Readers Write for Saturday, Dec. 26

Why does it surprise me that the Editorial Board of the Star Tribune would support a heavy-handed rule of the state to address a problem that could and should be resolved by consumerism and choice?

Enacting a three-hour limit for planes loaded with passengers waiting to take off doesn't seem to be all that overreaching on its face ("Air travel without tarmac torture," Dec. 23), but, like every government rule, it's the unintended consequences that will make travelers who purchase tickets from the airlines worse off.

First, the threat of the fine will certainly increase traffic on the taxiways. Any plane nearing the three-hour deadline will have to make its way back to an open gate to offload, creating traffic for other planes. Now we will assume that the airline will do the right thing and accommodate their offloaded passengers with new flights or room and board until they can be taken to their destination. This fills up future flights and drives up costs for the airlines and the ticket-buying consumers.

The net result from this rule will not be that consumers will be better off. Instead of facing the risk of sitting on a tarmac, consumers will faced increased fares, decreased travel options and more headaches because of more canceled flights.

If you really want to deal with this problem, have the airlines advertise their performance records. Help consumers reward the companies that perform well and avoid those companies that don't. Let consumers vote with their dollars!

JACOB WYFFELS, CHANHASSEN

So glad to see that President Obama is happy that he got 95 percent of his goals in this health care plan. But I would ask what cost to the American people?

I doubt people will be too happy when their taxes increase and health care costs go up. Also, the backroom dealings and payoffs involved in getting this through are completely unethical.

I'm so glad that you're happy, Mr. Obama. I certainly am not.

JOANNE ZEIDLER, PLYMOUTH

•••

A Dec. 22 letter writer chastised Senate Republicans for being obstructionists when it comes to health care reform.

Is the letter writer unaware that Republicans do not have the votes to block anything regarding this massive government takeover of our health care system? It was actually reluctant Democrats holding things up -- until they got their ransom (Louisiana's Mary Landrieu and Nebraska's Ben Nelson, et al). Once the bags of hundreds of millions of other people's money were delivered, they could vote for the deal.

Not a single Republican vote was required -- quite the "obstructionists."

DAVID HANSON, NEW HOPE

•••

Earlier this year, I had high hopes that Congress might enact health care legislation that would not only help uninsured Americans obtain coverage but would also make health care more affordable. The initial Senate bill would have achieved both goals, in part by taxing medical device makers, insurers and other health care companies at a reasonable rate. After intense industry lobbying, these taxes were deleted or significantly reduced.

Although initially dismayed by this action, my chest swelled with pride when I later learned that our senators had the guts to take on the feared and powerful tanning industry to help offset new health care costs. What unbelievable political courage! Ignoring the fact that one vote against the tanning industry could cost them dozens of votes (and hundreds of dollars in campaign contributions), they had the courage to take action and enact a 10 percent tanning tax!

Do your readers a favor and begin running congressional coverage next to "Blondie" and "Peanuts" on the comics page where it belongs.

BRUCE KNIGHT, NEW BRIGHTON

This Unitarian Universalist would like to thank Garrison Keillor for the years of free advertisement he's given our little denomination as the safe target of his ill humor. Sunday, when cussing at us kids to keep off the lawn of his Christmas, he suggested that "Silent Night" ought never be tampered with. Does this mean that Mr. Keillor only sings it in the original German?

ROBERT ALBERTI, MINNEAPOLIS

•••

Perhaps Garrison expressed it a bit curmudgeonly, but the thought that Christians should not have to apologize or hold our tongues for saying Merry Christmas touched a warm chord in the hearts of our household. As a friend said it: "I work for the little baby Jesus." That works just fine for me.

LEN FREEMAN, LONG LAKE

•••

I must add my voice to those criticizing Garrison Keillor. I am very upset by his attack on Norwegians and Scandinavians in general. Admittedly, he pretty much got it right about Jewish songwriters and Unitarians -- fair enough! But how could he stab Norwegians in the back?! And how about all those Harvard economists and nerdish Cambridgians? How must they feel now?

Where is your sensitivity, Garrison? Are you just trying to be funny or something?

JEFF DUFRESNE, MINNEAPOLIS

The most qualified person in the Minnesota governor's race is poised to change history in 2010. To coin a phrase of another famous Minnesotan: Speaker of the House Margaret Anderson Kelliher is good enough, she's smart enough, and doggone it, people like her. No wonder the negativists are on the attack already (Star Tribune. Dec. 20).

That's OK. She's strong enough to handle it. She's the closer -- the one who works across party lines to get things done for all Minnesotans.

BETTY FOLLIARD, GOLDEN VALLEY