The debate between the two political parties in the Minnesota Legislature regarding public safety reminds me of this quote from the late Desmond Tutu: "There comes a point where we need to stop just pulling people out of the river. We need to go upstream and find out why they're falling in." The Republican-led state Senate is proposing stronger consequences for crimes and more policing — a downstream approach ("'Tough on crime' proposal advances," front page, April 26). The Democrat-led House and Gov. Tim Walz are proposing services and supports geared toward young people and families — an upstream approach.

The challenge before our Legislature as a whole is to find the best, evidence-based policies to make Minnesota safer for all. My hope is that real conversation is happening behind the scenes and beyond the "soft on crime" and "tough on crime" labels.

Helen Henly, Minneapolis

Another reader ("Fine example of a poor approach," April 11) commented on Rochester using state funds to fix sidewalks, calling it a "local problem, locally caused ... why on earth should the taxpayers of Minnesota pony up nearly $3 million to fix it?" This is a fine example of unnecessary stinginess of taxpayer dollars.

The project is to replace a sidewalk in downtown Rochester, with most of the money coming from the state's Destination Medical Center (DMC) fund. The sidewalk was built in the 1980s; a quick Google search informs us that a sidewalk's life span is usually 25 years. Another search tells us that the DMC fund was hotly debated before passing in 2013, and the fund will improve Rochester as a destination for health and medical research. Former Gov. Mark Dayton put it best: "If this expansion and leap forward were not happening in Rochester, it'd happen somewhere else in the country. ... We're very grateful that it's here in Minnesota."

This is how government spending should work. The state debated and set aside funds for local infrastructure improvements to the home of our largest employer. Beyond making Rochester nicer, the tax revenue from Mayo and other employers in the city will be reinvested for the rest of the state. Seeing this as a waste of state funds is shortsighted. I prefer that state lawmakers invest our tax dollars in projects like this, which improve the state and prevent local tax hikes, rather than use "tax cut" language to turn a temporary surplus into a permanent deficit.

Evan Perera, Savage

I would disagree with the Bloomberg Opinion piece in Wednesday's paper, "Democrats may lose gerrymander gamble" (Opinion Exchange). The results of gerrymandering may hurt Democrats in the near future, as the article indicates, but competitive districts mean that candidates need to reach out to a wider spectrum of voters. Right now we have congressional candidates who espouse extreme-right or extreme-left opinions who easily win elections in partisan-configured districts. A competitive district requires that candidates reach out to voters from each side and take a more moderate stance on issues, which would allow compromise on important issues facing our country. In my opinion, we need to remove the far-right and far-left crazy candidates from office in order to solve our country's problems with commonsense, bipartisan solutions. Candidates in primary elections would soon learn that taking an extreme partisan position would not win in the general election.

I think if Democrats and Republicans create competitive congressional districts, the voters and our country would win.

Douglas K. Jones, Columbia Heights

UnitedHealth Group is the reason why America has the worst health care system ever imagined ("UnitedHealth leader to retire from board," April 23). Its seeming policy of profits first, last and always has resulted in unaffordable insurance that covers nothing. Most Americans today are only one minor illness away from complete financial destruction. Instead of lauding the guy who created a health insurance monstrosity that indifferently allows people to suffer and die needlessly, perhaps the focus should be on how Americans are supposed to survive a profiteering insurance company that will financially destroy them at its first opportunity.

Donald Voge, Robbinsdale

•••

Sadly, one need look no further than the article about Bright Health's executive pay ("Bright Health's CEO pay soared," April 22) for insight into the silliness of our national health care system. First, keep in mind that Bright Health is just a teeny tiny player in this obese system. Like countless other "innovators" — as well as the giant insurers — they came to "transform health care" in our "complex and expensive" environment. (They are apparently immune to the irony that they are all responsible for the complexity and expensiveness.) Anyway, what do we get? Another complex, expensive little company with overpaid executives and underdelivered promises sticking their snout into the huge money trough that takes up 20% of the nation's GDP.

We have great health care in this country, but we have a terrible health care system — and it is going to kill us. Luckily for the system, we Americans are brutes for punishment.

D. Roger Pederson, Minneapolis

With all due respect to the writer of the letter "Schools aren't the right messengers" (Readers Write, April 22), schools are precisely the right messengers for sex education. What happened to her in the bathroom when she was a child is awful. There is nothing anyone can say or do that will change what happened to her or make it any better. But we can prevent it from happening to other children. One way that we can do this is through early, comprehensive sex education in schools. Several studies have shown that proper sex education decreases susceptibility to abuse. Teaching children the difference between a good touch and a bad touch helps children identify when they are abused and need to tell an adult.

Parents may rely on their own sex education experience when they are having conversations with their children about their bodies, sex and consent. This means that the information they pass to their children is very possibly outdated and may not include information that is vital for children to know. We now know that "stranger danger" does not adequately reflect the source of most sexual assaults on children, as 93% of assailants were known by their victims. According to the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network, 1 in 9 girls and 1 in 53 boys under the age of 18 have experienced sexual abuse or assault by an adult.

Sex education for young children isn't about sex. It is about safety. Children need to know the proper names for their body parts. They need to know about personal boundaries and consent. They need to be told how to identify a dangerous situation before they are in one. The writer described herself as innocent when she found herself alone in the bathroom with someone who should not be there. Giving children knowledge does not take away their innocence. It gives them the tools to protect themselves.

I am not sure I could remain civil while voicing my thoughts on her views about transgender issues, so I will simply say that I hope she educates herself and puts her unjust prejudices aside.

Sina Grantier, St. Paul