Letters to the editor for Friday, Feb. 20

President Obama has been in office for a month now, and it is clear the honeymoon is over. Americans voted for change, bipartisanship and transparency. Citizens were promised to have at least 48 hours to read bills online before passage, but on the landmark stimulus bill, the largest spending bill in history, even senators and representatives didn't have a chance to read the 1,072-page final bill before they were forced to vote on it.

BILL PETER, EDINA

We the people -- lose!

While our country faces the biggest economic disaster in modern time, Congress displays a turf war mentality. President Obama met with members of the Republican Party, listened and extended to one of them an invitation to become a member of his Cabinet. A lot of good that did! Not one House vote crossed party lines! Both parties sulked and pointed fingers at each other.

My suggestion: Instead of arguing over who's got the worst recovery bailout plan, like a bunch of grade-schoolers, Congress should select the most competent and bipartisan members of both parties to sit down with the president and hammer out a compromise that is best for our nation and the people.

STEVE MURAS, PLYMOUTH

•••

• If both U.S. senators from a state voted against the measure, the state gets nothing.

• If there was a split in the senators' votes, that state gets half, which would be distributed to those legislative districts whose U.S. representative voted for the measure.

• If both senators -- or, in Minnesota's case, only senator -- voted for the package, then each state would distribute money to those districts whose representatives voted yes.

• If there is any money left, meter it out to those proud "no" voters' districts.

This way, when the package fails, as most all Republicans think it will, these people won't have guilty consciences of having accepted tainted money.

The recent peanut butter recall illustrates the deficiencies in the Food and Drug Administration.

We all recognize the importance of stimulating the economy, but we can't neglect other investments that are important to our welfare.

In a recent report, the FDA's Science Board concluded that the agency suffers from serious scientific deficiencies and is not positioned to meet current or emerging regulatory responsibilities. As a result, there is great urgency to invest in the science that supports the regulatory decisions of the FDA.

As a pharmacist, I see a clear solution is to design quality into the manufacturing of our medications up front rather than trying to assure quality primarily by inspection, which creates an unmanageable workload. Investing in the basic science of manufacturing research will enable the FDA to better ensure that drugs that reach the marketplace are of the same reliable, high quality every time.

I encourage our leaders to put more resources into the FDA to support the research that will help prevent more incidents that threaten the public's safety.

David Brooks' Feb. 18 commentary suggested that Americans will not give up living in the suburbs, citing a Pew study that found Americans are happier when they have some space around them. It also determined that, if given the choice, more people would prefer to live in a community with a McDonalds than one with a Starbucks.

The unfortunate reality is this kind of sprawl is the most expensive way to live, demanding the highest taxes, fuel costs and housing prices.

Americans believe that the market (i.e., aggregated buying preferences) is infallible. I'm a big supporter of free enterprise, but letting the marketplace design our cities is like letting the inmates run the prison.

As a quick test, ask any of your friends if they want to go to Eagan for a family vacation.

LEW MORAN, MINNEAPOLIS