. This is probably true for most of us. Most of us probably have nephews with Trump bumper stickers and great uncles with fading Paul Wellstone T-shirts. This complexity should make our thinking kinder. These loved ones should help us understand that not all supporters of one party or another can be discarded and ignored. We know better. What brings a person to one frame of thinking or another is some complicated combination of history, experience and feeling. I remain hopeful that we can find a gentler way forward.

As I watch Democrats scramble to get on the presidential ballot, I wonder if Sens. Amy Klobuchar (who dropped out of the race Monday), Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are accepting their salaries while they are campaigning? Instead of doing the work we're paying them for, they're touring the country lecturing us. President Donald Trump donates his salary to charity. Are these senatorial candidates doing the same (or returning their pay to the taxpayers)? I suspect not, since they are public servants and, therefore, need public assistance (our money) to fulfill their whimsical fantasies.

"Unprecedented" is a word regularly used regarding Trump's activities. Time for the Democrats to shake things up a bit. Next debate, an unprecedented debate format: Candidates sit around a "friendly" table. They don't argue or cut each other down. Get rid of the egos and work together. Everyone of them will end up with at least a Cabinet position. All of them will be able to use the skills they have that will most benefit the country. All of their brilliant talents pooled together. Best way to beat Trump might be to gang up on him. Just do it. Stop fighting and join forces. I'd love to see this happen.

When I first read the print headline on the Star Tribune's front page on Feb. 29, "Virus cases erupt on West Coast," I thought of replenishing my nuclear fallout bunker in the backyard. But, no, at the time, only three new cases to a total of four were confirmed. The Star Tribune is spreading fear with such a presentation. No wonder the stock market is in a free fall. Shame on you.

The director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases was told to "stand down" and not appear on five Sunday morning talk shows to discuss the coronavirus. Instead, the vice president appeared and defended Donald Trump Jr., who had said that Democrats hope coronavirus "kills millions of people" in the U.S.

We need science-based straight talk in this crisis, not censorship of the experts and political spin.

In the March 1 Opinion Exchange section, John James and Joel Michael pleaded their case for the Minnesota Legislature to continue taxing Social Security income ("Please keep taxing our Social Security benefits"). Apparently they have income sufficient from other sources and taxing their Social Security income wouldn't matter. That is not the case with many people who are depending on Social Security and would be helped financially if they didn't have to pay taxes on that income.

In the article they stated: "We need more efficient taxing and spending." Then they went on to say that "[w]ith a labor shortage, one focus should be on making the state more appealing to workers and their families." How does taxing Social Security income make the state more appealing?

They stated that a "well-designed tax cut for business to improve productivity would also help." Not sure how a business tax cut improves worker productivity. Is the implication here that with business tax cuts they would raise wages? That didn't work well with the federal tax cuts for business. They partly justify this with findings that retirement income tax breaks have no measurable effects on seniors moving out of state. I take issue with the professed logic of their argument.

Few people have contributed more to the development and improvement of Minnesota's tax system than John James and Joel Michael. It is great to see they are still at it, even in retirement.

As a fellow retiree, I hope the Legislature takes their advice. Leave the tax status of Social Security benefits as is. Instead, fix those parts of the system that limit the ability of our state's economy to change and grow. All Minnesotans will be better off, not just James, Michael, me and similarly situated seniors.

The writer is a former senior vice president at the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce.

We want to hear from you. Send us your thoughts here.