April 23, 2007
Apr 23 02:25 Harry's 'Qualifications' Apr 23 02:56 Your Tax Increase At Work Apr 23 11:05 Vultures Circling Hagel's Political Corpse? Apr 23 11:48 Broder Delivers Body Blow to Reid Apr 23 12:41 Reid Blusters, Bungles Iraq Debate Apr 23 13:13 Irate Marine Blasts Defeatists Apr 23 15:36 Terse Smackdown Apr 23 23:52 Income Tax Increase Appears Dead
Prior Years: 2006
Harry's 'Qualifications'
The Las Vegas Review Journal has a snarky editorial that talks about what Democrats need and what qualifications Harry Reid brings to the table. Here's a great snapshot of their thoughts:
The Democratic strategy to use the ongoing violence in Iraq to their political advantage in the run-up to the 2008 elections requires some skill and nuance. But it's growing harder to believe Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada's own, actually possesses those skills.It's almost impossible for me to think of Harry Reid as being capable of much beyond scandals and pork. Simply put, he's one of the most outclassed 'leaders' in US legislative history. Why they'd elect him to the leader's post is beyond me. The man is a mental midget. What's worse is that he's the epitome of corruption.
That's one interesting resume, though I don't think that it's a resume of a political leader. Here's more of the Review-Journal's indictment against Reid:
Thus, the Democrats' careful strategy requires them to appear to oppose Mr. Bush's ongoing occupation of Iraq (to please their pacifist base), without taking any concrete, "binding" actions to change the status quo.I think an old cliche sums Reid's statement up pretty well. The cliche says "it's easier to tell the truth because then you don't have to remember which lie you said to which person." While I won't call Reid's statements outright lies, I'm willing to say that Reid's rebuttals require some fancy footwork and some artful dodging.
Enter Sen. Reid, flopping around in big red shoes like Bozo the Clown.
A few weeks ago, Sen. Reid said on a major weekend talk show that he favored a firm deadline for withdrawal of all forces from Iraq. When members of his own caucus said, "What? First we've heard," the senator went into damage control mode, the kind that starts out with staffers explaining, "What the senator meant to say was ..."
Sen. Reid and his colleagues know there is much political hay to be made by criticizing President Bush's planning and conduct of the post-war occupation. But they also know that while "cut our losses and pull out" plays well in Democratic caucuses, it failed in the Connecticut general election in 2006, when Sen. Joseph Lieberman and his anti-surrender stance handily defeated end-the-war candidate Ned Lamont, even though Sen. Lieberman had to run as an independent to pull it off.There's nothing more disgusting than watching politicians play partisan politics with the troops. That's the Democrats' specialty. If they cared about improving national security, they'd take Iraq seriously.
That's the kind of "poll" that really counts.
If Democrats keep playing the hyperpartisan politics that they're currently playing, they'll lose the majority of Lieberman Democrats. The first departure appeared when Brendan Loy jumped the MoveOn ship after Ned Lamont beat Joe Lieberman in the Democratic primary in Connecticut:
But regardless of all that, the hard reality is that the voters have spoken, and their message was loud and clear: there's no longer room for Joe Lieberman in the Democratic Party. And alas, tonight's result will reverberate through the November elections and into the 2008 presidential campaign. It's really much more than just a single primary in a single state; it's a shot across the bow of moderate Democrats everywhere. And so, whatever further ramifications this result might have, there's one thing it definitely means, one result that is officially cast in stone, as of today:If Reid continues playing politics with Iraq, he'll push Joe Lieberman into the Republican Party. If Lieberman switches parties, history will cast Reid as the most inept Majority Leader the Senate has ever had.
I am no longer a Democrat.
Friday morning, the majority leader returned to the Senate floor, supposedly to reiterate his Thursday comments. Yet this time Sen. Reid carefully avoided using the word "lost." Less than 24 hours after declaring Iraq a lost cause, Sen. Reid insisted, "No one wants us to succeed in Iraq more than the Democrats."I've said numerous times that Democrats might be in better shape if they had a plan for victory. They don't. The only time they talk about Iraq is when they want to take partisan cheapshots at President Bush. The day is coming when the GOP will have a new presidential nominee that the public trusts. Then the Democrats' Bush-hating won't work. Then they'll have to have viable plans on how to keep the nation safe or else the voters won't trust them with national security.
Um ... what?
What he actually meant to say is that Iraq is lost if we continue to follow President Bush's strategy, the Democratic leader explained, while once more carefully resisting the temptation to put forward any better strategy.
As for Reid saying that "No one wants us to succeed in Iraq more than the Democrats", he knows he won't get away with that statement. It's one of those statements that isn't defensible.
Unfortunately for Democrats, Reid seems to have an endless supply of those.
Posted Monday, April 23, 2007 2:26 AM
No comments.
Your Tax Increase At Work
Using the information supplied by this article, it's easy to understand why the DFL is pushing major tax increases this session.
The House voted 86-45 early Saturday to spend $10 billion of Minnesotans' tax money the next two years on health and human services programs, working toward what Democrats say is a better health-care system.That spending bill alone eats up the income tax increase on the "richest 1 percent". Actually, it eats up that tax increase & a significant portion of the surplus. That's before we get to the Education Minnesota budget.
"For the past five years, Minnesota's health care system has been on life support", said State Rep. Tom Huntley, a Duluth Democrat and chairman of the House Health and Human Services Finance Committee. "With this bill, the condition of our health care system improves from critical to stable and the prognosis for future years is good."
The measure would increase spending 24.4 percent over the current two-year budget by sending more money to most state health and welfare programs.
The bill spends $300 million more than Pawlenty wants, but House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher, DFL-Minneapolis, said she thinks the governor may sign a bill similar to what representatives passed. "Significant portions of the governor's package" are in the House bill, she said. "We have listened to the governor."Something's gotta give & I doubt that it'll be Gov. Pawlenty giving into the DFL's bloated demands. Marty Seifert agrees with me:
"It is absolutely unacceptable," House Minority Leader Marty Seifert, R-Marshall, countered, adding that Pawlenty would veto it.In other words, the DFL wasted all this time working on a bloated budget bill that they know will get vetoed by Gov. Pawlenty.
Posted Monday, April 23, 2007 2:56 AM
No comments.
Vultures Circling Hagel's Political Corpse?
Based on this report in the Hill Magazine, it's sounding like Chuck Hagel is heading for a collapse:
Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning (R) entered the state's 2008 Senate race as a potential replacement for Sen. Chuck Hagel (R) if the latter were to retire. But now Bruning says he might try to unseat the Iraq war critic in a primary.THANK YOU, Mr. Bruning!!! I couldn't agree more!!! It's time that Mr. Hagel paid the price for being so badly wrong on the most important issue of our generation. It's totally unacceptable for him to repeatedly tout his defeatist policies. I can't think of a single accomplishment that Hagel has contributed to the Republican Party in his time as senator.
He cited Hagel's recent vote for a troop withdrawal deadline in Iraq and his suggestions that President Bush could be impeached. Bruning said yesterday that he has been given sufficient reason to consider running for the seat even if the two-term senator aims for a third term.
"Senator Hagel voted with the Democratic leadership against President Bush on the most important issue facing our country," Bruning said, adding, "These are drastic and dramatic shifts away from the Republican Party, our president, and the people of Nebraska."
Sen. Hagel is more of a legend in his own mind than anything else. He's thinks of himself as vitally important when in reality, he's nothing more than an egotistical snob. From everything that I've seen, there isn't proof that he's a team player. There isn't proof that he's a policy heavyweight, either. In other words, he's of limited value to the Senate Republican caucus.
Hagel figures to be a tough incumbent to beat no matter which party is challenging him; in 2002, he was reelected with 83 percent of the vote. But he has one of the smallest campaign war chests among senators up in 2008, with about $230,000.Hagel got 83 percent in 2002 before he went defeatist. He won't get 83 percent this time because he's worn out his welcome within the Republican Party. The fact that he's got only $230,000 in his campaign war chest speaks to his pariah status within the party.
With 'support' like that, he'll have difficulty rallying enough campaign volunteers to get out the vote.
If Sen. Hagel has any common sense left, he'll gracefully bow out and let a real Republican run. The truth is that Sen. Hagel is this year's Lincoln Chafee. Frankly, there isn't a dime's worth of difference between Hagel's Iraq policy and John Murtha's. Being compared with Lincoln Chafee and John Murtha isn't where you want to be if you want a career in the Republican Party.
Follow this link to contribute to the Bruning campaign. I'm heading there now.
It's time to tell Mr. Hagel "Good riddance."
Posted Monday, April 23, 2007 11:06 AM
Comment 1 by Terry Gain at 23-Apr-07 04:20 PM
I don't know much about Hagel but I do know that he is the author of the stupidest statement anyone has made about the Iraq war. I refer to his claim that the Surge "is the greatest srategic blunder in the history of the United States".
To say one is sceptical as to whether it will work (it will if not cut short) is one thing. To claim that it's a strategic blunder is moronic.
In what sense is Hagel a conservative?
Comment 2 by OregonGuy at 23-Apr-07 04:50 PM
Good Luck!
I think our Republican senator is likely to switch parties. I kinda wish he would.
Comment 3 by Brian Duncan at 23-Apr-07 05:27 PM
"...it's sounding like Chuck Hagel is heading for a collapse." ????
Where exactly does that story give you any indication that his seat is in jeopardy? What - he might go from 83% of the vote down to 81%? This is a ridiculous post.
Comment 4 by Harley Urbatsch at 24-Apr-07 11:30 AM
Most of us believe that Mr Hagel is thinking along the right path. It's the draft dodgers that seem to believe they are leaders that worry real patriots! Perhaps Marvin, Neal, GW, Jeb Bush, Mr Cheney and Wm Clinton should take a stint in Iraq..see what the real world is like!!
Comment 5 by Gary Gross at 24-Apr-07 10:10 PM
What - he might go from 83% of the vote down to 81%? This is a ridiculous post.
He got 83% before he started making anti-military comments. He says that we're in the midst of a civil war which can't be won.
What was Bosnia-Herzegovina if not a civil war. The last I looked, we won that one.
The fact that Hagel's got a viable primary challenger speaks volumes about winning re-election. The fact that he's only got $230K in his campaign warchest speaks volumes about how rapidly his support has dropped.
Also, I talked this afternoon with a friend who was a candidate for the Nebraska legislature in 2000. He said that he's been in contact with some of his political allies in the state. They tell him that Hagel's allies are fleeing him like Hagel was selling fire at a gas station.
Finally, he's seen as this year's Linc Chafee. That isn't the way to please a conservative in a Republican primary in a VERY RED STATE.
Broder Delivers Body Blow to Reid
David Broder isn't a partisan Republican columnist by any stretch of the imagination. That's why what he said in this radio interview all the more troublesome for Harry Reid. Here's a portion of the transcript for the interview:
EDWARDS: White House and congressional Republicans really blasted Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for saying the war in Iraq is lost. Do Republicans believe it can still be won?This isn't good news for Harry Reid. The term embattled isn't too strong a term to describe him. That's what happens when you aren't ready for primetime. It's worth noting that this interview comes on the heals of Reid's hometown newspaper ripping him for his incompetence.
BRODER: Uh, Republicans, some of them believe that, and Democrats, by and large, wish that Harry Reid would learn to engage mind before mouth opens. This has become kind of a pattern for him, and, uh, I think at some point down the road the Democrats are gonna have to have a little caucus and decide how much further they want to carry Harry Reid. They've got able people on the Senate side, and they don't have to put up with this kind of bumbling performance forever.
EDWARDS: You think Harry Reid is an embarrassment to the Democrats?
BRODER: I think so. I mean, he has been a pretty effective leader but he is verbally just a real loose cannon and it seems to me, Bob, that about every six weeks or so there's another episode where he has to apologize for the way in which he has bungled the Democratic case.
He'd best hope that they don't uncover another Reid land scandal or else pundits will use a different adjective to describe Reid's standing: free fall.
Things can't be looking good for Reid. A major Washington columnist AND his hometown newspaper have questioned his qualifications. More specifically, they're questioning whether he's got enough brainpower and common sense to do his job. Frankly, I don't think he's convincing anyone that he does.
Frankly, I think he's getting close to being seen as the Democrats' version of Alberto Gonzales. That's hardly the position you'd like to be in if you're the leader of the Senate.
Posted Monday, April 23, 2007 11:49 AM
Comment 1 by NiceTry at 26-Apr-07 03:09 PM
The plant story to lay one on Harry Reid doesn't seem to be working. Maybe you oughta go after Bill Clinton again.
Reid Blusters, Bungles Iraq Debate
Harry Reid came out swinging in a speech to be delivered on the Senate floor. The bad news is that Reid's become the storyline. Here's a portion of Harry's bluster:
In remarks prepared for delivery, Reid said that under the legislation the troops that remain after next April 1 could only train Iraqi security units, protect U.S forces and conduct "targeted counter-terror operations."Reid is engaging in a game of high stakes chicken. Given that his hometown newspaper and the dean of the liberal Beltway media have criticized him, Sen. Reid isn't working from a position of strength. When you factor in this Bloomberg article, it's safe to say that he's skating on thin ice.
The other thing that's noteworthy of this proposal is that it's unconstitutional. The legislative branch can't tell the executive branch how to conduct military operations. That's entirely within the Commander-in-Chief's authority. Frankly, I'd sign the bill, then get the provisions thrown out that ties the President's hands.
It's apparent that Reid is both incompetent and arrogant. He's acting like he's dealing from a position of strength but you'd have to believe that he knows that he's dealing from a position of utter weakness. Not even a tired liberal is that stupid.
Here's a little portion from the Bloomberg article:
Representative Joe Donnelly, a freshman Democrat from Indiana, voted with his party last month to tie funding for the Iraq war to a timeline for withdrawing troops. Now, with President George W. Bush vowing to veto the measure, Donnelly is ready to compromise.In other words, if defeatist Democrats like Reid, Pelosi and Murtha insist on tying Gen. Petraeus' hands, freshman Democrats like Donnelly and Nick Lampson and others will be one term wonders. What's worse is that Reid, Pelosi and Murtha will get blamed for abandoning the troops on the battlefield. Rest assured that that isn't the position that the Democrats want to be in entering a presidential election.
The Democratic-controlled Congress and Bush need to "try to find that middle place, work together, get the troops funded," Donnelly, 51, told constituents last week at a town- hall meeting in Logansport, Indiana. If the withdrawal timelines are waived or eliminated, he said, "so much the better."
Donnelly, who is among 30 House Democrats elected in districts previously held by Republicans, said Congress must avoid a showdown with the White House that will cut off funding for Iraq. While a majority of Americans now oppose the war, according to polls, the House bill setting a withdrawal date passed the House by a slim 218-212 margin.
Reid drew criticism from Bush and others last week when he said the war in Iraq had been lost. The Nevada Democrat did not repeat the assertion in his prepared speech, saying that "The military mission has long since been accomplished. The failure has been political. It has been policy. It has been presidential."Let's take this literally. Reid says that "the military mission has long since been accomplished." If he truly believes that, what is he basing that on? Is it based on the military being caught up in a 'civil war' that Iran is funding? Or is it based on the need to conduct more "targeted counter-terror operations"?
Simply put, Reid's doing his best not to sound defeatist while being defeatist. Reid's hoping that nobody notices. Unfortunately, when you're on the big stage, it's impossible to hide incompetence for very long. People are figuring out that Harry simply isn't ready for primetime.
Ms. Pelosi will cave soon. With freshman 'moderates' realizing that they can't get re-elected if they pull the rug out from under the military, it's only a matter of time before she'll be forced to choose between a House majority or pleasing the Insane Left.
When push comes to shove, politicians will choose re-election every time.
Another thing working against Sen. Reid is that he'll lose the Democrats' majority if he keeps pushing this defeatist majority. He'll force Joe Lieberman into the Republican caucus, which makes it a 50-50 split. Does Reid really want to push things that far? Again, politicians prefer positions of power. They prefer the title of chairman or Majority leader.
On the other hand, I invite Reid to keep pushing this defeatist agenda. In the words of Clint Eastwood "Make my day, Punk."
Posted Monday, April 23, 2007 12:42 PM
No comments.
Irate Marine Blasts Defeatists
The military is an accomplishment-oriented organization. They're good at taking orders but they aren't good at taking criticism lying down. Drudge has posted an email from PatDollard.com. To say that this Marine isn't happy with Democrats is understatement of extraordinary proportions.
Today, from Corporal Tyler Rock in an outpost in downtown Ramadi. His first sentence is in response to an email from me:I hope that Sen. Reid takes the time to read this and rethink his position on not funding the troops. He says that the war is lost but Corporal Rock vehemently disagrees. If given the choice between trusting a political hack like Harry Reid or trusting a soldier deployed in a formerly nasty neighborhood like Ramadi, I'll trust the soldier every day of the week & twice on Sundays. And it wouldn't even be close.
"yeah i know how you feel. its going to be very weird leaving this place and going back to america. weve been here for almost an entire year and have lived in the center of it the whole time. its crazy that when we got here it was so hectic and now its calmed down so much. so it was awesome to be able to see that turn out.
yeah news worth reporting,. well ramadi was once dubbed by everyone as the worst city in the world. but we have done such a great job here that all the families in the area have worked with us on driving out the insurgency and that we work directly with the IA and the IP's. the city has been cleaned up so well that the IP's do most of the patrols now and we go out with them to hand out candy and toys to the children. you can tell that the people want us here to protect them from the thugs and gangs (insurgents). granted they would rather have peace and quit but they know that if we arent here they will be thrown around by the insurgents. a good example is this one mission we did. long story short we got blown up in multiple buildings and had to run into a families house. i spent my christmas holidays covered in ash from the mortar fire and the IED's, sleeping under a dirty rug i found in the house. everyone was sleeping way to close for comfort just to stay warm. anyways. a family was there and they obviously didnt want us there. atleast at first. the daughters were very sick so our corpsman treated them. they didnt have electricity so we got them a generator for power, they were cold so we got them gas heaters, we got them food and water and then we gave them $500. by the end of the week long visit with them we were drinking tea with them. when we left we cleaned their house better than it was when we got there. i even have pictures with the family. they told us that they liked marines and they would help us as much as they could and they gave us some information on the insurgents in the area. we ended up catching a HUGE target down the road from there house because of it.
Part Of A Weapons Cache Seized Recently In Fields Next To What Used To Be An Insurgent Claimed Hospital. Thanks To 1/6, The Insurgents Don't Claim It Anymore. Zarqawi Had Reportedly Been Treated There.
yeah and i got a qoute for that douche harry reid. these families need us here. obviously he has never been in iraq. or at least the area worth seeing. the parts where insurgency is rampant and the buildings are blown to pieces. we need to stay here and help rebuild. if iraq didnt want us here then why do we have IP's voluntering everyday to rebuild their cities. and working directly with us too. same with the IA's. it sucks that iraqi's have more patriotism for a country that has turned to complete shit more than the people in america who drink starbucks everyday. we could leave this place and say we are sorry to the terrorists. and then we could wait for 3,000 more american civilians to die before we say "hey thats not nice" again. and the sad thing is after we WIN this war. people like him will say he was there for us the whole time.
and for messages back home. i have a wife back home who is going through a tough time. i just cant wait to be back home and see everyone. haha and i cant wait to go back home and get some starbucks. i love it when those people serve me. hahaha"
Reid, Pelosi, Murtha and the other Democratic defeatists deserve to be told that they're wrong. The defeatists need to be told that it's them that need to change course. They need to be told that they must support victory in Iraq, that they can't keep caving to the wishes of the anti-war activists in MoveCongress.org.
It's time that the military told the Democrats that they're wrong and they need to listen to the military, not some foul-mouthed pacifist from the counterculture crowd of the 70's.
Posted Monday, April 23, 2007 1:15 PM
Comment 1 by MariesTwoCents at 24-Apr-07 11:54 AM
You should check out Pat Dollard Now.
More Troops are speaking out and the letter you have here from one of our Troops was emailed 1 million times yesterday!
Go Troops!!!
Semper Fi!!!
Terse Smackdown
Jim at Gateway has posted a great video of Gen. Petraeus and President Bush meeting with reporters. The video provides a terse smackdown of Congress for acting like Commanders-in-chief.
This video will send a strong message to Congress that they won't get away with overstepping their bounds. It's long past time that President Bush lets Reid, Pelosi, Kennedy and Murtha have it with both barrels. Better late than never, right???
Posted Monday, April 23, 2007 3:42 PM
No comments.
Income Tax Increase Appears Dead
If this Strib article is accurate, then chances are that legislation creating a new 9 percent income tax bracket is as good as dead:
As the state House began work Monday on a tax bill that would provide tax relief to 90 percent of Minnesotans by raising income taxes on the highest earners, the head of the tax committee signaled that the income tax increase might never make it to the governor's desk.In other words, the DFL will still keep pushing this legislation even though their own members are quietly walking away from the legislation. If this is such a good deal for so many voters, why are they running away from it? It seems to me that that's an easy vote.
House Taxes Committee Chairwoman Rep. Ann Lenczewski, DFL-Bloomington, predicted that the bill would pass the House but said that not every DFLer is expected to vote for it. Although DFLers hold a strong majority, with 85 seats, they would need at least a handful of Republican votes to override an expected veto by the governor. And those votes may be hard to find.
I'd love hearing the DFL explanation why voters would walk away from a tax bill that would "provide tax relief to 90 percent of Minnesotans." Is it because they know that that's a phony statistic? Or is it that they think raising taxes on small businesses would sink Minnesota's economy into a full-blown recession? Or is it 'all of the above?'
UPDATE: I just spoke with a contact who works at the capitol. My contact said that the 90 percent figure probably means that 90 percent of Minnesotans would get property tax relief. This contact also said that that figure doesn't tell people that a significant portion of that 90 percent getting property tax relief would have other taxes increased.
I've been told by various legislators that the property tax 'relief' will be paid for by increasing commercial property taxes. These legislators call it a 'Rob Peter to pay Paul plan', which I find credible.
The sneaky thing about this article is that it's laying the groundwork for the Strib blaming the lack of property tax relief on the GOP in general & on Gov. Pawlenty specifically. We need to keep getting the word out via the blogs, LTE's & in conversations with our co-workers & neighbors that the DFL never intended to provide property tax relief. Ann Lenczewski said it herself:
House Taxes Committee Chair Ann Lenczewski says that everyone would benefit from the House DFL plan. The property tax relief isn't guaranteed, though:I've spoken often that that's the dirty little secret that the DFL is betting we'll ignore. Today, they bet wrong. We won't forget because it's just a ploy to increase taxes to pay off their political debts to their political allies.
However, that relief will not come if money is not available to fund it.
It was never about providing property tax relief.
I suggest that we use that deception as motivation to prepare for the 2008 campaign. If we don't outwork the DFL, we'll only have ourselves to blame when they try 'more of the same'. That's simply unacceptable.
UPDATE II: WCCO has posted an AP article that explains the tax increase vote a bit better:
Leaders of the House Taxes Committee on Monday put on paper a tough choice for their colleagues: Whether to raise taxes on the state's top incomes to ease the burden on most homeowners.In other words, this is simply a tax increase since it doesn't impose a limit on property taxes that a city or township could levy. That's why Rep. Lenczewski's statement that they're "trying to address" property tax relief is nothing more than spin for public consumption. It doesn't have a basis in fact.
That's the crux of a tax bill headed for a floor vote as soon as Friday.
Under it, those homeowners would qualify for property tax refunds of $250 to $2,500. But top earners would get stuck with the $440 million tab through a newly created fourth tax bracket of 9 percent.
"We heard around the state that what folks were most angry about in the tax area was their property taxes," said Committee Chairwoman Ann Lenczewski, DFL-Bloomington. "We've been trying to address it."
Republicans said the reliance on income tax money greatly clouds the proposal's chances. And they were quick to criticize it for not imposing limits on how fast local governments can raise property taxes, which they fear will cut into whatever relief the state provides.
I talked last night about the HHS spending bill. That legislation increased spending by $2 billion, eating up all of the surplus from the last budget. That's before they increased Education Minnesota's budget or before they paid for a single new road project.
According to the HHS bill, HHS spending will increase by 24.4 percent this biennium and by another 18 percent next biennium. That's clearly unsustainable even with the most prolific economy in world history.
The other thing that should disgust Minnesota's taxpayers is that the DFL is relying on the testimony of 'experts' who have a stake in the budget increases:
Last, the tax is neither a guarantee that the state won't borrow money later, and it's a shift of the costs of roads from the next generation to this one. If the roads are really "needed" -- and try defining need for me, Sen. Kelley, with something other than the statement of the people whose jobs depend on getting money to fulfill the "need" -- then our future income would be higher with the roads. Wouldn't it then make more sense for the people who will have higher income to pay off the bonds later rather than reduce the consumption and employment of the people who would pay for the roads now?In other words, this is the DFL's sneaky way of increasing taxes & spending while hiding behind the guise of fiscal moderation. By doing this, the DFL has given us ample reason for us not to trust them with guaranteeing Minnesota's fiscal health. They've sold out to their special interest allies. They will have left Minnesota's taxpayers with an inflation-riddled, sagging economy.
That's hardly a fair tradeoff.
Posted Monday, April 23, 2007 11:52 PM
No comments.
