Readers write for Saturday, Dec. 11, 2010

The Dec. 10 story "Handoff on Iron Range is rocky" concerning the transition of the Eighth District congressional seat from incumbent Democrat Jim Oberstar to newly elected Republican Chip Cravaack is a microcosm of politics in the United States today.

There is no decency in losing, and everything is done to make it difficult for the winner if one does not agree with that person's political position. In the case of Oberstar, who apparently expected to be in office for life and refuses to meet with and speak with Cravaack, it has taken the meaning of "poor loser" to a new level. This case of a bitter "old man" whose time has come and gone is regrettable at best. Apparently the days of riding off graciously into the sunset are gone.

BOB ADAMS, Plymouth

• • •

A Dec. 10 letter writer praises Gov.-elect Mark Dayton for his persistence, compassion, and above all his 'soil of civility' in dealing with his personal struggles.

But this stands in stark contrast to the legion of false, misleading, and spiteful attack ads that were run on Dayton's behalf. Dayton may be the soil of civility, but Dayton's supporters soiled civility, repeatedly and intentionally.

I wish the new governor luck in returning to the model of civility the letter writer remembers him for.

• • •

The recent compromise between President Obama and members of the Republican Party makes me realize that I favor political decisions to be made based on consensus, not compromise.

Whenever there is a consensus on some issue, such as retaining middle-class tax cuts, it seems wise to take action. However, whenever parties compromise by including policies that the other party doesn't favor, the only outcome that is certain is increased debt.

ANDY TIX, HASTINGS, MINN.

• • •

For the first time in years, both sides were able to find a compromise solution to a contentious issue.

This is how it is supposed to work in a democracy. It's how we get things done.

CLIFFORD ROBINSON, BROOKLYN PARK

The end of The Tea Party is near.

In fact, it was this week.

In fact, it's seems the only play in the conservatives' economic playbook: No matter what was promised in the election, the new regime always pays homage to the alter of trickle down economics through a tax cut for the rich.

Why did the conservative high priest, former President George W. Bush, make the tax cuts temporary? A tax base is needed to run our society. Having millionaires pay their fair share -- is it class warfare? Yes, it's been raging since the 1980s, and the middle and lower classes have been losing so bad that the ship can hardly right itself.

When would we ever let these tax breaks expire -- when the economy is humming again? Clearly not. It was a temporary redistribution to the rich because it could not be afforded in a weak economy when a true, shared sacrifice is needed.

So this Tea Party Republican "movement" of fiscal restraint just gave $80 billion away to those who can't possibly spend it back into the economy. Trickle-down economics does not work, and we just voted in more of the same type of politicians who brought us the economic collapse.

JIM COUSINS, EDINA

They proposed drastic cuts to this most popular of federal programs, and then said that these cuts shouldn't be counted as cuts to the deficit. This caveat is tacit acknowledgment that Social Security reform never should have been part of the agenda of the commission in the first place. Social Security has yet to create a "budget deficit" because it has its own revenue source, which has no current shortfall.

The commission has all along conflated "entitlements" spending (funded by FICA, Social Security and Medicare taxes) with "discretionary" spending (funded by income taxes), and wrongly implied that both are in deficit, when in fact only discretionary spending is in deficit.

They have failed to point out that the bulk of discretionary spending goes to the military, whose budgets have ballooned in the last decade and continue to balloon under the present administration. Military spending (which in fairness is targeted by the commission) is where real savings could come from.

"Why do you rob banks?" Willie Sutton was famously asked. "Because that's where the money is," came his answer.

How can we cut spending in the discretionary budget? Move the money away from the Pentagon and back to our communities for human needs.

• • •

Why is it that whenever people talk about spending cuts they mean cuts in human services?

When we go to war, our leaders fail to find a way to pay for it.

Wouldn't peace be an effective alternative to reduce the deficit?

JIM DAHLGREN, CRYSTAL

Translation of the Deficit Commission Report:

"Yes, said the fox, as he lectured the chickens in their coop, "We are all in this together."

No doubt about it, they were together in the coop meeting -- but not for the same purpose.