Hann defends

his equal pay

remarks

Contrary to recent letters, my description of a “pay equity” bill as absurd, illogical and irrational is accurate.

The idea that women are paid about 79 cents for every dollar paid to men is obviously false. Not only does this violate the Equal Pay Act of 1963, but also if this were true any employer in his right mind would simply fire all his male employees and hire women at the lower wage rate.

When we compare the pay rate of all women to the pay rate of all men and find their wages to be different does not mean there is anything sinister at work. It is just the reality of statistically comparing two large, disparate groups of people. In fact, it is quite common to find many statistical differences in the comparison of large groups. 

Even today when dual income families are common, it is still true that more women than men assume the primary care of their children. This means that women may choose different kinds of work than men do, and interrupting their careers may result in lower incomes for people of similar credentials and ages. Diana Furchtgott-Robb, former chief of staff for the Presidents Council of Economic Advisors and now a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, makes this point in “Women’s Figures: An Illustrated Guide to the Progress of Women in America.” Single, never-married women of comparable education and experience and who work full time have the same incomes as their male counterparts. 

The idea that we can, or should, institute some kind of comparable worth pay scale for different kinds of jobs depending on whether they are male-dominated or female-dominated is an unwarranted and destructive intrusion into the market place by government. What this means in practice is that some panel of “experts” will determine which jobs should be paid at equal rates rather than allowing employers and employees to freely negotiate compensation. 

The enforcement of this type of scheme will only result in increased costs to taxpayers, and could perniciously result in higher unemployment for women.

Economist Anita U. Hattiangadi, author of “A Closer Look at Comparable Worth,” has reported that the unemployment rate for women rose nearly 5 percent – four times greater than the rate for men – after Minnesota initiated an equal pay system for state government workers.

This bill is another example of the Democrats innate distrust and antipathy for free markets. They invariably prefer a political mechanism to address economic issues.  Democrat politicians find it advantageous to their political interests to have a group of legislators decide how much people should earn through regulatory and tax policies, and have proven to have an intractable desire to pass laws to enforce their prejudices to retain political power.

It was a good thing that this bill did not pass the Legislature this session.  It is my hope that the Legislature will in the future restrain itself from the effort to use politics to control economic outcomes and trust the ability of free citizens to make decisions that are in their own economic interests.

State Sen. David Hann

(R-42, Eden Prairie)

Requires fiscal responsibility

Patti Indre, DFL SD 42 secretary, wrote last week stating Gov. Pawlenty's reasons for vetoing the tax bill (which foiled the Democrats plan to build automatic inflation escalators into the state's budget forecast) were "outrageous" and "hurting hard-working Minnesotans everyday." 

How can this action possibly hurt any hard-working Minnesotan? It simply requires that our duly elected officials remain accountable to us. It requires fiscal responsibility from them. It requires they exercise good stewardship of the money they take from our paychecks and spend for various needs and government services throughout the state.

This is how representative government is designed to work. A government on autopilot is something else entirely.

Bonnie Gasper

Eden Prairie

Sounds off on

Kittelson column

Last Thursday, William Kittelson [June 14, Right Side of the Prairie] offered up thoughts on the origins of freedom and something from Sir William Blackstone, referred to as "God's Moral Rules."

First of all, I would like to argue with Mr. Kittelson about the God of our Founders, as opposed to the God of Abraham.  Contrary to popular belief, our nation's Founding Fathers were not a large group of evangelical Christians.  The people who drew up our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, were for the most part, Deists and Free Masons, who did indeed believe in personal freedom and responsibility, but also in promoting the general welfare and securing the blessings of liberty for all.

"God's Moral Rules" at a glance, are not frightening or untrue. However, they are far from complete. Has Mr. Kittelson forgotten about the New Testament, particularly Matthew 25, where Jesus speaks of Judgement Day? 

In this scripture Jesus speaks of how all men and women will be judged based on this quote:  "Truly I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethen, you did it to me."  This is just my interpretation, but I believe this involves caring for the poor, the homeless, and the downtrodden.  We are asked, in a sense to be "our brother's keepers." 

I think God likes social programs and charitable giving to benefit those who are poor and downtrodden. If you do not believe in God, then where does freedom and liberty come from?  It comes from the goodness of humankind personified in a humanitarian government. And believe me, you do not have to be a Christian to be a good person.  Nor do you have to be a good person to call yourself a Christian.

Finally, contrary to Mr. Kittelson, America is indeed a collection of cultures from around the globe, living as one nation. And for Heaven's sake, everyone knows that the line, "one nation under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance during the Cold War scare of the 1950s. The Founding Fathers had nothing to do with that famous (or infamous) line. I would ask that certain conservatives cease and desist from trying to spin it as God's command for our nation. 

Lori Johnson

Eden Prairie

On the right side?

After reading William Kittelson’s “America’s Amnesia … America’s future,” I believe I will move to the “right side of the prairie.”

His assertion that we are “one nation under God with liberty and justice for all” is certainly more appealing than the left side of anywhere that furrows its brow and wrings it hands over the decline of our nation’s political integrity, competence and reputation.

How liberating to toss aside principles of social and economic justice and those pesky commandments against lying, stealing and killing in favor of “God’s Moral Rules” which, according to Kittelson, sanction economic freedom to pursue wealth, own property and eschew public responsibility for the less fortunate among us. That must be of particular relief to the 1 percent who control 40 percent of the nation’s wealth.

What a relief to ignore our transition from a nation that once led the world in the cause of human rights to one that engages in unnecessary war, imperialism, torture, and extraordinary rendition – the kinds of things that could keep a citizen awake at night should we not be a “nation under God.”

How much more appealing to dance to the right’s jingoism of what we once were than to the left’s dirge of what we have become. As longtime liberal, I hate to admit it, but I am irrationally seduced by the “right side of the prairie” which offers a needed, if slightly delusional, respite from the left’s gloomy reality checks.

Marjory Gherity

Eden Prairie

Not impressed

with lake’s quality

I read in your paper that Round Lake was now open for swimming. Last Friday I thought I would go and enjoy a swim with weather being 90-plus. The city should be ashamed to have opened the lake to swimming. You walk in muck halfway up your legs and then weeds are so thick you can hardly move. They need to put down sand and get rid of the weeds if they want anyone to enjoy that lake. I will not go in or will I allow any of my family to even put a toe in that filthy lake.

Sharon Peterson

Eden Prairie

Actions speak

louder than words

Being a newbie to local government, I have observed local meetings, read EP City Council and Metropolitan Airport Commission meeting (MAC) minutes, and reviewed lobbying letters sent to Washington by our city manager. I have also sent e-mails to city councilpersons, the mayor and city manager, asking questions, making observations and expressing concern. I hope that I am an example of “Joe Citizen” in EP and no, I am not running for local office as I have now grown to distrust even local government. 

Initially I thought the council and the mayor “just didn’t get it.” They just did not understand the noise, pollution and diminished property value concerns EP residents have regarding Flying Cloud expansion. Now I understand they “get it,” but most do not want to accept it. Their acceptance, or lack of, could be exposed through two-way discussions between residents and the council. 

However, even though we have had open podiums, a town hall meeting and now a council workshop, the discussion has only been one-way. The conversation is resident-to-council or council-to-council, but never a conversation between residents and the council. The majority of our elected official believe they are in the best position to understand the overall needs of our city and a disconnect has resulted. Versions of truth have been spun, words used, interpretations made, control maintained, and now a watered-down resolution proposed, which provides future justification to support their actions.

To justify actions our City Council [members wrap] themselves with a flag supporting safety, while they lobby for transportation funds to improve Flying Cloud Airport, discuss marketing of the airport, business expansion, and even city financing of MAC obligations using general revenue bonds. (Yes Mr. Neal, look at the materials you provided the council and listen to your verbal testimony.)

In the 2002 MOU, the council agreed not to oppose expansion at Flying Cloud.  The agreement did not obligate the council to support improvements at Flying Cloud. The agreement also said council members could personally, as individual citizens oppose expansion. 

Putting aside all the bickering, I have two questions I would like each council member to answer. Do you, as individual citizens, support the expansion of Flying Cloud Airport? If your answer is no, then why do your actions and comments as council members support action, which will facilitate expansion?

Christopher Kramer

Eden Prairie