Advertisement

Letters to the editor for Sunday, Jan. 11

January 11, 2009 at 4:57PM

PREFERRED VENDORS

List for schools will just cost Minnesota more

I must disagree with Gov. Tim Pawlenty and the Star Tribune (editorial, Jan. 8) that a bipartisan plan to create a preferred vendors list for schools will save money for the state of Minnesota. History tells us that government spends money but does not effectively save it. Millions lost to graft in Afghanistan and Iraq, thousand-dollar toilet seats, $67,000 for espresso machines in Chicago schools and all-expense-paid training sessions for DNR employees are just recent examples of government vendor expenditures.

Your editorial lauded the plan as bipartisan. However, union, lobbyist, community activist pressure will bring legislated partisan restrictions on just who gets the contracts. Cost savings will be a forgotten goal.

JAMES M. BECKER, LAKEVILLE

•••

What Gov. Tim Pawlenty is suggesting for schools makes about as much sense as municipal and rural water systems encouraging volume discounts on water during a drought.

First, schools already have buying pools. In some cases they are called service units and in other cases simply an agreement among schools.

Second, Pawlenty wants to create one more government-sanctioned single access point enterprise where some day someone will find a way to insert greed and cronyism, accompanied by mediocre services and lower quality goods that both cost more in the long run.

Third, look at the map. How can this possibly work? A company in Edina providing a service to Canby or Thief River Falls for a $10 savings over a similar company in Willmar or Marshall, but it takes two trips instead of one. A company in St. Paul providing a tangible product at a $25 savings but a $50 delivery charge.

Advertisement
Advertisement

There must be a shift away from the one-size-fits-all and one-company-provides-it philosophy of the past that got us into very large banks, for example, that require big government bailouts because of bad management instead of allowing the marketplace to make its own adjustments.

DON BEMAN, CANBY, MINN.

COURT CHALLENGE

The Franken campaign should welcome it

Why are Al Franken's supporters so opposed to the court's challenging the results of the ballot recount?

If the recount was done fairly and squarely, why wouldn't the Franken team welcome the court's confirmation along with the Canvassing Board's confirmation that Franken indeed did receive the most votes? This would dispel any sense of impropriety in the Canvassing Board's recounting of ballots, so why is Franken's attorney attacking Coleman for filing suit to challenge the results of the recount?

BEV TISCHLER, JACKSON, MINN.

dowling's salary

Keeping company with overpaid health execs

Your Jan. 7 editorial attempted to justify Joe Dowling's pay at the Guthrie Theater ($682,300) by citing his rank (14th) among highest-paid executives of the Star Tribune's Nonprofit 100. It is fallacious to argue what ought to be (Dowling's compensation) based on what is (what other executives receive). Precedents are not proof of merit. Indeed, there is evidence of a lack of merit among the other executives you cited.

Advertisement

The top 10 executives listed with annual salaries and benefits greater than $900,000 were all from the health industry. By stark contrast, Jim Koppel's opinion article a day later cited at least 374,000 Minnesota residents without health insurance, including 77,000 children. That's about seven to eight Metrodomes filled with our uninsured citizens. Just imagine how many of our uninsured could be covered if so much of our premium dollar weren't being taken out of our health care system to subsidize the lavish lifestyles of these CEOs.

R. PAUL OLSON, BLOOMINGTON

Advertisement
about the writer

about the writer

More from No Section

See More
Advertisement
Advertisement

To leave a comment, .

Advertisement