Readers Write (Feb. 22): Small donations, Apple and the FBI, aging in the suburbs, oil tax, the Constitution

St. Olaf political science Prof. Dan Hofrenning's commentary "This year, big money has met its match" (Feb. 15), because Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump have raised large amounts of funds with small donations, totally misses the most important point. How much time do our governing politicians spend raising money? What do our politicians have to do in exchange for funds raised? Are big corporate donors giving out huge sums of cash to make our country better or simply to serve their bottom lines, while in some cases they even move their headquarters overseas to avoid contributing to our tax system at all? No, Prof. Hofrenning. Big money is insurmountable because it is fueling the gridlock that is keeping our government from doing what is needful for all of us, no matter if the contributions are big or small.

Charles A. Lipkin, Golden Valley

An interesting possible twist on the Apple iPhone issue currently in the news. Suppose Apple refuses to help the FBI break into the San Bernardino terrorist's iPhone and there is another attack which kills people. The later attack is traced back to the original San Bernardino terrorists. In such a case, Apple surely will be labeled as partly to blame. I think Apple CEO Tim Cook would do well to ponder where Apple would stand if this happens. Here is another more frightening example. Suppose a terrorist had threatened to blow up a dirty bomb with stolen nuclear material in San Francisco. He had been found and killed by the FBI in a gun battle but his iPhone had been found undamaged. There was credible evidence that he had an accomplice who might know the whereabouts of the bomb — but of course the phone would need to be hacked to find the accomplice. Should Apple put millions of people's lives in danger by refusing to open it for the same reasons as it is doing right now — or should they hack it and help the government? If they stood on their principles and the bomb went off, Apple would probably go out of business overnight.

Bruce Wollenberg, Minnetonka

The Feb. 13 story "Suburbs brace for boomers" was well done, but didn't convey the full magnitude of the challenges.

The growth of populations of people 65 and older was given in percentages, which may understate the issue. For example, Scott County's population of seniors has grown 9.9 percent, but the senior population is only 10,016. Hennepin County's population of older adults is up 13.6 percent, but numerically 130,814 individuals are 65 and older.

The majority of these seniors live in the suburbs, but they may not be better off financially, which complicates providing services to help them remain independent. By far, the largest challenge is Hennepin County. Seventy-five percent (98,110) of Hennepin adults 65-plus (130,814) live outside of Minneapolis, and more than 1.5 times as many live in poverty as compared with those in Minneapolis. This population of seniors in poverty exceeds the combined figures for Ramsey and Dakota counties. So senior services must be no-cost or low-cost.

Every senior, and their caregivers, will have varying needs for support as they age.

Our communities must find ways to effectively partner with proven and trusted nonprofit senior services organizations that have the track record and expertise to address these human needs efficiently and effectively, with compassion.

The writer is CEO of Senior Community Services.

Just when Americans are enjoying the lowest gas prices in seven years, the Obama administration is proposing a new, $10-per-barrel tax on oil ("Obama seeks $10-per-barrel oil tax to fund clean transport," startribune.com, Feb. 4). The tax hike could raise gasoline prices in Minnesota by 25 cents per gallon, according to the Congressional Research Service, and could also raise prices for many products derived from petroleum and any consumer good that relies on transportation to get to consumers, including food. Lower-income and middle-class Minnesotans, who spend a bigger chunk of their paychecks on such essentials, would take the biggest hit.

The economics of the proposal are bad enough, but the philosophy behind it is also troubling. In comments to the press, President Obama said one of the purposes of the tax was to begin to transition away from oil and natural gas. This is not realistic or economically feasible. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, oil and natural gas will supply 62 percent of our energy needs by 2040. Further, the facts demonstrate that environmental goals and energy production are not mutually exclusive. The U.S. leads the world in both production of oil and natural gas and emissions reductions — with carbon emissions near 20-year lows, due mostly to the abundance of clean-burning natural gas.

The American energy revolution has delivered major economic and energy security benefits. Federal policy should focused on maintaining U.S. energy dominance — not undermining it.

The writer is executive director of the Minnesota Petroleum Council

• • •

A note to the Legislature for the coming session: With gas prices at about $1.50 a gallon, I would gladly pay an extra dime or even another quarter per gallon if it meant I wouldn't need to spend money on car alignments or spend my time sitting on freeways that resemble parking lots.

Andrew Lenz, Golden Valley

Well, here we are again with only eight Supreme Court Justices, and we're looking to the U.S. Constitution, of all things, for guidance. We just won't admit that this is a hastily written document and that the framers of this severely flawed document showed little insight toward future events. Completely ambiguous portions of Article II, such as "he shall have power" and "shall appoint" have left us with controversy that easily could have been avoided by adding a phrase such as "unless it makes someone in the Senate unhappy" or "unless within less than 1460 days of the end of his term in office." While on the subject, mightn't onerous, time-killing obligations like "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate" have been omitted to free that body to pursue more important issues?

Alan Olson, Eden Prairie

• • •

The Supreme Court is supposed to serve as a check and balance to the executive and legislative branches as the Constitution intended. The Supreme Court was never intended to change laws because a minority group cried foul or was manipulated by President Obama and his Democrats. Remember President Franklin Roosevelt's "court packing"? FDR wanted to manipulate the courts so he could get his New Deal passed. I think is it best for our nation to have an equal mix of conservatives and liberals to allow for fair checks and balances. If Obama appoints another liberal, there will be nothing to stop Obama's agenda and his abuse of power, that is, executive orders. I want to see our government function the way the Constitution intended. We are in a constitutional crisis perpetuated by Obama and his fellow Democrats.

Michael George, Hutchinson, Minn.