Readers Write: Elections, Hennepin County pay raises, Tim Walz, posting bail, prisoner swap

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

•••

I am writing this election season to offer a perspective that may grate against our recent tendency to identify with a party or sect within a party. When one party elects an executive, that executive sweeps in with a down-ticket wave, and for two years, the majority wrings its hands and reaches across the aisle; the other party stonewalls and resists the new status quo. This is the situation until the stonewalling party gains a majority and blocks all priorities of the executive. Then the pendulum swings back.

My advice will grate against most partisans. I write to advocate for incumbents. It has long been the popular belief that incumbents have a political advantage because of their name recognition, but certain politicians have shown that sometimes an “outsider” can be just as effective. These outsiders often promise the world and deliver nothing when they are elected. This is because by the time they learn the job, they’re ready to run for re-election, this time as an incumbent, with the next “outsider” sweeping into their place.

Government is a hard job to do well. Committee appointments come sparingly at first. Only incumbents really have a shot at governing effectively from the outset for the benefit of constituents.

It is therefore my contention that we should all vote for incumbents as often as we can stomach it and do our best to make sure they know our minds.

Anthony Albright, Dayton

I find the proposed pay raise of almost 50% for Hennepin County commissioners deeply offensive (“Commissioners vote themselves pay raise,” Aug. 1). In particular, this quote as published by Bring Me the News is tone-deaf in light of the fact that commissioners are currently paid more than $122,000 per year:

“In 2019, Commissioner [Angela] Conley and I were sworn in as the first and only commissioners of color,” Commissioner Irene Fernando said. “I believe in a county where generational wealth or additional income is not a prerequisite to serving as a Hennepin elected official.”

As a retiree on a fixed income whose taxes increase every year at a faster pace than that income, I cannot afford to subsidize such luxurious additional compensation for you. I’d suggest an increase more in line with what other government employees receive, which I believe is in the 2-3% range.

If you or the other commissioners can’t get by on the $122,000 per year that you’re currently paid, perhaps you need to seek other employment. I’ll be happy to help you on your journey to finding a new job when I vote in the next commissioner’s election.

Thomas Kine, Bloomington

As a Minneapolis voter, I have gotten used to ranked-choice voting. I have become accustomed to voting for my elected leaders in the order of my preference. I’ve never found it challenging nor have I ever spoken to anyone who has. I’ve spoken to people who thought it would be complicated, until they did it, and snap! Easy peasy lemon squeezy.

Now I have a problem. Our longtime 61A state representative is retiring and there are three DFL candidates all competing for the seat in the Aug. 13 primary. None of them was endorsed by the DFL. I have carefully researched the candidates and had conversations with them. One candidate I do not care for at all, one candidate I really like, and I am indifferent to the third candidate. To further complicate matters I am concerned that the candidate I really like will come in third, meaning I may wish to vote for the candidate I am indifferent to in order to not help elect the candidate I dislike.

What a great time to use ranked-choice voting. I could vote for the candidate I love but think might lose, I could cast my second choice for the candidate I am indifferent to and likely not cast a third choice ballot. But with our antiquated “pick one” system, I have to make the difficult choice to either vote my heart or vote to block the candidate I dislike. This frustrates me.

Let’s pass ranked-choice voting statewide so voters like me are able to have their cake and eat it too.

Scott Graham, Minneapolis

In the Aug. 3 Readers Write section of my paper, I read letters to the editor answering the question, “Is Gov. Tim Walz ready for greater responsibility as a vice president of the United States?” Not to this voter, for two reasons:

So, is Walz ready for greater responsibility? No, unless being led around by the nose is the new definition of leadership.

Terry Larkin, Deephaven

I hesitate to disagree with my friend and former law firm partner Judge Bruce Peterson on the value of the Minnesota Freedom Fund (”Harris, Emmer and the subject of crime,” Opinion Exchange, Aug. 1), which uses donations to pay bail for those charged with crimes, but here goes.

Traditionally, bail bondsmen charge a premium to post bail for those arrested, which varies depending on the bondsman’s evaluation of the likelihood of the arrested person showing up for trial if released. Bad risks have a high premium charge, so they often don’t post bail and wait in jail for trial, while good risks have a low premium charge, get bail and do show up for trial.

This is not a prestigious line of business, but it works very well, by making realistic actuarial calculations, based on prior criminal record, employment status, community ties, etc., about the risk of nonappearance. Then the philanthropists got involved on the idealistic theory that no one should be in jail awaiting trial, and they put bail up for everyone, irrespective of their risk factors and the likelihood of voluntarily appearing for trial.

Consequently, all got bail, many did not appear for trial, many did reoffend while on the lam, and some did commit serious crimes, which would likely not have occurred if a workaday bail bondsman had been on the case. Is there a net gain for society from the activity of the Minnesota Freedom Fund? My judgment is “no.” Let’s bring back the bail bondsmen, and bondswomen too, or maybe the Minnesota Freedom Fund could hire some of the bail bondsmen’s actuaries and make more rational calculations about whom to bail out.

Doug Seaton, Edina

To those who criticize the recent prisoner swap with the Russians, I ask: Suppose your child was unjustly made a Russian prisoner — a hostage — who was suffering in a Russian penal colony. Would you prefer the Joe Biden-negotiated prisoner exchange to get your child back? Or would you prefer the hostage rescue operation now being conducted in Gaza by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu? I believe the latter would certainly lead to Word War III and the death of your child. I look forward to hearing what the critics would propose to get their child back.

Americo Del Calzo, Edina

•••

This “prisoner exchange” is nothing to celebrate! Russian President Vladimir Putin has learned he can retrieve his captured spies, killers, etc., by simply arresting any American for any reason and offering to make a deal. At least in the old days it really was spies for spies.

Kevin Tominski, Burnsville