Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

When we are near a crisis is not the time to talk about the debt, but here we are. Debt is not a bad thing; without it, few of us would own houses, cars, etc. But when we take on debt we have to have the means to pay it back. It is a simple equation: Make more than you spend and use that money left over to pay down the debt.

Neither political party has a good policy on the debt. The Democrats do not make it the priority it deserves to be and the Republicans are only concerned about it when they are out of office. It is true that the debt normally grows much faster when the Republicans are in power.

The last time the federal government took in more than it spent was during the Clinton administration. What a great opportunity for the next administration to keep that going and use the surplus to begin paying down the debt. But instead the next administration declared that the people ought not to be taxed more than the government needs to run and passed tax cuts, and the debt continued to rise. Exactly the opposite is needed.

There are two ways to do that: Spend less, or tax more. People just have to understand that we have to have less funding for the military, parks, Social Security, pick your program — or we have to tax somewhat more than all those programs cost.

I suggest that both parties make debt reduction an absolute part of the national budget, and that first part of the income of the government will go to reducing the debt before we budget for any of the other things we want. Smarter people than I can determine where the level of debt should be maintained for good financial management. Once that level is reached it should be easy for the government to continue a rational policy. I'm sorry, no, I'm dreaming.

•••

Again, an article in the Star Tribune reprinted from the Associated Press regarding the debt ceiling misleads ("Deadline nears on debt limit as sides stay dug in," May 5). Paying expenditure obligations already approved by Congress is and should be separate from future budget negotiations. Section 4 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution states that "The validity of the public debt of the United States ... shall not be questioned." Congress's power to borrow money does not include the power to default on such borrowing. The president is constitutionally required to pay the public debt. He is correct when he says that raising the debt limit is nonnegotiable: the Constitution requires that our debts be paid.

It is also left unsaid that as a result of staffing shortages and aging infrastructure there is an estimated $600 billion per year — $6 trillion over 10 years — of taxes currently owed but uncollected. The projected 10-year reduction in the deficit as a result of the draconian cuts put forward by the Republicans is $4.8 trillion. Interestingly, one of the future expenditures that the Republicans would cut is the $80 billion increase to the IRS budget already voted into law as part of the Inflation Reduction Act. Perhaps Congress should start by simply collecting taxes due.

Adele Evidon, Minneapolis

The commentary "Follow the science, not the agendas of the scientists" by Pamela Paul (Opinion Exchange, May 8) is a muddled defense of a very poorly written and confusing paper "In Defense of Merit in Science." The problem is twofold. First is the merit of the scientific method, which in theory is a strategy that should lead to results and conclusions that are above individual personal beliefs. There can be a big difference between theory and practice, however. Experiments, while theoretically sound, may be highly unethical; take your pick from past "scientific" horror stories. Experiments may also be exclusionary, e.g., women were left out of clinical trials for decades. This reduced the value of those experiments, even if they otherwise have "merit."

Robert Buck, Minneapolis

•••

The Age of Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries fundamentally changed how European society lived, learned and governed for the next several hundred years. It put forth the idea of democracy and representative government in place of absolute monarchy and church rule. It advanced the notion of individual liberty and toleration of differences over religious- and government-imposed hegemony. And it taught that observation, evidence and the scientific method were the fundamental tools for gathering new knowledge, not subjective belief, personal opinion and spiritual fervor.

After reading Paul's commentary, I would hate to think that academia might be starting a long, frightening slide to a time before the Enlightenment, to a time when disagreeing with the king could cause you to lose your head, to a time when a scientist like Galileo could be put under lifetime house arrest for contradicting the words of Pope Urban VIII. The only difference with today is that titles like "king" and "pope" have been replaced by "provost," "dean," "chair" and "editor."

No one should ever tolerate racial, religious or gender bias, but as the commentary says, "The merit of scientific theories and findings do not depend on the identity of the scientist." So, please, let scientists do their work, unimpeded by subjective criteria such as positionality statements, citational justice concerns or diversity and equity descriptors. Let their research results be published, disseminated and carefully reviewed. Let errors and bias be uncovered via close scrutiny of the raw data, methods of analysis and final results, not by concerns for "lived experiences" and "multiple narratives."

Congratulations to Jeff Ettinger, interim president at the University of Minnesota ("U regents choose interim president," May 9). Clearly Ettinger has credible experience in leading a large organization and despite Regent Robyn Gulley's reservations regarding "corporate influence," I would welcome some corporate fiscal discipline at the university. And clearly Ettinger meets an additional requirement in this environment of one-party rule: DFL membership evidenced by his candidacy for the First District congressional seat.

I sincerely do wish Ettinger and the university every success in this difficult period. I am dismayed to see politics play an increasingly important role in our institutions of education. Having the head of a specific labor group — nurses — on the board strikes me as too much. I expect Regent Mary Turner would recuse herself from voting on any matters directly affecting nurse employees.

In general, the spend, regulate and tax proclivity exhibited by the DFL this session is astounding. Look no further than the article "Higher ed spending deal includes free college tuition" in the May 9 edition. The DFL's reluctance to make tough decisions is evidenced by state Sen. Omar Fateh's quote regarding declining enrollment that "we're at risk of shutting down some campuses" if we don't offer free tuition. The state's response to declining enrollment at all levels has been to throw more money at it and increase the cost per student with no positive, measurable results.

Nick LaFontaine, Richfield

•••

Thomas Fisher, St. Paul