Readers Write: Politicians’ reimbursements, e-bikes, views on the economy, straw buyers

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

•••

No receipts are required for House representatives’ expense checks (”U.S. House: No receipts required,” June 5).

Certainly with the high moral character of some of these people, nothing could go wrong there.

This is another example of our two Americas. Think of how the reimbursements for food and second homes of these representatives are amounts that would change the lives of most ordinary people.

What stood out for me in the article was that this was passed easily with bipartisan support. I wish it was that easy when came to topics that mattered deeply for honest working families.

Rick Brausen, Hopkins

•••

Oh my gosh! It can’t be true. No way. It defies common sense. Not a chance. It’s too unbelievable. People will think I’m crazy if I tell them that I read in the paper that U.S. House members can be reimbursed for expenses, with taxpayer dollars, without the need to provide receipts. Ha, ha. That is just too far-fetched for anyone to believe. And get this: The article also says that this is allowed instead of raising the representatives’ salaries. So I guess that means members of Congress can raise their own “salaries” to whatever they want by grossing up their unverified expenses. Come on. That just can’t be the case.

Michael Braman, Minneapolis

Reading the article regarding Minnesota’s e-bike rebate program on June 4, I was surprised to learn of the state’s need to subsidize a thriving market that “in recent years … has exploded globally” (”E-bike rebates coming Wednesday could put a charge into sales”). Erik’s reports that about 20,000 e-bikes were sold in Minnesota last year.
While the budgeted outlay of $2 million per year will only serve about 1,500 lucky e-bike buyers annually, I cannot be the only bicyclist who thinks this state-funded e-bike promotion is misguided and almost immoral.

First and foremost, any number of social programs providing food assistance, health care or special needs housing would demonstrate a better use of these funds. Where did this financial need for e-bikers come from?
And, most amazing to me, this subsidy is not really for bicycle riders.

My wife and I enjoy touring Minneapolis and St. Paul streets and the metro’s wonderful system of bike trails. In recent years there has been a huge increase in the proportion of electric-powered vehicles on public trails — motorized bicycles, boards and scooters. E-bikes are not bicycles in any traditional sense, and their drivers generally don’t act like traditional bicyclists. Where’s the workout factor? I don’t buy the argument that electric power only augments a good workout and facilitates a longer ride. Not to mention the sustainability issue with battery power.
Most e-bikes are essentially a moped dressed up like a bicycle.

We had an e-bike for many years when e-bikes were still a novelty. My wife took it to work occasionally since we live close to her employment, and I enjoyed its power boost when tackling difficult biking terrain on a solo ride.
But a common encounter with an e-biker on a public trail is the surprising swish of a bike passing close on our left side with no advance warning, the driver effortlessly cruising along without the usual bell tone or “on your left” advisory, which is common courtesy. This is annoying because it is unsafe not to know of the close approach of riders from behind, especially ones moving unusually fast.

We have already started to avoid trails where we know a large proportion of the traffic is motorized. In the past, no gas-powered bicycle was allowed on public bike trails. In the future, we may need separate trails for electric-powered and traditional cyclists.
I love Minnesota and generally fall into the progressive category, but this e-bike program is clearly a solution looking for a problem.

N. Edward Briesemeister,
Delano

•••

I would like to thank the powers that be for once again leaving those of us with dial-up internet feeling left out. Whoever thought that opening the e-bike rebate to the first 10,000 people to log on to a site wasn’t going to be an issue simply wasn’t considering different speeds of access for citizens in rural areas.

Sharon Elizabeth Giesen, Belle Plaine

Akshay R. Rao’s June 7 commentary blames many Americans’ mistaken views on the economy largely on gut reactions over higher-than-before prices (”Why consumers think inflation is still really high when it’s not,” Opinion Exchange). How else to explain the widespread belief shown in polling that we’re in a recession with decades-high unemployment when the exact opposite is true?

Sure, prices are up, and they’re not coming down significantly absent the cure of a massive downturn that would be far worse than the disease. Meanwhile, the gloomy responses ignore how rising pay has neutralized the pain for many of us.

But I’d chalk up most of the disconnect to willful ignorance and just plain partisan dishonesty. I expect many of the comically misinformed who get their “news” via social media algorithms to declare the economy the greatest ever the minute Donald Trump is sworn into the presidency next January.

Conrad deFiebre, Minneapolis

•••

Rao is amazed that people think the economy is bad when it’s really good. He asks in these pages, “What is to be done about perceptions that are so entirely at odds with reality?”

This raises the question of what reality is. Perception is reality, too, especially in an election year. Rao is a distinguished professor at a very fine school, and he’s shocked that a recent Harris poll shows that huge numbers of people think the S&P 500 is down when in fact it’s up. He’s right to be dismayed by this poll, but he’s wrong to think that the S&P 500 and the economy are the same thing.

He quotes Thomas Jefferson as saying that democracy depends on an informed electorate, and this is right. Social media does indeed distort much truth. But Rao concedes that economists do not include gas and food in their metric of “core inflation” because their prices are too “volatile.” An informed electorate cannot ignore the costs of feeding a family. Which is why Jefferson felt so strongly that political decisions should be made by voters rather than experts.

From asides in his article I suspect that Rao and I will both vote for the same presidential candidate. That’s all the more reason not to bewail the ignorance of the voters rather than respond to their concerns.

His article does not even mention the cost of housing. America has never been richer, but the national dream of living a life at least as rewarding as that of one’s parents is increasingly less widely shared.

Knowing this, and letting people know you know this, and that you accept its primacy, is the key to re-election. And must be, for the clock is ticking and the hour is late.

David Lebedoff, Minneapolis

“Straw” purchases of firearms used to be called “straw man” purchases. But most such purchases are actually made by “straw women,” those battered women who have been coerced, coaxed and cajoled into purchasing firearms for ineligible buyers. What is the point of making felons of these unfortunate women? Should feminists support this crackdown? This law will deter no one. Ineligible purchasers are predators who will continue to seek out and exploit weaker prey.

I don’t know the answer. But punishing the victim does not seem the solution. I welcome a better one.

David Wiljamaa, Minneapolis