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

•••

A writer in Tuesday's Readers Write section says former President Donald Trump should not be immune from prosecution because of his status as ex-president. He posits that if a White House valet had "purloined the large batch of documents as the ex-president seemingly did, he surely would be subject to prosecution." So far, no evidence of a crime has been presented, and the refusal of Attorney General Merrick Garland to make public the affidavit setting out the facts upon which the search was based suggests a crime may not have been committed by Trump.

If facts are established to support a criminal charge against Trump because of his removal of documents when he left office, then he should be prosecuted to the same extent as any other individual. But status has often in the past been used to exonerate one from prosecution, and for the same conduct as is alleged here. Hillary Clinton used a private server to conduct official business with over 100 e-mails containing classified information, some deemed "secret" and "top secret." While this would seem to be an unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents and materials, FBI Director James Comey concluded that Clinton had been "extremely careless" but recommended that no charges be filed because she did not act with the criminal intent required for prosecution. So it seems the precedent for exoneration based on status already exists.

Ronald Haskvitz, Golden Valley

I am writing on behalf of Americans on Medicare and future beneficiaries to express support of the provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act that save money and lives for seniors on Medicare ("Yes to easing drug, health care costs," editorial, Aug. 12). It provides relief to seniors on Medicare from out-of-control prescription drug prices. This act benefits seniors on Medicare by 1) letting Medicare negotiate lower drug prices, 2) limiting the cost of insulin to $35/month, 3) capping out-of-pocket prescription drug costs to $2,000 a year, 4) penalizing drug companies for raising their prices higher than inflation, and 5) making many vaccines, such as shingles, available at no cost. These provisions can help seniors with high out-of-pocket prescription costs to not skip medications that have been too expensive for their fixed incomes but important to their health care.

This is a historic victory for a fight led by AARP. Few people thought it would get done but AARP's nearly 38 million members kept up the pressure to let Medicare negotiate drug prices and we got Congress to act.

The fight is not over. Big drug companies are trying to overturn this new law so they can continue to charge Americans the highest prices in the world. We must keep fighting big drug companies until all Americans over 50 can afford their medication. Medication doesn't work if you can't afford to buy it.

Cheers to this new legislation. Keep up the fight to keep drug prices affordable by contacting your congressional representatives to let them know this fight's importance.

Lorraine Prindle, Richfield

•••

Sen. Tina Smith makes much of the Inflation Reduction Act "allowing Medicare to negotiate with drug companies," but what little it actually offers may never become a reality ("Why our grandkids will thank us for the IRA," Opinion Exchange, Aug. 18). I say this because all the forces are against drug companies ever lowering prices in America, with the exception of those coming off patent to finally meet competition. Politicians have a long history of campaign support from the powerful drug lobbies, insuring that Americans pay the highest drug prices of any country in the world, and this bill ensures this will continue to be the case.

The IRA only "allows" Medicare to attempt to negotiate 10 drugs and not until 2026, with more drugs after that. Unfortunately, we only hear that drug companies will resist any future efforts to cut their prices. Drug prices will continue to grow higher for everyone not on Medicare, so how helpful was this bill? Reality check: certainly nothing to boast about!

Michael Tillemans, Minneapolis

•••

Smith has proved herself an able legislator. Watershed climate legislation is now law. ("Smith cheers landmark climate bill," Metro section, Aug. 14, and "Why our grandkids will thank us for the IRA," Opinion Exchange, Aug. 18). Now, she should turn her attention and use her skill and persistence to pass an immigration reform package made up of the Dream Act, Farm Workforce Modernization Act and Afghan Adjustment Act. Like the climate bill, all three are key to the development and growth of Minnesota's economy. But — and it is an important "but" — they also have bipartisan support, a great foundation that Smith can use to get these bills to the president's desk. For inspiration, all she needs to do is read what Minneapolis Newcomer Summer High School teacher Betsy Winzig observes about her Afhgan summer students: "It was so clear they really want to be part of Minnesota" ("Becoming Minnesotan, an intro," Aug. 15).

Sen. Smith, make these bills law. These students and thousands of new Minnesotans will flourish. So will our grandchildren and state.

Bill Blazar, Minneapolis

•••

South Dakota Sen. John Thune stated in his response to the just-passed Inflation Reduction Act that the new law is bad because it would result in "a supercharged, supersized IRS that is going to be going after a lot of not just high-income taxpayers but a lot of mid-income taxpayers." This allegation refers to the money contained in the new bill that would go to the IRS.

Some perspective: The IRS has had funding limitations since the year 2000; its inflation-adjusted budget now is about the same as it was then. IRS employment in 2010 was 94,000; today it is about 15% smaller! IRS computer systems are notoriously antiquated and barely up to the job of handling returns from a U.S. population that is much larger now than 20 years ago. People who call the IRS stand little chance of talking to a real person and getting questions answered; the new funding will allow many new informed staff to answer phones. The multibillion-dollar annual "tax gap" (the difference in what people owe in taxes and what they actually pay) can be better addressed with new analysts checking into tax filings on those earning $400,000 and higher. Billions of dollars can be recovered, far beyond the cost of new employees. Lawmakers worried about national debt should find this helpful.

Far from a supercharged and supersized IRS, as Thune charges, the IRS may finally have a chance to catch up on both staff and tools to do the job of fair tax collection across the board, a task that has been eroding for a long time.

David Lingo, Golden Valley

Eric Bergman, a teacher starting his 26th year, admits he doesn't know much about ordinary things ("A salute to all the stuff I don't understand," Opinion Exchange, Aug. 13). I suggest he challenge his students to learn along with him. Used book sites (Alibris is one) have inexpensive materials (from $1.49). Our home library includes "How Things Work" from National Geographic and "The Way Things Work" by David Macaulay and Neil Ardley (Bergman should suggest that the school library stock these books). I'm sure he could craft lesson plans around the subjects of interest to his students. He would be providing them with excellent information for lifelong learning. Best wishes for a successful 26th year, Mr. Bergman.

Joyce A. Henry, Bloomington