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

•••

The purported code of ethics just released by the Supreme Court is disappointing indeed ("Justices approve code of ethics," Nov. 14). I am saddened that such a document would be co-signed by all nine justices. It clearly states that it includes nothing new but instead collects and summarizes the existing rules under which Justice Clarence Thomas accepted and failed to report numerous expensive gifts, from elaborate vacations to an upscale motor home, and from the renovation and purchase of his mother's home to his ward's private school tuition.

Besides failing to introduce new measures, it uses the word "should" instead of "shall" regarding expectations. It offers no hint of enforcement or consequences. And most galling of all, its preamble blames the situation not on corrupt justices but on those Americans worried about corruption with this insulting section:

"The absence of a Code, however, has led in recent years to the misunderstanding that the Justices of this Court, unlike all other jurists in this country, regard themselves as unrestricted by any ethics rules. To dispel this misunderstanding, we are issuing this Code, which largely represents a codification of principles that we have long regarded as governing our conduct."

Ellen Thomas, St. Louis Park

•••

In an effort to placate those who have rightfully criticized members of the Supreme Court — Justice Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito being the most egregious members — for accepting large gifts without reporting them, the Supreme Court has written a code of ethics that include no way of enforcing them. They are merely commonsense suggestions for proper behavior that have already proven to be ineffectual.

Doug Williams, Robbinsdale

•••

The code of ethics that the Supreme Court has decided on sounds like my New Year's resolutions. Just saying.

Barbara Held, Golden Valley

I would like to respond to Pam Pommer's commentary regarding student loans ("Why can't student debtors do the math?" Opinion Exchange. Nov. 14). Her rather patronizing tone of why smart people cannot understand "the basic concept of a loan" is just that, patronizing. The issue with student loans is not just the loan. Though, to be clear, loans make it possible for students to complete college, get a degree and live a better life than the alternative. Pommer pulls from her own experience of taking out a mortgage in 1998. Mortgage loans were affordable in 1998 and there were not additional unforeseen fees and variables in 1998. I bought a house in 1998 for $98,000 that is now on the market for $430,000. So, her experience is meaningless in today's world.

The reality of a student loan here in 2023 is this: A kid wants to go to college to get a degree. The options are limited based on ACT and SAT scores, cost of living on campus and tuition (not to mention food). So, he/she takes out a student loan through College Ave, Firstmark, Parent Plus or whomever. Interest rates are fixed or variable and the student chooses the cheapest route — usually variable. Post-graduation, the graduate starts to see the bills come through, and, because of variable interest rates and fees that accumulated while the student was in school, they find themselves strapped to incredible debt. Most loans are now at 10-14% interest rate. These student may not even have secured employment yet. So, the only option is for them to move home with parents and work two jobs to pay off student loans that change when the interest rates change. The issue is the interest rates! And, if they fall behind or request forbearance, the fees require a third job!

I know all of this because I am living with it, and I do know simple math and the concept of a loan. The original debt has grown to an unsurmountable debt and will probably outlive me. So, Pam Pommer, you clearly do not understand the concept of student loans.

Karen Watters, Stillwater

•••

In response to Pam Pommer's "Why can't student debtors do the math?" I would invite her to do some math of her own. The writer says that she lived at home and worked while attending Normandale Community College in the 1970s. I did some googling and found a report from the American Association of Junior Colleges from 1971 that stated the Normandale Community College tuition was $292 per year. According to the NCC website, current tuition is about $5,789, more than a 1,800% increase. Keep in mind that when factoring inflation, the federal minimum wage is about 40% lower than it was in 1970.

I'm glad Pommer was able to take in a renter in 1998, but according to the Census Bureau, the median rent was $566 in Minnesota in 2000. Now according to Rent.com, the median rent in the Twin Cities area is about $1,836. And that's not even factoring the cost of groceries, transportation, health care or utilities. I would ask boomers to stop comparing their relatively cheap existence in the 1970s to those of us facing student debt today.

Nick Hansen, Lakeville

•••

Amen to Pam Pommer. I'm a single mom who raised four kids alone, and they all managed to get through four years of college (two of my kids also have master's degrees) with minimal debt. Of course, three of them enlisted in the military. Why should they, or anyone, be responsible for helping pay off someone else's loans? The military is one option to avoid debt. You can also go to a community college, as Pommer suggested. Many offer a wide range of scholarships. Or work for a company that reimburses college tuition, like Amazon.

Just don't ask me or my kids, who risked their lives to avoid debt, to pay off the debt of someone who didn't do the math.

Michele Hake, Apple Valley

In the Oct. 28 column by Evan Ramstad, "DFLers worked to keep source of the surplus in state budget," Senate Majority Leader Kari Dziedzic said, "There was money in seven bills to deal with child care, but we still are hearing 'We can't afford child care. We can't afford child care."'

I am one of the thousands of Minnesotans they are hearing from because we cannot afford child care. We live in Golden Valley, are a household of two full-time working parents, and we have a 4-year-old and a 9-month-old.

When we decided to have a second child, we realized it wasn't financially feasible for us to send the baby to the same child care center as our 4-year-old. The national recommendation is that no family should pay more than 7% of their annual income for child care. To be able to afford child care for just one infant in Minnesota at a cost of $17,000, a family would need to make $243,000 per year! And that's just for one child.

I am glad to see that the Minnesota Legislature understands this issue and is actively working to solve it. On Nov. 13, the House held a hearing on child care affordability and introduced the beginnings of a plan to help parents pay for child care. We, and thousands of other parents across the state, cannot wait. All Minnesotans deserve to be able to afford their lives, and decreasing child care costs for parents will make that more possible.

Ellory Roske, Golden Valley