February 20-21, 2007
Feb 20 02:44 Dems' Dirty Deeds Feb 20 03:51 Constitutional Showdown Looming? Feb 20 09:19 We're Talking Twins Baseball Feb 20 18:06 Stop the Press!!! Feb 20 22:09 We're Paying Them For This, Part III Feb 21 10:50 Hume Blasts Murtha Feb 21 11:26 Baltimore Sun Ambivalent About Losing Iraq War Feb 21 11:56 Count Me In, Too Feb 21 19:57 DFL Drops Another Priority
Prior Months: Jan
Prior Years: 2006
Dems' Dirty Deeds
As part of the House Republican's mailing list, I get their press releases. I just finished reading a press release from Assistant House Minority Leader Laura Brod on more of the DFL's dirty deeds. Here's her press release in its entirety:
ST PAUL - Following several hours of debate, the Minnesota House has approved legislation that accelerates Minnesota's renewable energy standards. There was bi-partisan support for the bill, but the process was particularly flawed.As I said here, Democrats have told Republicans that they won't get legislation passed without a Democrat co-sponsor. Cy Thao went so far as to tell Steve Gottwalt that in a committee hearing. That's the epitome of arrogance which they shouldn't get away with. I've talked with several legislators who've told me that Democrats are marking off their territory and that they aren't being allowed to offer their own legislation. What's worse is that Democrats are whining about Republicans offering amendments to legislation.
State Representative Laura Brod (R-New Prague) said she was disappointed that the House Democratic leaders decided to debate the bill in the evening when most Minnesotans wouldn't be as available or paying as much attention.
Typically, evening floor debates aren't held until the end of session, when many bills are returning from House-Senate conference committees. Brod said this evening session was done to punish Republicans.
"The Democrats are complaining that Republicans are wanting to debate the bills that are coming forward and are proposing too many amendments to the bills, so as punishment, they changed the floor session time to force time pressures due to a late hour that is outside of the typical floor session," Brod said.
"What they don't seem to understand is that we're not trying to waste time; we're only trying to improve what we see as flawed legislation," Brod continued. "Every lawmaker can and should offer amendments that they believe will make a bill better. Once again, the Democrats have an 'all or nothing legislative approach.' They seem to think that the definition of bi-partisan is when we agree with them, but when we disagree they claim that we are being partisan rather than debating the merits of the bills. It is unfortunate that they are not allowing Republicans to help improve the legislation that is being brought to the house floor."
While it appears that the Democrats seem to think that holding night sessions early in the year will deter Republicans from speaking up, but it won't. By not holding floor sessions during the day at regularly scheduled times, they're telling the average Minnesotan to not take an interest in their state government - and what a sad message that is. "We should be encouraging the open and honest debate so that the bills that are enacted into law are as good as they can be." Brod concluded.
A prime example of the Democrats' unwillingness to act in truly bipartisan way was Ms. Brod's tax cut legislation being ruled "not germane" to the tax conformity legislation during the first week of this session. We've also seen the silliness of their legislation here and here.
I'd seriously doubt that the average Minnesota voter would be impressed with their stubbornness and silliness. Isn't it time we sent serious legislators to St. Paul?
Posted Tuesday, February 20, 2007 2:44 AM
No comments.
Constitutional Showdown Looming?
Last Thursday, John Murtha told MoveCongress.org that the vote on the nonbinding resolution was merely the first step in cutting off funding for the troops. He's since gotten the support of Nancy Pelosi to start working on the second step in his plan, which is to place restrictions on the supplemental appropriation bill that would be impossible to meet and still continue fighting the war.
If Murtha succeeds in implementing those restrictions into the supplemental and the House approves the bill, there's certain to be a conference committee because I can't see the Senate voting for the Murtha bill. Let's suppose for the sake of argument that Reid's Democrats pass the supplemental. The next question would be "What happens next"?
There's really only three options at that point: (a) the President signs the bill and 'obeys' the bill's language; (b) the President vetoes the bill and tells Congress to pass a clean bill or (c) the President signs the bill and ignores the restrictions.
Option A won't happen because it would essentially end the war. Option B isn't likely to happen either because it would let the Democrats say that they didn't cut funding for the troops, that it was the president who cut funding.
That's why I think Option C is the most likely option. The reason why I think this is the option that President Bush would follow this course is rooted in the Constitution. It would set up a constitutional showdown that would revolve around the Legislative Branch micromanaging the war, something that the Constitution prohibits. Other pluses would be that Republicans would fired up by President Bush challenging the Democrats and it would cause the Loony Left to go berserk. Anytime that the Loony Left is the face of the Democratic Party, Republicans win.
Taking this path would also likely cause John Conyers to revive talk about impeaching President Bush. That doesn't stand a chance of happening because Democrats would lose control of the House of Representatives and wouldn't take the White House in 2008. A failed impeachment vote would be seen as a staggering repudiation of Pelosi, Murtha and Conyers, too.
Posted Tuesday, February 20, 2007 3:52 AM
No comments.
We're Talking Twins Baseball
If you're a Twins fan like I am, you can't get enough inside dirt on the Twins. It looks like we're in luck this season. As I wrote here, the Strib's LaVelle E. Neal is blogging from spring training.
Tonight, I found three more great baseball blogs: Twins Territory, the P-P's Jason Williams and the Strib's Joe Christensen. After reading them, I strongly recommend you bookmark all of these blogs ASAP.
On another front, it's great to have the Twins back in camp. After suffering through a lackluster (at best) Vikings season, it's great to have a championship-contending team to watch back in action. There's some question marks in the pitching staff but the daily lineup is solid and the DH situation is improved with the signing of Jeff Cirillo.
Posted Tuesday, February 20, 2007 9:19 AM
No comments.
Stop the Press!!!
Stop the press...from letting you believe that Americans don't care about winning in Iraq. That's not where people are at according to this poll. Here's a sampling of the poll questions and the results:
1. Now, generally speaking, would you say that things in the country are going in the right direction, or have they pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track?Here's some questions about Iraq;
28% RIGHT DIRECTION
67% WRONG TRACK
2. Do you approve or disapprove of the job that George W. Bush is doing as President?
21% STRONGLY APPROVE
18% SOMEWHAT APPROVE
13% SOMEWHAT DISAPPROVE
47% STRONG DISAPPROVE
4. Which one of the following statements regarding the US involvement in Iraq do you MOST agree with...Here are the questions that should have Democrats worried:
17% The US should immediately withdraw its troops from Iraq.
32% Whether Iraq is stable or not, the US should set and hold to set a strict timetable for withdrawing troops
23% While I don't agree that the US should be in the war, our troops should stay there and do whatever it takes to restore order until the Iraqis can govern and provide security to their country.
27% The Iraq War is the front line in the battle against terrorism and our troops should stay there and do whatever it takes to restore order until the Iraqis can govern and provide security to their country.
7. The Democrats are going too far , too fast in pressing the President to withdraw the troops from Iraq.The defeatists/pacifists in the Democrat Party are causing the party to make some poor policy decisions, decisions that might lead to their defeat in Election 2008. I wrote here that Democrats were overplaying their hand. This poll verifies my analysis.
[Somewhat or Strongly Agree] 53%
[Somewhat or Strongly Disagree] 46%
9. I support finishing the job in Iraq , that is, keeping the troops there until the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security for its people.
[Somewhat or Strongly Agree] 57%
[Somewhat or Strongly Disagree]41%
10. The Iraq War is a key part of the global war on terrorism.
[Somewhat or Strongly Agree] 57%
[Somewhat or Strongly Disagree] 41%
The response to the question "The Iraq War is a key part of the global war on terrorism" should also scare Democrats. In 2004, most people polled thought that the Iraq War was an issue separated from the GWOT. Now there's a solid majority of people who think it's a key battle in the GWOT.
My opinion is that this proves that last November's elections had far more to do with Republicans not acting like advocates of limited government and libertarianism than with their opposition to the war. I've said numerous times that the American public's dissatisfaction with the Iraq War was because we weren't making enough progress there.
This is the dirty little secret that nobody in the Democrat Party or their willing accomplices in the Agenda Media wants you to hear about. That's why we should chastise people like NBC News' Richard Engel for saying that the troops he talked with think we shouldn't stay in Iraq. Gateway Pundit wrote this historical perspective on Engel:
** October 26, 2006 NBC NewsBrian Williams knows that Engel has a history of pacifism. By saying that Engel is "the most agenda-less person I've met in our business", Williams goes too far, a trait he shares with other liberals, thereby destroying his credibility.
Via NewsBusters:
NBC anchor Brian Williams claims: "He is completely unbothered by any Web site that may have problems with his reporting while he's over in Iraq dodging bullets...He is the most agenda-less person I've met in our business, I think, in the past 20 years."
Later in the article Richard Engel admits, "I think war should be illegal," he says. "I'm basically a pacifist." Then he continues, "One time I watched a dog carry a severed human head in its mouth. You're smelling bodies, you're seeing people who are so angry and insanely distraught. The people who are being killed are too old, too stupid, too poor, too young or too weak, socially or otherwise, to leave.
The moral of this story is that you aren't wise if you trust the Agenda Media's 'reporting' of the GWOT as representative of where most Americans are at. Simply put, they're as out of touch with people as are elected Democrats.
One last question: Isn't it more than a little ironic that NBC News picked an avowed pacifist as their war correspondent?
Posted Tuesday, February 20, 2007 6:08 PM
Comment 1 by Josh at 21-Feb-07 10:05 AM
It should also scare democrats that the majority of people that took this poll were democrats. Just shows that even the democrats that aren't in office have more sense than the main stream media and the Washington Hillaryites. 'I can't believe I used the word "sense" and "democrats" in the same sentence. It will never happen again.
We're Paying Them For This, Part III
Here's the updated list of what silliness the DFL is proposing this week:
1. SO THEY LOADED UP THEIR TRUCK AND THEY MOVED TO BEVERLY: Rep. Scott Kranz (D-Blaine) wants landowners to buy their tenants mobile homes when trailer parks close. If a resident "chooses not to relocate the home to another manufactured home park," then the resident "is entitled to compensation to be paid by the park owner in
an amount equal to the estimated market value of the manufactured home." (House File 1205) House Authors: Kranz; Moe; Tschumper; Ozment ; Swails; Gardner
2. YOU'LL FLIP YOUR WIG: Rep. Frank Hornstein (D-Minneapolis)wants to create a new state bureaucracy to regulate "hair Transplant facilities." One of the purposes of investigating hair-weave artists is top make sure there is no "conduct which is likely to deceive, defraud, or harm the public." (House File 1069)
House Authors: Hornstein
3. CARDBOARD CASKETS, BUT NO PRIVATE BURIALS: Remember when you buried your childhood pet in a shoe box? Rep. Tina Liebling (D-Rochester) now wants to authorize the sale of "alternative containers for the encasement of dead human bodies" which are made of
"corrugated cardboard." If you want to conduct a private burial, you also would have to hire a person with a valid license to practice mortuary science for handling the body (see line 6.26). (House File 1072)
House Authors: Liebling; Thissen; Huntley; Gottwalt
4. COME TO AMERICA AND HANG AROUND A HIGH SCHOOL: Rep. Karen Clark (D-Minneapolis) would allow anyone over the age of 23 to enroll in a high school, even if they are not a resident of the school district, a citizen of the United States, or in possession of a diploma. (See line 2.5) (House File 1176)
House Authors: Clark; Walker; Greiling; Mariani
5. A BILL FOR THE HEALTH CONSCIOUS: Rep. Debra Hilstrom (D-Brooklyn Center) wants to continue the sales tax on "all food sold through vending machines, except milk, water, fruit, 100 percent fruit juices, yogurt, and salads." (House File 1156)
House Authors: Hilstrom; Lesch; Pelowski; Atkins
6. YOUR HEALTH INSURANCE IS GOING UP AGAIN: Minnesota is always in a race with Maryland to see how many services can be required to be covered by every health insurance policy in the state. Rep. Maria Ruud (D-Minnetonka) wants every premium payer to cover health insurance coverage to provide foreign language interpreters for each patient in the state. (House File 1077)
House Authors: Ruud; Thissen; Abeler ; Norton; Huntley; Davnie; Murphy, E.; Mahoney; Clark; Hausman; Hilstrom; Hornstein; Slawik; Liebling; Fritz; Heidgerken ; Otremba; Anzelc; Kahn; Peterson, S.; Mariani; Greiling; Mullery; Smith; Anderson, B. ; Atkins; Loeffler; Simpson ; Solberg; Dominguez; Dean ; Finstad; Hosch; Thao; Hamilton
7. OUTRAGEOUS LAND GRABS: Less than a year after Minnesota enacted sweeping Eminent Domain reforms, Rep. Steve Simon (D-St. Louis Park) is back with a bill to create permanent "uniform environmental covenants" which would allow the government to freeze or seize land where work is performed to clean up, eliminate, investigate, minimize, mitigate, or prevent the release or threatened release of contaminants affecting real property in order to protect public health or welfare or the environment." The government could apply heavy pressure on small land-owners to sign these covenants or face extensive litigation costs to prevent agency intrusions on their land. (House File 1063)
House Authors: Simon; Moe; Ozment ; Hansen
8. GOVERNMENT WILL MAKE THEM MAIL IN YOUR REBATE FORM: Rep. Carolyn Laine (D-Columbia Heights) would make it unlawful for a business to advertise a price that deducts a manufacturer's rebate "by displaying the net price of the advertised item (the price of the item after the rebate has been deducted from the item's price) in the advertisement, unless the amount of the manufacturer's rebate is provided to the consumer by the retailer at the time of the purchase of the advertised item. It shall be the retailer's burden to redeem the rebate offered to the consumer by the manufacturer." Further, it would be "unlawful for any person to refuse to accept a photocopy or other reasonable facsimile of an original sales receipt when a consumer is redeeming a rebate." (House File 1104)
House Authors: Laine; Kalin; Anzelc; Brynaert; Knuth; Tillberry
9. PUTTING "LGA" ON AUTO-PILOT INCREASES: Rep. Kim Norton (D-Rochester) would create permanent budget increases for the Local Government Aids program which shifts money from all townships and most suburbs to all large cities and many mid-sized communities. (House File 1115)
House Authors: Norton; Marquart; Tschumper; Liebling
10. NO FURTHER FOUR-WHEELING: Rep. Frank Moe (D-Bemidji) would ban the DNR from allowing further use of Department lands for four-by-four truck trails. (House File 1127). House Authors: Moe; Howes
Remember that we're paying legislators real money to come up with this legislation. Taxpayers everywhere should be outraged at this list. King mentioned that Phyllis Kahn was a rich vein for silly bill-mining. After reviewing this list, I'd say that King's analysis is right on the money. (Pardon the pun.)
Originally posted Tuesday, February 20, 2007, revised 27-Feb 2:18 PM
No comments.
Hume Blasts Murtha
During the FNS roundtable, Brit Hume unleashed a devastating, and long overdue, attack on John Murtha. Here's what Hume said:
HUME: That sound bite you played from John Murtha suggests that it's time that a few things be said about him. Even the Washington Post noted that he didn't seem particularly well informed about what's going on over there, to say the least. Look, this man has tremendous cache among House Democrats, but he is not... this guy is long past the day when he had anything but the foggiest awareness of what the heck is going on in the world.I've been pointing this out since last May when Murtha declared that the Haditha Marines were guilty of cold-blooded murder before the investigation was complete and before he'd been briefed on the issue. I ridiculed Murtha for saying that 80% of Iraqis want us out of their country, which was patently absurd since the Shi'ites didn't want the US out of Iraq because they knew Saddam's forces would destroy their newly elected government. I said then that it's mathematically impossible for 80% of the people want us out ASAP when 60% of the people want us to stay until the Iraqi military can secure the country.
And that sound bite is naivete writ large, and the man is an absolute fountain of such talk. And the fact that he has ascended to the position that he has in the eyes of the Democrats in the House and perhaps Democrats around the country tells you a lot about how much they know or care about what's really going on over there.
John Murtha is a doddering old fool who would lose every debate against a Republican if it were based on facts and coherence. The only reason why he's got a sliver of credibility is because everyone looks at his resume and assumes that he's got a clue. It's time that people did some critical thinking about Mr. Murtha. It's time that the voters of PA-12 started valuing good policy over pork. The minute that happens, he'll be run out of the House and we'll get Diana Irey in the House.
When Murtha called for his immediate redeployment 15 months ago, I thought of him as a buffoon but I wasn't angry with him. I changed when he played judge, jury and executioner to the Haditha Marines, accusing them of cold-blooded murder who "cracked" because they'd been deployed too long. I said then that I didn't take kindly to people who threw out the Constitution for political expediency. Now Murtha's ignored the Constitution again by codifying into his legislation the micromanagement of the troops. Congress can choose to not fund the troops but it can't tell the President how he prosecutes the war once he's been authorized to go to war.
The thing that bothers me most about this is that Murtha's legislation would deny reinforcements to the troops already there.
That isn't my idea of supporting the troops.
Posted Wednesday, February 21, 2007 10:52 AM
No comments.
Baltimore Sun Ambivalent About Losing Iraq War
One thing became abundantly clear in reading the Baltimore Sun's editorial on the Iraq War: that they're obsessed with the politics of the war and utterly disinterested in winning the war Here's an example of what I'm referring to:
Within the administration, there are those who worry that the White House and Congress are heading toward a dangerous constitutional crack-up. (Naturally, their hope is that Congress backs off.) But if opponents of the president's direction of the war succeed in carefully building a solid and ever-larger base of public opinion on their side, they must eventually prevail. A constitutional crisis over the appropriate war powers of Congress can be averted by sound political spadework.These editorialists didn't mention winning the war, a sign that they either think that the war isn't winnable or isn't worth winning. Their concern is stated clearly in that last two sentences: "Make them reaffirm their support for a resolution that justifies the war on the basis of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. The important thing then is to keep the pressure up, and keep it building."
Bills that will put the administration on the spot are not a bad way to start. Make the president's allies vote against proper equipment and training. Make them reaffirm their support for a resolution that justifies the war on the basis of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. The important thing then is to keep the pressure up, and keep it building.
The good news for Republicans is that Americans aren't defeatists like the Democrats' activists:
7. The Democrats are going too far , too fast in pressing the President to withdraw the troops from Iraq.As I said here, Democrats are overplaying their hand. Based on this editorial, I suspect that the Agenda Media is playing a major role in getting them thinking that unilaterally declaring defeat is good politics.
[Somewhat or Strongly Agree] 53%
[Somewhat or Strongly Disagree] 46%
9. I support finishing the job in Iraq , that is, keeping the troops there until the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security for its people.
[Somewhat or Strongly Agree] 57%
[Somewhat or Strongly Disagree]41%
10. The Iraq War is a key part of the global war on terrorism.
[Somewhat or Strongly Agree] 57%
[Somewhat or Strongly Disagree] 41%
They'll regret taking that advice in 2008.
Posted Wednesday, February 21, 2007 11:27 AM
No comments.
Count Me In, Too
Patrick Ruffini is linking to this AP article on John Kasich announcing his interest in running for governor of Ohio. Pat says that they should count him in if Kasich runs. I'd gladly join that campaign. Here's Ted Strickland's response to Kasich's announcement:
Strickland, a longtime colleague of Kasich's in Congress, said he isn't surprised Kasich is considering returning to politics. "If I do a good job, I don't think anybody will be able to beat me if I chose to run again," Strickland said. "And if I don't do a good job, probably a whole lot of people could beat me if I chose to run again."I agree with the second quote in that statement but I think John Kasich would still beat Strickland whether Strickland did a good job or not. Kasich is a charismatic leader who believes in and who has a strong record of cutting taxes, balancing the budget and reforming government. Ted Strickland doesn't have any of those qualities. I found this quote utterly laughable:
Ohio Democratic Chairman Chris Redfern expressed skepticism that Kasich could win statewide office, calling him "an apologist for President Bush and his administration's policies, and those policies have hurt states like Ohio."John Kasich isn't a Bush apologist. He's a true movement conservative who disagrees with the President on immigration policy and spending restraint. They both agree in cutting taxes, vigorously fighting the jihadists and nominating sane judges who don't view themselves as superlegislators.
Those are just some of the reasons why I suspect that John Kasich will be the next governor of Ohio regardless of the job Strickland does. Frankly, the only thing that might keep him from that job is if Rudy picks him as his running mate in 2008.
The only thing that kept Ken Blackwell out of the governorship was an Ohio Republican Party that was riddled with scandal. That won't be a consideration in 2010, especially with a reform-minded leader like John Kasich at the top of the ticket.
Posted Wednesday, February 21, 2007 11:59 AM
No comments.
DFL Drops Another Priority
Breaking campaign promises seems to be the only thing that Democrats are good at these days. Additional proof of that came yesterday when Speaker Margaret Anderson-Kelliher announced on MPR that they were scrapping reforming Minnesota health care this year:
According to MPR...DFL House Speaker Margaret Kelliher says her caucus will have to sacrifice total health care reform this year but will focus on the issue in 2008.A GOP staffer sent this comparison of what Democrats stand for and what Republicans have advocated:
They don't have a health care plan. We do.Considering how Democrats have proposed a plethora of tax increases this session and their desire to dramatically increase spending, the chances of this DFL legislature not increasing taxes are less than zero, if that's possible. As I said here, I agreed with Mike Hatch when he said that they could increase education funding without raising taxes. I said then that they could do that but they wouldn't do that.
They don't have a higher ed plan. We do.
They don't have a tax relief plan. We do.
They don't have an Ag plan. We do.
We will also have a budget plan that doesn't raise taxes. The odds of
the DFL doing the same? 0
Frankly, the DFL isn't the party of ideas. They're the party that tries cobbling some things together based on what the squeakiest wheel activist tells them they want. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, the Republican Party is the party of ideas:
Moynihan finds much to criticize among all Democrats. They are filled with hubris and "ideological certainty," he maintains. Clinton "won by default as much as anything, but set out to govern as if he had a mandate for all manner of governing." Meanwhile, the Republicans were "becoming the party of ideas," as congressional Democrats were stuck defending the status quo.Moynihan first reached that conclusion in 1978. That opinion was strengthened during the Reagan administration. It's the conclusion that he took to his grave in 2003. His observations were about the Democratic Party in general but they're very much on the money in describing the DFL. There isn't a charismatic thinker in their entire caucus. What we've seen from the House DFL is a collection of legislation intended to satisfy each of their 'squeaky wheel activists'.
That's one way of keeping their crumbling coalition together but it's hardly the way a thinking party would unite a broad coalition of people on a set of common goals.
There's two other thing about abandoning comprehensive health care reform: (a) Democrats must think that health care is an issue that's best discussed in an election year, something that puts Republicans on the defensive; (b) they aren't joining with Republicans because they don't believe in letting free markets provide the solutions.
Republicans are perfectly willing to let markets, patients and companies figure out the best solutions to this problem. Democrats are opposed to that, believing that the government that thinks they need to regulate child safety devices in shopping carts will provide the best solution to the health care/health insurance problem. That's wayward thinking if ever I heard wayward thinking. Let's compare what they're saying now vs. what they said during the campaign:
"Minnesotans want positive leadership and positive change," House DFL leader Margaret Anderson Kelliher said. "They want their legislature to focus on the issues and values that matter to all Minnesotans: a great education for our kids, access to affordable health care for everyone, protection and enjoyment of our environment, a fair tax system and building a stronger economy. We believe our agenda does that and offers our state a new positive direction.As we've just seen, they've dropped their push for "affordable health care coverage for all Minnesotans". They haven't stopped pushing for a dime a gallon increase in the gas tax. They haven't stopped considering adding a constitutional amendment to the ballot in 2008 to increase our sales tax by 3/8ths of a cent. Their 'reform' of our education system is nothing but a payoff to the education lobby while not demanding teacher accountability. Tarryl Clark told me at a town hall meeting that they'd be conducting vigorous oversight. Perhaps I've missed it but I haven't heard of any oversight hearings on the education budget. Is that another thing that they'll drop? Or is it that there was never any serious consideration made to trimming fat from the budget?
"We believe Minnesota voters will have a clear choice this November. We can have more of the same over-crowded classrooms, rising health care costs, exploding college tuition, sky-rocketing property taxes or we can refocus on the issues and values that made Minnesota a success in the first place."
According to Kelliher, the House DFL Agenda for Minnesota will:"Our agenda relies heavily on the greatest resource we have in Minnesota the talent and innovation of our citizens," Kelliher said. "It focuses on strategic investments in our schools, targeting our youngest learners, as well as those headed to college and post-graduate training . It builds on the state's long history of innovation when it comes to health care and renewable fuels, protects our most valuable natural resources and does it in a fiscally-responsible and fair way."
- Work to provide affordable health care coverage for all Minnesotans, including children and seniors.
- Guarantee excellent educational opportunities for every child.
- Cut Minnesota property taxes.
- Reduce the tuition increase of the past four years and tackle student debt.
- Dedicate funding for outdoor habitats, wetlands and waters.
- Pass a Renewable Energy Standard & reduce fuel costs.
- Provide government reform and accountability.
Considering how Senate Democrats passed legislation that adds an inflation escalator into the budget forecast, I'd say that it's more likely that they'd prefer spending to constantly increase rather than eliminating wasteful spending.
The most laughable item on the list is them saying they'd "provide government reform and accountability." They wouldn't know a reform if it bit them in the backside. Their type of accountability is holding businesses accountable through overregulation. They don't believe in holding themselves accountable. At least, I haven't seen proof of them holding themselves accountable.
Posted Wednesday, February 21, 2007 7:57 PM
No comments.
