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

•••

Peter Nelson and the Center of the American Experiment are again in the Star Tribune Opinion Exchange ("'Glitch fix' is another ill-fated Biden overreach," Oct. 24). And again finding whatever fault they can with any attempt to make the lives of low- and middle-income Americans better. On Monday, they assail the attempt of President Joe Biden to expand the number of families able to secure health insurance through the use of executive order, fixing the "family glitch." I think what the Center of the American Experiment (not sure what it is they really want to "experiment" with) fails to understand is the dynamics of presidents and executive orders. Had they read the adjoining article in the same page on Opinion Exchange, "The long, bumpy history of executive orders," they would see that the use of executive orders is a practice of the presidency going back a century.

The way I see it: When you have a Congress like the present one where chances of a bipartisan legislative solution for anything is almost zero, the president is put into a position of having to exert executive power to try and resolve an issue. People vote for a candidate because they believe the person has the guts to accomplish the things they say they will do. So, it should not be surprising or disappointing to see the sitting president act on whatever is in their power to do. When our legislative body is too complacent or dysfunctional to help out, it falls on the executive branch to try an executive order and the judicial branch to rule on the validity of those acts. Nelson would have been better served by asking our members of Congress why they are so willing to let the president and the courts do their work for them.

Alan Briesemeister, Delano

•••

I read with interest, and some relief, the Affordable Care Act's "glitch" fix editorial on Oct. 15 ("'Glitch' fix offers health care cost relief"). When the law was passed in 2010, with over 2,700 pages not counting the regulations, I fully expected to see our elected representatives in all levels of government work through technical corrections to achieve the primary objectives of: a) affordable health insurance, b) expanding Medicaid to those in need, and c) lowering health care costs. Certainly I did not expect 11 years of administrative delays, lawsuits and attempts to repeal, including the individual mandate lawsuits of 2011-2012, the difficult insurance marketplace rollouts in 2013-2014, the "repeal and replace" debates of 2015-2016 culminating in the congressional repeal attempt in 2017 and the remaining legality lawsuit finally resolved in 2021 by the U.S. Supreme Court. Maybe now we can move the debate forward for additional improvements to provide all Americans health care "safety net" coverage, similar to our ability to access societal programs for unemployment insurance, disability and retirement.

Scott A. Weicht, Edina

Are you better off now than you were four years ago? If we are honest, the answer is no. It is hard to be a Minnesotan and watch what has happened to our state: record-breaking crime; soaring inflation due to out-of-control spending; draconian COVID lockdowns that hurt kids, small businesses and churches; and the massive fraud of $250 million stolen by Feeding Our Future. What an embarrassment!

So, why not vote for Republicans this time around? The Republican Party lineup of candidates for statewide offices is impressive: Scott Jensen and Matt Birk for governor and lieutenant governor, Jim Schultz for attorney general, Kim Crockett for secretary of state and Ryan Wilson for state auditor. All are accomplished and proven leaders. They have had successful careers, and each has a thoughtful strategy to turn things around.

Then there are our local races. I'm supporting Kathleen Fowke for state Senate, Lorie Cousineau for state representative and Tom Weiler, who's running for Congress in the Third Congressional District.

Why in the world would people keep voting for Democrats who have ruined our state? Give the Republicans a try! What do you have to lose?

Kari Lorence, Minnetonka

•••

How appropriate that Halloween comes just before the election, given the dark, fright-filled political campaign haunting Minnesota. The ghost of Willie Horton lurks. And the success of the former president's lies — from Mexicans as rapists to his "big lie" about the election to inciting the Jan. 6 riots — have convinced Republicans that subtlety is no longer necessary.

No more dog whistles. Just flat-out claim your opponent is responsible for any problem — a winning combination for those who care nothing about the cost to society. But, of course, there is a severe cost to our already divided country.

I'm old enough to remember when campaigns were about debating policy. Now the only proposals are "fraud and waste, lower taxes, blah, blah, blah ... and, by the way, my opponent is evil incarnate." Scary stuff.

Where is the discussion of action on the increased deaths, widespread drought, impact on farmers and food insecurity resulting from climate change? How will we truly, sensibly address the threats to schoolchildren — not from books (or litter boxes), but from bullets? How will those who claim to have the solution to inflation actually do so? What are their positive proposals?

We can work to end this negative campaigning, but only if we don't reward it. In the end, this election is about us — about who we are. Will we stand with the Constitution, elect candidates who will accept the decision of the people and are dedicated to working collaboratively in solving Minnesota's problems, or not?

Trick or treat ... our choice.

Bruce Anderson, St. Cloud

U.S. Rep. Tom Emmer promotes himself as pro-business and pro-farmer. But if you look at his voting record, you see a different story.

Two bills listed below provide money that will go directly to local community projects. They will provide countless jobs, business for our infrastructure and energy companies, and support our local farmers. Yet Emmer voted no on both! More than once we've heard Emmer take credit for the federal money that has benefited his constituents. He's great at proposing programs to benefit the populace but consistently votes no on providing funding to implement.

These are the two bills and how they positively impact our local communities.

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (H.R. 3684):

The Inflation Reduction Act (H.R. 5376), funded by a 15% minimum tax on large corporations and excise tax on corporate stock:

Emmer talks a good game, but he's bad on delivery!

Glennda Dalman, St. Michael, Minn.