In response to former U.S. Sen. Rudy Boschwitz's Dec. 12 counterpoint "The Biden presidency is no Reagan presidency," I found his comparison to be lacking one major factor: COVID!

Boschwitz disparages Joe Biden's performance in a number of areas, including the economy. However, Rudy's party, with support of certain media outlets, is making every effort to kill Biden's presidency by making political points at the expense of American lives. Ronald Reagan never faced a worldwide pandemic while having the opposing party do everything it could to get in the way of progress. Even in our own state we have political leaders battling against mitigation measures and trying to remove our state health commissioner for some leverage.

There really are no words to describe how far we have fallen. We citizens must take responsibility and say "enough is enough" and do it over and over.

Gary L. Armon, Blue Earth, Minn.

•••

I find myself troubled by the credit Boschwitz bestows on former President Donald Trump for the COVID vaccine created during his term. I would agree that Trump's "personal pushing and intercession" likely expedited the discovery of this lifesaving vaccine. But instead of celebrating this and taking credit for it, Trump and his Cabinet not only downplayed the whole COVID pandemic but demonized the very vaccine he worked so hard to create. It just does not make any sense, and considering the situation we have found ourselves in now, I find it impossible to give Trump any credit for any pandemic-related successes.

Liz Strom Knutson, Minneapolis

•••

The juxtaposition of the two commentaries by former Minnesota senators Dec. 8 speaks volumes about the character of each man. Rudy Boschwitz uses the space to talk more about himself than about Bob Dole, while Dave Durenberger's words are a sincere tribute to the man. Both are Republicans, but only one has a history of putting country before politics, something that is almost nonexistent in today's Senate. As a lifelong Democrat, I wish there were more Republicans like Durenberger, who would work for something other than their own self-aggrandizement.

Judi Sateren, Minneapolis

I was mildly amused to see Ross Douthat of the New York Times battling it out with Dana Milbank of the Washington Post regarding media coverage of President Biden (Opinion Exchange, Dec. 9), though I wondered if the two were starting in the right place.

Instead of starting with whether Biden was being attacked or supported, would it not be better to recap the facts about an issue, weigh the facts and the pertinent circumstances that further define and almost always complicate an issue, then offer food for our thought? We might prefer a definite answer, an uncomplicated answer, one that supports our political views. We may be looking to see if the opinion piece supported the president or not. It may be hard to wade through the complex details of an issue, weigh those details and struggle to form our own point of view. But if we did, we would be part of a better-informed society.

Ronald L. Eldred, St. Paul

A Dec. 9 letter writer advocated more research on Minnesota's current policy of taxing Social Security income and senior migration. Solid research already shows little relationship between taxation and migration, and that ending the tax would benefit the wealthy and hurt the state's general fund.

Lucy Dadayan, senior research associate at the Tax Policy Center, notes, "There are always a few … taxpayers who move because of the tax rate, but in general, that's not really the determining factor." Karen Conway, a professor of economics at the University of New Hampshire who studies senior migration, concludes: "We just can find no evidence that these tax breaks have a meaningful effect on elderly migration."

Research also shows that Minnesota currently offers significant deductions connected to Social Security taxes for married couples making up to $78,000 and individuals making $61,000. Removing the tax would benefit the well-off and reduce state revenue by approximately $400 million annually. Mary Jo George, state advocacy director for AARP Minnesota, says that "we think that there is relief provided for almost everyone who is middle-income" and that "full exemption of the Social Security tax would be very costly for the state." Advocates for full exemption claim it would pay for itself because wealthy seniors would stay and their spending result in substantial tax revenue. However, Conway's research shows that in states that have eliminated the tax on Social Security benefits, there's no evidence that the tax cut has paid for itself by increasing senior spending.

It may sound reasonable, but exempting Social Security from taxation is another scheme to benefit the wealthy while claiming to care about the rest of us.

Naomi Betker, Woodbury

•••

Minnesota is one of only 13 states that tax Social Security. According to a report from WCCO, Minnesota collects roughly $430 million a year from Social Security taxation. Using only about 10% of the recently reported $7 billion-plus surplus, the state could reduce or eliminate Social Security taxes for two years! That certainly would be a huge financial perk for all of us receiving Social Security. Reassess in two years; perhaps there would only be 12 states with such a controversial tax!

Bruce Stupica, New Prague, Minn.

One can feel the justified outrage along with D.J. Tice as he attacked Minnesota's continuing neglect of vulnerable children (Opinion Exchange, Dec. 12). Nothing shows we care about children more than a determination to protect the vulnerable. But if we really cared about children we would have aggressively responded to the threat of global warming a long time ago. We would willingly invest in education, infrastructure and all forms of child welfare. Children going hungry or homeless? That would not happen. We have been failing to confront the challenges of the future for a long time, and our children will pay. Our unexpected budget surplus offers a new opportunity to face up to our responsibilities for our children's future. We can't waste any more time!

Steven A. Smith, Minneapolis

On Nov. 10 and Dec. 5, the Star Tribune had two interesting articles by Laura Yuen about her struggle with a woodpecker causing damage to the cedar siding on her house and the follow-up comments from readers. Downy woodpeckers were mentioned in both articles. The Nov. 10 print article, however, included a single large picture of a red-headed woodpecker. This was a surprise because red-headed woodpeckers do not cause damage to the siding on houses. In fact, red-headed woodpecker populations are in serious decline in Minnesota, with their numbers down 95% in recent years. Formal research is occurring to help restore their depleted populations and the habitat they require. The Star Tribune has reported on the importance of this research. Hopefully, red-headed woodpeckers will not get a bad reputation by being inadvertently mixed in with the very few species of woodpeckers that do cause damage to cedar siding on houses.

Siah L. St. Clair, Brooklyn Park

The writer is chair of the Red-headed Woodpecker Recovery Project, a project of the Audubon Chapter of Minneapolis.