May 9-10, 2007
May 09 04:09 Pawlenty to DFL: Status Quo Not Good Enough May 09 12:26 Dems' Plan B Is DOA May 09 12:49 Fad, Not Trend May 09 16:06 Hagel Still Thinks He's Taken Seriously May 10 02:50 Durbin: I'm Complicit in Lying Us Into War May 10 04:17 Guilt By Association May 10 08:07 Let's Ridicule Phyllis Kahn May 10 16:56 Property Tax Relief??? May 10 20:26 Spinning the Tax Increase
Prior Years: 2006
Pawlenty to DFL: Status Quo Not Good Enough
Gov. Tim Pawlenty has a simple message for the DFL: the DFL's Higher Education bill is all status quo & no reform. Here's the heart of the matter:
That didn't appear to be the case as Pawlenty said he will reject the entire bill when it reaches his desk. It includes a version of the Dream Act, charging the same tuition to everyone, at six technical colleges. More than a dozen colleges already have that program. "It's devoid of any reform," Pawlenty said Tuesday, adding that it proposes spending $100 million more than his budget in 2010-11.Think about this: The DFL's 2008-2009 budget spends $100 million more than Gov. Pawlenty's 2010-2011 budget. The next thing that we need to consider is that the bill doesn't have anything in it that remotely resembles reform. Finally, though the DFL eliminated the Dream Act from part of the bill, they wouldn't drop it for technical colleges. Why does the DFL want to reward illegal immigrants? It's simply absurd.
The GOP governor especially was upset that the compromise bill did not include reforms he suggested, such as Achieve, his plan to provide free college education to many Minnesota students. "It insures that our higher ed institutions will operate in status quo mode," Pawlenty said of the Democrat-authored bill. "It is underwhelming, uninspiring."
One of the biggest reasons why the DFL doesn't reform anything is because they've never considered the possibility that their legislation has any flaws in it. Republicans need to challenge them with facts & ideas. If we don't engage them with ideas, we'll never have a reform-minded legislature.
One facet of any reform movement is to think in idealistic terms. If we don't think about the ideal world, we can't do much more than tinker around the edges. That won't cut it. There's too much waste in the budget. The Higher Education budget is just today's example of that wasteful budget.
Rukavina said the higher education conference committee, which he led with Pappas, agreed on a pilot initiative that could lead to Achieve. "We can't afford to start a whole new program," Rukavina said.Think about Rep. Rukavina's statement. The DFL had plenty of money in the budget to offer in-state tuition for illegal immigrants but they don't have money for Gov. Pawlenty's Achieve initiative reforms. What's wrong with that picture? This isn't difficult to figure out. In fact, it's so obvious that I'm amazed that the DFL doesn't see the foolishness of their ways.
By passing this bill, the DFL has said that granting sweetheart deals to illegal immigrants is a higher priority than passing legislation with real reforms that help Minnesota families. That's the trait of an intellectually bankrupt political party. At their core, the DFL is allergic to reform because they're intellectually lazy.
If this information isn't enough to get GOP activists don't get off their hands, then we deserve the DFL's type of government. It's time that we started telling our little corner of the world about our ideas & why they're superior. If we don't, we'll just have more DFL dominance in St. Paul. Frankly, we can't afford that.
Posted Wednesday, May 9, 2007 4:09 AM
Comment 1 by ryan t at 09-May-07 05:42 PM
Just a correction - the DREAM act would not cost money. Otherwise you'e spot on.
Dems' Plan B Is DOA
President Bush didn't mince words about the 'new' Democrat legislation to undercut fund the troops. According to this AP article, President Bush would veto the bill. I suspect that's because it isn't really a funding bill as much as it's a war-on-installments bill.
President Bush would veto a bill drafted by House Democratic leaders that would fund the Iraq war only into the summer months, his spokesman said Wednesday. The Democrats' proposal would pay for the war through July, then give Congress the option of cutting off money after that if conditions do not improve. Bush requested more than $90 billion to fund the war through September.When Carl Levin announced that they'd fund the troops, the nutroots went wild. They're now demanding the defunding of the troops, something that won't fly with the American people. While they don't like the Iraq war, they're loathe to the notion of cutting off funding to the troops in the war.
"There are restrictions on funding and there are also some of the spending items that were mentioned in the first veto message that are still in the bill," White House press secretary Tony Snow said on Air Force One traveling with Bush. Asked directly if Bush would veto the House bill in its current form, Snow said, "Yes."
Their latest scheme is another 'too-clever-by-half' plan that only the nutroots could've thought up. The good news is that the House legislation is essentially DOA in the Senate.
This funding bill doesn't make sense from a policy standpoint, either. The House bill would cut off funding about a month after the buildup is complete, hardly a legitimate way to measure the surge's full effects. Simply put, this legislation isn't serious policy. It's just Pelosi's and Murtha's way of pleasing the Nutroots donors.
Posted Wednesday, May 9, 2007 12:29 PM
No comments.
Fad, Not Trend
That's the only way to describe this article in the New Republic. Here's the first tip that it isn't rooted in the truth:
In the 2000 election, of course, Florida was the ultimate swing state. But in 2004, George W. Bush won the state handily, and Republican Mel Martinez captured retired Democrat Bob Graham's Senate seat, thanks especially to Christian conservative support in rural districts. Florida, it seemed, was becoming as dependable a red state as Georgia or Alabama. But the closing of Coral Ridges' political arm is just the latest sign that the Christian right is no longer at the center of Florida politics. Indeed, Florida is becoming less like a Deep South state and more like Virginia or even--perish the thought! -- California. It isn't necessarily becoming Democratic, but its voters are moving steadily away from the conservatism of President Bush and Reverend Kennedy.I have several friends who are GOP activists in Florida, including one person who chairs his county's Republican Party. The notion that Florida is getting bluer is nonsense. In fact, my contacts say that Democrat efforts to cut off funding of troops is turning more people off towards the Dems. My contacts also point to several local chairs of the NAACP switching party affiliation to the GOP as proof that this is still a solidly red state.
One obvious indication of this trend was last November's congressional elections. Democratic Senator Bill Nelson easily won re-election, and the Democrats stole two Republican House seats (and would have won a third around Sarasota if not for touch-screen shenanigans). Democrats also picked up seven seats in the Florida House and the statewide position of chief financial officer.Bill Nelson ran against the most pathetic candidate in major party history. If Tom Gallagher not been so stubborn in running for governor, Bill Nelson would've been retired last election. One of the seats that this article talks about is Mark Foley's seat, which will return to the GOP in 2008. That's hardly an 'etched-in-stone' type of political shift. In fact, I'd say it qualifies more as a fad than a trend.
I've recommended that people read entire articles because they're well-written and show a solid logic. This isn't one of those articles.
Posted Wednesday, May 9, 2007 12:50 PM
No comments.
Hagel Still Thinks He's Taken Seriously
If you look up the GOP definition of chutzpah, you'll find an 8x10 picture of Chuck Hagel. He's back in the news, this time not ruling out a presidential bid as an independent. Frankly, I hope he goes this route for several reasons. Let's first look at Hagel's 'announcement':
After a foreign policy speech in Washington focusing on Iraq, Nebraska Republican Senator Chuck Hagel hinted to NBC that he is considering an option to enter the 2008 presidential race as an independent. Hagel said he will, "wait and see." But added that he has not ruled anything out, "the option is still open" he said for an independent candidate.At this point, Hagel's decision is almost irrelevant. Nebraska's Attorney General Jon Bruning is seeking to replace Hagel in the Senate. Here's what the Hill reported in April:
Last week Hagel told Bloomberg's Al Hunt that, "I don't ever foreclose any options." And Hagel said to Hunt that he will decide in the next few months whether to run for a third Senate term, pursue the presidency or leave politics altogether. He also told Bloomberg an independent bid "is possible."
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.I titled that post "Vultures Circling Hagel's Political Corpse?" because I've joined hundreds of thousands of GOP political activists who've all but written Hagel off. I said in that post that Hagel was this year's Linc Chafee and that his position on the war is closer to John Murtha's than any mainstream Republican thinking. I'll stand by that opinion.
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.
What's funny about the Hagel story is how MSNBC is reporting it. This afternoon, the Washington Post's Jonathan Weisman was a guest on MSNBC Live. He said that Hagel likely would be re-elected if he ran because "there isn't a viable Republican to run against him." Mr. Weisman shouldn't have said that. Instead, he should've done some actual research into this because AG Bruning is certainly "a viable Republican" candidate.
A Hagel presidential bid as an independent would kill two birds with one stone:
1. He'd essentially give his Senate seat to Bruning by eliminating a primary fight.
2. As an independent presidential candidate, he'd strip more votes from the Democrat than from the GOP-endorsed candidate because of his anti-war policies.
Either way, it's difficult seeing a future for Hagel in the GOP. He's the GOP equivalent of the Lil Abner character who had the rain cloud forever following him around. Hagel is as pessimistic as he is a defeatist. We don't need that type in the GOP.
Posted Wednesday, May 9, 2007 4:07 PM
Comment 1 by Leo Pusateri at 09-May-07 10:41 PM
A legend in his own mind, I see...
Durbin: I'm Complicit in Lying Us Into War
Based on this Dennis Byrne column, that's essentially what he's saying. Here's what's at issue:
"At the time of this debate," he recently said on the Senate floor, "I was a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. And I would read the headlines in the paper in the morning and watch the television newscasts and shake my head...Then, based on that misinformation, he voted nay on authorizing the Iraq War. What's interesting is that several of his Democratic colleagues on the Intel Committee voted to authorize the war. Here's that list:
"The information we had in the Intelligence Committee was not the same information being given to the American people. I couldn't believe it...So in my frustration, I sat on the floor of the Senate and listened to this heated debate about invading Iraq thinking the American people are being misled, they are not being told the truth."
Rockefeller, Edwards, Feinstein and BayhI don't know if Senator Durbin can explain why these senators would vote for war knowing that the American people were being misled. It seems to me that his saying that the intel was being manipulated indicts Rockefeller, Edwards, Feinstein and Bayh of voting for war while knowing that President Bush was lying us into war.
Of course, that assumes that you take Sen. Durbin at his word, a shaky proposition at best. After all, Sen. Durbin has a history of " sanding off the truth " every now and then. After all, Sen. Durbin is the politician who said this:
"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags or some mad regime, Pol Pot or others, that had no concern for human beings," Durbin said last week.Immediately after saying that, he went on what can best be described as a mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa tour of the major news networks in an attempt to rehabilitate himself. In this world of five second attention spans, most people had probably forgotten about Durbin's comments comparing US soldiers to Nazis, Soviet gulag guards and Pol Pot. Now that he's shot his mouth off again, we get to ridicule his latest foolish quote while reminding voters of his past foolish quotes.
Let's put this all together. Here's what we can verify about Sen. Durbin:
- He's lied about the guards at Gitmo using torture to get intelligence which he suggests is of questionable value.
- He's compared US soldiers with Hitler's Gestapo, the Soviet gulag guards and Pol Pot's terrorists.
- He's accused President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Sens. Rockefeller, Feinstein, Edwards and Bayh of taking us to war on manipulated intelligence.
- He's also said that the Senate Intelligence Committee's Phase One report of whitewashing the truth. That isn't a direct quote but it didn't need to be. Remember that the report said that President Bush didn't manipulate the intelligence. Remember that the findings of the Senate Intelligence Committee Phase One report were unanimously approved, too.
Why isn't he still sworn to secrecy? Did his oath of secrecy expire? If it expired, when did it expire? If it expired, why didn't he speak out about this sooner?
Isn't it more likely that this is just another politically-calculated stunt pulled to get the Nutroots to contribute more money?
What kind of man would do something as heinous as that?
Posted Thursday, May 10, 2007 2:51 AM
No comments.
Guilt By Association
CAIR's Ahmed Bedier has accused a Florida reporter of being a Steve Emerson shill because he's accepted a job to work at the Investigative Project on Terrorism, which Emerson is the director of. Let me first say that being associated in any way with Steve Emerson is something that I'd wear as a badge of honor. Let me also stipulate that I'd consider it an honor to be slandered by someone like Ahmed Bedier. Let's cut to the slander:
"We always had suspicions that Fechter was virtually an agent for Emerson," Ahmed Bedier, executive director of the Tampa chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, was quoted as saying. "Now we know that their relationship was close enough for Emerson to hire Fechter and for Fechter to take the job. So much for objective reporting."Here's Fechter's response:
"My work on Al-Arian was 99 percent driven by documents, not Emerson," he is quoted as saying by the paper. "The documents showed Al-Arian had links to a terrorist group and lied about it. Maybe there was no violent, criminal activity there, but the connection was real."CAIR's 'Flying While Muslim' campaign allowed them to talk about the public's ignorance of all things Muslim. They essentially said, 'Yes, we know that the 9/11 hijackers were Middle Eastern Muslims but that doesn't mean that all Middle Eastern Muslims are terrorists.' In essence, they were saying that we shouldn't play the 'guilt by association' card.
Isn't it interesting that they're taking this opportunity to play the 'guilt by association card' themselves? Clearly, Michael Fechter did his own research, came to his own conclusions based on verifiable facts and documents. That he reached the same conclusions that Steve Emerson, Joe Kaufman and Daniel Pipes came to is testimony that he followed the facts, then applyied sound logic to the information.
It's worth noticing that Bedier didn't refute Fechter's information. Bedier simply launched a character assassination diatribe. Isn't it likely that Mr. Bedier didn't refute the information because he knows that he couldn't refute the information?
Fechter has for a decade claimed in his writing for the newspaper that Sami Al-Arian, a University of South Florida professor, was linked to the Palestinian terrorist group Islamic Jihad.Actually, according to this FrontPageMag article, al-Arian pled guilty to "conspiracy to make or receive contributions of funds to or for the benefit of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a Specially Designated Terrorist" organization."
Clearly, Fechter is guilty of nothing more than accurately reporting about al-Arian. This proves yet again that CAIR is perfectly willing to smear anyone who reports anything negative about Muslims. It's obvious that they'll smear the person even if he's told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
What type of organization would smear a man for accurately reports the truth? How many upstanding organizations employ such tactics?
Posted Thursday, May 10, 2007 7:37 AM
Comment 1 by RepublicansHateHateHate at 12-May-07 11:55 PM
Good god. I just read someone attacking a democrat for suggesting Bush,Cheney,Rice, etc., were less than truthful so we could go to war in Iraq. Exactly what would make you see the truth and stop defending the war criminal Bush? If he shot people in the head during a press conference? What will it take for you to pull your head out?
Comment 2 by Muslims Against Sharia at 10-Nov-07 07:32 PM
Emerson, a Jew who gets it
A perspective of a moderate Muslim
At the risk of sounding anti-Semitic, I want to say this: either American Jews are completely clueless about the internal struggle inside Islam or they are so cowardly, that they are even afraid to voice their opinion. Or maybe it's a combination of both.
Every time there is a development that involves radical Islam, be it a Mayor of New York attending an Islamist parade, DOJ's officials attending an Islamist conference, or a protester being sued for having the balls to expose an Islamist-sponsored event at an amusement park, the American Jewish community is as quiet as a church mouse. It's like it is not even there.
The effect of this silence is devastating. Not for the Jewish community, not yet. That time is still to come. The silence affects the American Muslim community. Every time moderate Muslims are ignored and Islamists are legitimized (by either direct support from government representatives or silent support of the ADL), radicals gain ground. In the current PC climate, moderate Muslims have pretty much no choice but to keep their mouths shut.
Luckily for us, not everyone in the Jewish community is like that. There are some Jews that are speaking out. One of them is Steven Emerson, who has been warning the West about the dangers of Islamic fundamentalism since before PanAm 103. Most of his current work is focused on exposing the radicals masquerading as the moderates ; those radicals who are embraced by the DOJ and the Pentagon, by the mayor of New York Bloomberg (Rudy would never get into bed with terrorist supporters) and the Treasury Department, by the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security, by the Congress and the White House.
There is a war of ideas within Islam, and moderate Muslims are losing. Most of Muslim clergy and Muslim establishment are paid for by the Wahhabis. Moderate Muslims are being run out of Mosques and community centers, and in many cases are physically threatened. Moderate Muslims have no place in the media or public debate, because the place reserved for Muslims is filled by Islamic radicals, who attempt to make criticizing anything Islamic a taboo. According to the Islamists, a Muslim can do no wrong.
1. When a non-Muslim criticizes Islam or Muslims, he/she is an Islamophobe.
2. When a Muslim criticizes Islam or Muslim, he/she is not a real Muslim, therefore see #1.
This is a tactic used by "moderate" Muslims, the darlings of the government and the media. But how can you call someone who praises bin Laden, or has ties to Hamas, or calls for the elimination of Israel, or wants to replace the Constitution with the Koran a moderate? They are anything but moderates, however nobody except for a few people like Steven Emerson seems to notice that. But even when the Emersons of America appeal to the public, they are often being dismissed as alarmists and racists. Well, they are anything, but. You don't have to be a clairvoyant to predict the future when it comes to expansion of radical Islam and extinction of moderate Muslims. All you need to do is get your heads out of the sand.
Why our government is so forgiving and forgetful when it comes to individuals or organizations with known terrorist ties and anti-American views is beyond me. Why the Jewish leaders are so timid when it comes to the subject of radical Islam is incomprehensible.
I thank God every day for people like Steven Emerson, because they are the last glimmer of hope for moderate Muslims.
K.M.
Original post
Let's Ridicule Phyllis Kahn
Phyllis Kahn thinks that Gov. Pawlenty's administration is bloated & needs trimming. She's promised to keep trying to cut its size even after he vetoed the bill the first time. Here's what's happening:
The administration was targeted for cuts in a bill funding state government because it has become bloated, said Rep. Phyllis Kahn, co-chairwoman of the state government finance conference committee.I think that it's time to ridicule Phyllis Kahn for her blatant attempt to play politics with this funding bill. Did she think nobody in the Pawlenty administration would mention that her legislation would dramatically boost the size of the legislative staff while shrinking the administration's staff?
Pawlenty nixed the committee's compromise bill on Monday, noting that it would have simultaneously expanded funding for the Minnesota Legislature while cutting jobs in his administration.
"It doesn't make sense for the Legislature to increase their budget by 19 percent while eliminating dozens of state agency employees who help manage several thousand employees," said Pawlenty spokesman Brian McClung.
The bill would have scaled back Pawlenty administration funding by $7.3 million. Those cuts were slated to come from deputy commissioners, assistant commissioners and other political appointees.
Is it possible that she's that stupid? I know she's a moonbat liberal but that's pushing the envelope even for them. God help us if she is.
Minnesotans will recognize this is simply the DFL's attempt to take a cheapshot at Gov. Pawlenty. This won't sit well with Minnesota's voters because they essentially believe in the concept of Minnesota Nice. This isn't the type of thing that's likely to move voters but it is something that'll leave a bad taste in their mouth. It's something that, if it's reported, will knock their approval ratings down a bit.
Future administration cuts considered by the conference committee may be less prescriptive, Kahn said.Brian, it isn't wise to apply logic to the DFL. Their logic is almost non-existent. Here's the most laughable explanation I've seen in ages:
Remaining administration-level positions would have received the same 3 percent pay increase as other state offices under the bill.
Sen. Gary Kubly serves on the conference committee and said some top-level hirings smacked of cronyism. Several of the jobs have been filled by former Republican legislators, he said.
"Why weren't these people needed before?" Kubly, DFL-Granite Falls said. "I think he's got as many assistant commissioners as anybody's ever had."
McClung said "a handful" of former Republican lawmakers comprise administration employees.
"The people who are serving in these posts have a variety of experiences, including legislative service," McClung said. "Since our agencies work with the Legislature, you'd think current legislators would find that background useful."
Kubly and Kahn, DFL-Minneapolis, called the Legislature's funding increase reasonable. The bulk of funding goes toward critical technology upgrades, they said.Phyllis, you don't need a $24 million increase to upgrade the network . A million dollars would give them a state of the art network with money left over. Notice that it the legislative budget isn't $24 million. Notice that it says that there'd be a $24 million increase. Here's the final statement that needs ridiculing:
"We have computers crashing all the time," Kahn said.
She said many legislative areas receiving a funding bump under the bill "have been starved in recent years."Let's apply some logic to that statement. Is she saying that the GOP starved themselves while they were in the majority in the House & with a Republican governor? Does Phyllis Kahn think that we'll buy that their budgets have been starved?
Let's recognize this for what it is. Let's recognize this as the DFL playing politics with the Pawlenty administration. Let's recognize that this isn't serious legislation.
Posted Thursday, May 10, 2007 8:07 AM
No comments.
Property Tax Relief???
The Senate Taxes Committee passed another 'property tax relief' bill yesterday. The catch is that it increases taxes overall. Here's the details as reported in the WC Trib:
The Taxes Committee approved a House-passed proposal "in the event this session stalls, and we are not able to get an omnibus tax bill out," Committee Chairman Sen. Tom Bakk, DFL-Cook, said. The bill "is a safety valve" in case the broader tax bill stalls, Bakk said.In other words, the DFL is still attempting to 'soak the rich' while providing a little property tax relief. How permanent is this property tax relief? It isn't sustainable when a bunch of the small businesses that would pay the income taxes will be moving to South Dakota.
It would increase income taxes on couples earning more than $400,000 annually to finance a bigger property tax refund program $223 million. Another $229 million would go to schools to lower their property tax levies.
According to testimony given in the House Taxes Committee, 59 percent of the people paying the income tax increase would be small business owners. Another thing that's worth considering is the fact that 11 Democrats voted with the GOP on this bill. If this was such good policy, Democrats would've gotten Republicans to come their way.
Sen. Warren Limmer, R-Maple Grove, said Democrats are greedy in supporting the income tax increase. "They already have spent $2 billion of the surplus and they want more," Limmer said.The DFL is increasing taxes with the same vigor that Popeye eats spinach in an emergency. The DFL is spending taxpayers' money like they were Paris Hilton on a shopping spree.
"The governor's budget proposal contains significant property tax relief and it does so without raising other taxes," Pawlenty spokesman Brian McClung said. "Under the DFL plans, taxpayers would pay significantly more in than they would receive in relief. The governor is not interested in raising taxes."The DFL is acting as if Gov. Pawlenty's property tax relief plan didn't exist. That's because they're wedded to increasing taxes on small businesses. Their goal isn't middle class tax relief. It's to increase taxes on the people they perceive as wealthy. Shame on them for actively ruining Minnesota's economy. Let's hope that Minnesota's taxpayers take their anger out on them in November, 2008.
Posted Thursday, May 10, 2007 4:56 PM
No comments.
Spinning the Tax Increase
Sen. Tom Bakk is attempting to spin the income tax increase that the Senate just passed. Let's just say that I doubt that his spin is winning many hearts & minds. Here's why I think that:
Hours after DFL leaders met with Gov. Tim Pawlenty about achieving an orderly finish to the legislative session, the state Senate approved a tax swap bill he is vowing to veto. The House was expected to decide later Thursday whether to send Pawlenty the bill, which would create a new top income tax bracket and devote all of the money to property tax breaks.Most of these tax bills have gotten 40-44 votes, with most falling just short of a veto-proof majority. This one didn't get there. In fact, 7 Democrats jumped ship on this bill, a sign that this isn't a popular bill. Here's how Bakk tried spinning it:
The Senate vote was 35 to 31, with seven Democrats joining all Republicans in opposition.
Senate Tax Chairman Tom Bakk, DFL-Cook, defended the new rate as fair because upper earners currently pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than people lower down the pay scale. Plugging the money into property tax refunds and state levy takeovers makes it even more palatable, he said.I think it's more than fair to characterize this bill as a tax increase because only a portion of the revenue goes towards property tax relief. The rest would be used to pay for other spending that the DFL has its sights set on. If that isn't the definition of a tax increase, what is?
"I do not think this is fair to characterize this as a tax increase because it's not," he said.
Freshman Sen. Sharon Erickson Ropes, DFL-Winona, said she and her husband would fall into the fourth tier. She said she would gladly pay, calling it a moral issue and quoting the Biblical verse "to whom much is given, much is expected."With all due respect to Sen. Ropes, why isn't providing jobs to people 'giving much'? After all, isn't helping people become self-sustaining an uplifting thing? Why is feeding government which passes pennies on the dollar onto people 'giving much'? Let's suppose that we lower tax rates, giving the Ropes' family business more profits. Aren't the Ropes in position to pass some of those increased profits onto their employees in the form of higher wages, more job stability or better benefits? I'd like Sen. Ropes to explain why that isn't living up to high expectations.
I'd further argue that the state taking more of a person's money is amoral. Here's why I'd argue that:
It's amoral because the DFL thinks that they have first dibs on a person's money. That's immoral. It's that person's money first. After all, the Constitution says that We The People give power to the government, not vice versa. The DFL says that We The Government takes precedence over We The People . That's the definition of immoral.
Instead of this being a moral issue, I'd suggest that it's more of an issue of setting the wrong priorities. I'd suggest that it's more a matter of putting a higher priority on sustaining government than on prospering people. That isn't a moral choice. That's a matter of being short-sighted.
Posted Thursday, May 10, 2007 8:26 PM
Comment 1 by charlieq at 10-May-07 10:19 PM
"Aren't the Ropes in position to pass some of those increased profits onto their employees in the form of higher wages, more job stability or better benefits?"
Gary, you're apparently confused about how a small businessowner (subchapter S) pays taxes. I ran a business for 18 years and reduced my personal income taxes by paying my employees just as you suggest. Paid out in the year the money is earned, those are deductible business expenses, not taxable profit distributions.
