September 7-9, 2010
Sep 07 06:51 Dayton & Obama: Birds of a Feather? Sep 07 08:25 KSTP's Flimsy Truth Test Sep 08 10:54 Sen. Dayton: A Portrait in Hypocrisy Sep 08 01:28 The Economy Done Right Sep 08 10:18 Tarryl's Truth-Telling Troubles Continue, Part II Sep 08 22:16 An Epic Disaster? Sep 09 00:38 Dayton's Detailed Plan Doesn't Add Up Sep 09 08:52 True As Far As It Goes
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
Dayton & Obama: Birds of a Feather?
A major part of the Dayton job creation agenda is a mega-sized bonding bill. Bonding bills are nothing more than the DFL's annual stimulus bill. In other words, Dayton is staying true to the DFL faithful & their union allies.
Nationally, President Obama announced that he wants Congress to pass another stimulus bill. Of course, Obama won't call it a stimulus bill because he knows that voters hate the stimulus bill. President Obama says that we need more construction jobs to get the economy going. Sound familiar? (Didn't the first stimulus bill have $150,000,000,000 worth of shovel-ready construction jobs?)
The first stimulus didn't do anything to trigger lasting economic growth. Why think that a 'mere' $50,000,000,000 stimulus bill will change anything?
A larger point must be made, namely that an economic agenda that's heavily reliant on construction jobs isn't creating jobs for other people. Why spend billions of dollars on legislation that doesn't create conditions that increase entrepreneurial activity?
Neither President Obama nor Sen. Dayton seem to understand that they need to get out of entrepreneurs' way & let them create jobs. Both President Obama & Sen. Dayton seem to think that they can identify the next Walmart, the next Marvin Windows & the next Microsoft. They're miserable at it. It's time they stopped tried picking winners. It's counterproductive.
If you examine their economic agendas, they mostly consist of rewarding public employee unions & ignoring the entrepreneurs. Neither cares about overregulation, though Sen. Dayton is pretending.
That's why Republicans will retake the House with room to spare & probably retake the Senate, too. Sen. Dayton's 'tax the rich' scheme won't play well. Neither will his spendaholic ways. That's why Tom Emmer will likely win this November.
Another point worth making is that Sen. Dayton & Tom Horner talk about the need to raise additional revenues to feed the government beast. They don't talk about how their policies would create the jobs that would create a vibrant 21st century economy.
The bottom line is that President Obama & Sen. Dayton both want to pass 'jobs bills' that require lots of debt & few jobs being created. That isn't acceptable. That's why they're both likely to be rejected this November.
Posted Tuesday, September 7, 2010 6:51 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 07-Sep-10 04:48 PM
The biggest problem is that we have a large share of the electorate willing to take these lying liars' lies at face value. Hey, a "jobs bill"? That's great! Never mind that it doesn't work and destroys more jobs than it "creates or saves."
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 07-Sep-10 09:37 PM
Jerry, Rather than just pointing it out that the DFL's jobs bills haven't worked, let's educate people on WHY they haven't worked. They haven't worked because job creators don't have much incentive to put their savings at risk. Until that dynamic changes, the outcome won't change.
Comment 2 by Breakfast Nook at 13-Nov-10 12:45 PM
construction jobs are on the rise again these days because the recession is almost over -;:
KSTP's Flimsy Truth Test
KSTP political reporter Tom Hauser's latest Truth Test is confusing, if not misleading. Here's what I'm referring to:
"But while you're at the fair, you should know that Tarryl Clark here voted to raise taxes on your corn dog and your deep-fried bacon and your beer," the ad states.This Truth Test is misleading. The only way it's misleading is if it isn't true that Tarryl Clark's vote wasn't to raise the sales tax. Specific items don't have to be spelled out to be part of the sales tax increase.
It is true that Tarryl Clark voted for three bills in 2009 that would have raised various alcohol taxes, but none became law.
However, the claims about Clark voting specifically to raise taxes on "corn dogs" and "deep-fried bacon" are not true.
As the basis for this claim, Bachmann's website cites Clark's vote in favor of putting a constitutional amendment on the ballot to raise the state sales tax by three-eighths of a cent. Food at the fair, including corn dogs and deep fried bacon, are subject to the sales tax.
But Minnesota voters approved that tax, not the state Senate where Clark served. Clark never voted specifically to raise taxes on state fair corn dogs and bacon.
Because of the misleading nature of this ad, "Jim the Election Guy" gets a D+ on the Truth Test.
I'd also argue that this Truth Test is misleading by saying that Tarryl didn't vote for the Legacy Act tax increase. It was certainly her intent to see the sales tax be increased. While she didn't cast the deciding vote that caused the tax to become law, it was certainly her wish to raise the state sales tax.
Because of these misleading comments, I give this Truth Test a C-.
Posted Tuesday, September 7, 2010 8:25 AM
No comments.
Sen. Dayton: A Portrait in Hypocrisy
This morning, the Minnesota GOP produced proof that much of the Dayton family money is hidden in tax shelters in South Dakota, the Cayman Islands and the British Virgin Islands. That means, despite his cries for "the rich to pay their fair share", rich liberal fatcats like Sen. Dayton won't pay his fair share of Minnesota or federal taxes.
Peter Schweizer's book "Do as I say, not as I do: Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy" seems like a perfect fit for Sen. Dayton. Perhaps he read it before devising his 'tax the rich' scheme while sheltering his family's money.
It's easy for Sen. Dayton to whine that the rich aren't paying their fair share when he knows his family won't be hit with his excessive taxes. Knowing that his family's money is protected from his tax increases, Dayton didn't hesitate in subjecting Minnesota's job creators to a huge tax increase.
QUESTION: What's fair about having job creators who put their capital at risk pay taxes at exhorbitant rates? What's fair about trust fund babies who don't put their capital at risk not paying their fair share of taxes?
Based on this information, the Dayton family wouldn't be affected by Sen. Dayton's tax increases. Meanwhile, people putting their capital at risk, who create the jobs will get punished with Dayton's 'tax the rich' plans.
Sen. Dayton is a phony. Under Dayton's scheme, Dayton's wealthy friends won't pay "their fair share." That isn't a portrait in leadership. It's a portait in typical liberal hypocrisy.
There's nothing fair about Sen. Dayton's proposal. Frankly, it's insulting to hear Sen. Dayton say that these hard-working entrepreneurs aren't paying their fair share, especially in light of this morning's information.
Perhaps Sen. Daayton can get one of his hirelings to answer some of these questions :
Chairman Sutton called on Dayton to provide a full accounting of all financial assets he holds or has held outside the state of Minnesota. In addition, Chairman Sutton called on Dayton to provide specific answers to the following questions:It's assumed that Sen. Dayton isn't a powerless potted plant unable to put these trust funds in Minnesota. If he's calling on "the rich" to "pay their fair share", shouldn't he have led by example? Isn't it true that his 'example' proves that he prefers to live by one set of rules while imposing a different set of rules on others?
1.In your "Deficit Solution" plan (item #3), you criticize snowbirds who maintain residences outside of Minnesota for six months and a day to avoid certain taxes, but why is it okay that your trust funds maintain residence outside of Minnesota 12 months a year?
2.Have you ever asked your family members or the executor of your South Dakota trust funds to move these trusts to Minnesota? If not, why not?
3.Have you ever asked your family members or the executor of your South Dakota trust funds whether you can divest? If not, why not?
4.Will you ask for the release of the tax returns for your South Dakota trust funds?
5.What tax benefits do you derive from your South Dakota trusts in comparison with the tax liability you would have were they in Minnesota?
6.How much in Minnesota taxes have you avoided paying the state in your lifetime because of these arrangements? If you cannot answer this question, would you be willing to allow an independent referee to calculate it before Election Day?
7.Can you explain your holdings in the well-known tax havens of the Cayman Islands and the British Virgin Islands that are listed on your Senate Financial Disclosure reports?
8.Would you be willing to gift to the state of Minnesota all monies you would have been required to pay had your trusts been established in Minnesota?
More importantly, doesn't this prove that Dayton's tax-the-rich scheme really won't produce the revenue he's claimed it would produce? If he's sheltering his family's money from Minnesota's taxes, doesn't that prove that others will do the same? Doesn't this suggest that Dayton's plan falls far short of balancing? Doesn't this suggest that Sen. Dayton would have to raise taxes on middle class families?
Minnesota doesn't need this type of 'leadership'. They need leaders who are intellectually honest, not intentionally deceptive. Minnesotans don't need a governor who exempts himself from the rules he'd impose on others.
UPDATE: Sen. Dayton claims the trusts are now in Minnesota. As recently as January, 2007, they weren't:
2007 Senate Financial Disclosure Report: Dayton Has Business Interests In Cayman Islands. According to Mark Dayton's most recent Senate Financial Disclosure Report dated January 27, 2007, he reports as an asset China Renaissance Inc. which is described as a limited partnership based in the Cayman Islands. (Mark Dayton, United States Senate Financial Disclosure Report for Annual and Termination Reports, Page 17 , January 27, 2007)
Originally posted Wednesday, September 8, 2010, revised 13-Oct 3:36 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 08-Sep-10 04:55 PM
Tom Emmer, a buffoon.
Comment 2 by eric z at 08-Sep-10 05:14 PM
Aside from that, I think your suggestion that tax haven loopholes should be closed and that states should be pushed to unify taxation is a sound proposal. If all the GOP were for that things would be moving already, party of no switching to yes instead.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 09-Sep-10 08:41 AM
I don't have a problem with decreasing tax burdens. What I have a problem with is being lectured that people that put their life savings at risk & employing people aren't paying enough while Dayton isn't paying taxes on income in Dayton family trust funds.
Comment 3 by DJZ at 09-Sep-10 08:34 AM
The article is clear that Dayton pays Minnesota taxes on every dime he withdraws. So, what's this outrage about?
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 09-Sep-10 08:38 AM
The outrage is about Dayton not paying taxes on the money the trust earns but doesn't disburse. That's money Dayton isn't paying taxes on that Minnesotans think is Dayton's fair share.
Comment 4 by Doug jones at 29-Aug-16 06:55 PM
Long before Mark Dayton's father, Bruce Dayton, died in his nineties, he did two things. He established family trusts in South Dakota, the only state allowing perpetual trusts. Not just skipping a generation or two, but extendable indefinitely. Second, about four years back, Congress let the old inheritance tax expire, a year before the new inheritance tax began. Unlimited gifts free of gift tax allowed Bruce Dayton, the Target equivalent of Wal-Mart's Sam Walton, to pass huge amounts to his children and grand children and great grand children.
The combination of these two developments have left all Dayton descendants outside the old family company, living on dividends and interest. It reminds me of Laurie Sturdivants book on the Pillsburys, written with old George Pillsbury, once a Republican. George noted in the last chapter that he was proud that all,of his grandchildren and great grand children voted for Barry Obama. Thus do many great fortunes get sucked into the Left. Remember the first time Dayton ran for governor, his wife, daughter of WV Senator John D Rockefeller IV, said she gave nothing to Mark's campaign because her daddy always told her to only spend dividends and interest, but never touch principle.
The Economy Done Right
If you've followed the gubernatorial race like I have, you're sure to have noticed that Sen. Dayton and Tom Horner's first priorities are on funding government. Tom Emmer is the only candidate who's focused first on building a prospering economy.
This fact hit home especially hard for me this weekend when TPT's Mary Lahammer showed clips for the State Fair debate between the 3 candidates. Dayton and Horner debated, at length, about the virtues of their competing tax increases. During that debate, it became painfully clear that their first priority was on funding government.
As I wrote yesterday , some of the things in Sen. Dayton's plans are things he talked about in 1978. The other major part of Sen. Dayton's plan is a mega-sized bonding bill. That's the DFL's jobs bill each year.
If that really worked, we would've had the best economy in the nation. It didn't work and we surely don't have the best economy in the nation. Not by a long shot.
Meanwhile, Tom Emmer is the only candidate who's seriously focused on creating a business friendly environment. His mindset is that incenting businesses to increase entrepreneurial activity is the best way to raise revenues. The bonus is that following that approach increases prosperity without villainizing small businesses and without government attempting to pick winners.
Based on the things that Sen. Dayton and Horner have said during the debates, it's clear that growing governmental influence is their first priority.
Tom Emmer has laid the groundwork during the debates for the regulatory and permitting reforms he'll soon be announcing. Based on what I've heard in the debates, it's apparent that Mssrs. Dayton and Horner haven't thought a minute about regulatory reform.
It's apparent, too, that regulatory reform isn't possible with the DFL obstructionist majorities still in place. They're a total impediment to intelligent regulatory reform because they're a wholly owned subsidiary of the anti-capitalist special interests.
You can't have a high-flying economy if it's weighted down with regulatory excesses. It's just simply impossible.
During the final 8 weeks of the campaign, voters will decide whether they'd rather vote for candidates whose main purpose is to fund government or pick the candidate who wants to bring prosperity to Minnesota again.
Let's hope they choose wisely.
Posted Wednesday, September 8, 2010 1:28 AM
No comments.
Tarryl's Truth-Telling Troubles Continue, Part II
According to this Strib post , Tarryl Clark has reverted to lying again:
The Clark ad revisits the BP controversy that the state senator highlighted in a spot several months ago. She also switched Bachmann's "Tarryl & Taxes" sign for one reading "Bachmann & BP."I wrote here that that's a bald-faced lie:
"She said holding BP accountable was 'extortion,'" says one of the Jims, referring to Bachmann's reaction to a White House call for the company to set up an independent fund after the oil spill.
REP. MICHELE BACHMANN (R), MINNESOTA: Well first of all, I'm not here to shill (ph) for BP. That's not the goal. BP clearly is at fault here. They need to pay every last dime of damage and that's what needs to be done. But at the same time, we don't want these payouts to become political. We don't think it's a good idea for the federal government to see private industry as essentially a piggy bank for the federal government. So every claim needs to be paid out. And we actually had a process set up through the court system. That's why this was kind of an unusual process. We already had a system set up to deal with claims in the case of oil spills where a court independently without any political implications would pay out legitimate claims. Now we don't have that situation. This is an appointee from the Obama administration who will be doing the payouts. And it's the pay czar dealing with the administration. So this is very different from what we've done in the past. And while it's important that all the claims get paid, let's just make sure that this isn't a permanent ATM card.It's time that Tarryl Clark stopped lying. She isn't good at it and she's gonna get hurt politically if she keeps this up.
Michele said that "BP clearly is at fault here. They need to pay every last dime of damage and that's what needs to be done." Nothing in that statement says that Michele wants to let BP off the hook. PERIOD. Her objection wasn't with BP paying for the damage they'd done.
Michele's objection was with who had oversight responsibility on BP paying for the damage they caused.
Still, Tarryl insists on saying that Michele wants to let BP off the hook. Michele's statements clearly indicate that Tarryl's intentionally lying.
QUESTION: Why is it that progressives, whether it's Tarryl or whether it's ABM, seem incapable of telling the truth?
Tarryl's fabrications won't pass Tom Hauser's Truth Test or Pat Kessler's Reality Check. The best grade they'd give Tarryl's ad is a D with an F a distinct possibility.
Posted Wednesday, September 8, 2010 10:18 AM
No comments.
An Epic Disaster?
Dick Morris's latest column paints a truly bleak picture for Democrats. After President Obama's statement on TV today that the Democrats are in trouble if the election is about the economy, I'd almost feel sorry for Democrats.
In state after state, the races that were once marginal are now solidly Republican, those that were possible takeaways are now likely GOP wins and the impossible seats are now fully in play.SUGGESTION FOR NRCC: I'd strongly recommend spending money in October in districts that aren't on the public's radar right now. Here in Minnesota, I'd suggest that they spend in CD-1, CD-4, CD-7 & CD-8. In New York, I'd spend money trying to defeat Maurice Hinchey. In Massachusetts, I think Barney Frank is vulnerable. I'm also curious whether Rep. Delahunt's open seat is up for grabs.
Colorado offers a good example. Betsey Markey was supposed to be a marginal new Democratic member. But Cory Gardner, her Republican opponent, is now more than 20 points ahead. John Salazar, the brother of the Interior Secretary and a well-established Democratic incumbent in a largely Republican district, is now almost 10 points behind his GOP challenger Scott Tipton. And Ed Perlmutter, a solidly entrenched Democrat in a supposedly nearly-safe district, is running one point behind his GOP opponent, the unusually articulate Ryan Frazier (a black Republican with Obama-esque charisma). The Republicans will probably win all three seats.
This isn't the only thing that Morris thinks Democrats should be worried about:
Or take Arkansas. Blanche Lincoln is clinically dead, trailing John Boozman 65-27 in the latest Rasmussen poll. In the race that was supposed to be close for the open seat in AR-2, Republican Tim Griffin is massacring Democrat Joyce Elliott by 52-35. In the race that was thought to be a likely Democratic win, AR-1, the East Arkansas district, Republican Rick Crawford is running seven points ahead of Democrat Chad Causey. And, in the district that was considered a safe Democratic seat, the home of Blue Dog leader Mike Ross, Republican Beth Anne Rankin is showing surprising strength and may topple her opponent.Let's be blunt. If Mike Ross is in a serious fight this year, then everything's up for grabs. Ross won with more than 70 percent in 2008.
Here's the best advice Morris gives:
But, for whatever reason, the only mistake either party can make as 2010 approaches is to aim too low. It is not the marginal seats that are in play, it is the safe ones!I've been saying for months that 2010 had the potential for being an historic election. This isn't the year to be timid. It's the year to be bold. The Democrats voted for things that are wildly unpopular. Now they're reaping the 'rewards' for those votes.
The only stimulus the Democrats are creating this year is the Maalox their leaders & strategists are drinking by the bottle.
Posted Wednesday, September 8, 2010 10:16 PM
No comments.
Dayton's Detailed Plan Doesn't Add Up
It's been seemingly forever since the lapdog media characterized Sen. Dayton's budget plan as a "detailed budget plan." This article doesn't just question that characterization. It shreds that characterization:
The bulk of Dayton's budget remedy, $4 billion, relies on raising taxes on the state's wealthiest citizens. The DFL nominee defines this as individuals making more than $130,000 annually and couples earning more than $150,000.Clearly, Dayton's plan doesn't add up. In fact, it isn't even close. The reporters who've been reflexively characterizing Sen. Dayton's plan as detailed didn't do their homework. In fact, I'd argue that serious people couldn't characterize Sen. Dayton's submission as a plan, much less a detailed plan.
Currently, there are three income tax brackets in Minnesota, with the top earners paying 7.85 percent. Dayton's plan calls for adding "at least two, probably three" additional levels for wealthy residents.
Marginal rate math is dicey
So how much money would boosting income tax rates actually deliver? According to the revenue department, each tenth-of-a-percent increase would currently bring in an additional $27 million annually, or $54 million each biennium. Thus, to come up with $4 billion in the 2012-13 budget cycle, you'd need to nearly double the state's top tax bracket, pushing it to more than 15 percent - easily the highest in the nation.
How about $3 billion in additional revenue? That would require boosting the state's top tier to 13.4 percent, still the loftiest nationwide. And what about raising $2 billion? To get there under the current tax structure, the state's top rate would need to be 11.55 percent.
These figures don't mesh with Dayton's plan for a couple of reasons. For starters, the state's current top income tax tier ($75,000 for individuals; $132,000 for couples) is slightly lower than the category of earners that the DFL nominee wants to target for tax hikes. In addition, Dayton has stated during debates that he won't raise rates higher than 11 percent, the level currently levied by Hawaii on individuals who make more than $200,000, currently the highest state bracket in the country. (By contrast, six states states - Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas and Washington - collect no income tax.) Simply raising the state's current top tax level to 11 percent would bring in $1.7 billion.
Tax experts point to a potential problem, however, with any significant increase in income tax rates: wealth flight. Rather than absorb the financial hit, some rich households might decide to relocate to another state, thus partially negating the boost to the state's coffers.
Now that that's been dispatched with, it's time to ask what Sen. Dayton would do to balance the budget. It's impossible to believe that he'd cut spending much, meaning that Sen. Dayton's other option is to raise taxes on people making much less than his tax-the-rich incomes. In fact, I'd argue that it'd require a huge tax increase to middle class families to balance the budget.
If the DFL lapdog media report this, then Sen. Dayton is in serious trouble this election, almost to the point of him losing the election going away. There's no way Sen. Dayton would win by telling middle class suburbanite voters that they'll have to pay more to fund a 1980's model of government.
However much money Dayton ultimately plans to raise through income tax hikes on the state's wealthiest 10 percent of residents, it's clear that it won't be anywhere close to $4 billion. Accordingly, the DFL nominee lays out three additional proposals in his deficit reduction plan. For starters, he would reinstate a state property tax on residences valued at more than $1 million, a levy that was scrapped in 1992.It's fantasy to think that this legislation has even a marginal opportunity to pass. For that matter, it's fantasy to think that a tax increase of any size is a sure thing. Let's remember the trouble the DFL had in 2009 in passing tax increases. With a veto-proof Senate & an 87-47 margin in the House, the votes were 35-31 in the Senate & 68-65 in the House.
The detailed Dayton budget is a joke. It makes unrealistic revenue assumptions. It doesn't come close to balancing the budget.
Coupled with the fact that Sen. Dayton was exposed as having hidden alot of Dayton family money from Uncle Sam & the Minnesota Department of Revenue, I'd say this isn't a great week for the Dayton campaign.
Posted Thursday, September 9, 2010 12:38 AM
No comments.
True As Far As It Goes
Brian Bakst's AP article quotes the Dayton campaign's spokeslady on the issue of Dayton's tax avoidance issues. It's a fine piece of spin:
In a news release, Dayton's campaign charged Republicans were trying to distract voters and said the allegations were based on outdated information. Dayton's campaign insisted he has no current offshore holdings. "According to Mark's financial adviser, his father's trust, of which Mark is currently a beneficiary, has no holdings in the Cayman Islands or British Virgin Islands," Dayton spokeswoman Katharine Tinucci said. "Furthermore, all income from the trust distributed to Mark is fully taxable in Minnesota."I don't doubt that "all income from the trust distributed to Mark is fully taxable in Minnesota." It's the money that isn't distributed that isn't being taxed. Most Minnesotans don't have a problem with "the rich" using the tax system to their advantage...until they start whining that "the rich" aren't "paying their fair share."
Ms. Tinucci's objections about Republicans' "allegations" indicates that this is hurting Sen. Dayton with all-important swing voters. The MNGOP simply said that "Dayton has benefitted financially from sheltering trusts in South Dakota and his personal financial disclosure forms over the years have also revealed holdings in the Cayman Islands and the British Virgin Islands." That's an accurate statement. They didn't claim that it's still ongoing. In fact, they asked whether it was still ongoing.
The last I looked, it's impossible to claim that a question is an allegation.
The notion that Republicans are trying to distract voters is patently absurd. If anything, Republicans are anxious to tell voters that Sen. Dayton's budget is a farce :
The bulk of Dayton's budget remedy, $4 billion, relies on raising taxes on the state's wealthiest citizens. The DFL nominee defines this as individuals making more than $130,000 annually and couples earning more than $150,000.Dayton's budget doesn't come close to balancing. His budget can't be taken seriously. I'd further argue that the remaining deficit would be eliminated by raising taxes on people well inside the middle class. Until the Dayton campaign provides a clarification, I'll assume that Dayton would rather balance the budget with tax increases than with budget cuts.
Currently, there are three income tax brackets in Minnesota, with the top earners paying 7.85 percent. Dayton's plan calls for adding "at least two, probably three" additional levels for wealthy residents.
Marginal rate math is dicey
So how much money would boosting income tax rates actually deliver? According to the revenue department, each tenth-of-a-percent increase would currently bring in an additional $27 million annually, or $54 million each biennium. Thus, to come up with $4 billion in the 2012-13 budget cycle, you'd need to nearly double the state's top tax bracket, pushing it to more than 15 percent - easily the highest in the nation.
How about $3 billion in additional revenue? That would require boosting the state's top tier to 13.4 percent, still the loftiest nationwide. And what about raising $2 billion? To get there under the current tax structure, the state's top rate would need to be 11.55 percent.
That's before I get into the subject of the trainwreck known as the Dayton economy. With huge tax increases and his lack of fiscal discipline, Minnesota's economy would quickly resemble California's.
As a blogger, Sen. Dayton has given me more material than I can handle. There aren't enough hours in the day to rebut all the misinformation coming from the Dayton campaign.
Ms. Tinucci is obviously skilled at parsing words. The MNGOP didn't deny that money distributed to Sen. Dayton was taxed in Minnesota. They just suspected, understandably, that the trust funds' profits weren't taxed in Minnesota.
Until Sen. Dayton starts living up to his mantra, the MNGOP will continue hammering him for telling people they should pay taxes that the Dayton Family trust fund exempts himself from paying.
That's called hypocrisy & it isn't helpful to candidates, especially in this cycle.
Posted Thursday, September 9, 2010 8:52 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 09-Sep-10 06:15 PM
I have two great questions which all reporters should ask Mark Dayton.
Question number one, Mr. Dayton do you have any trust income in South Dakota.
Assuming that Mark answers yes, question number two, Mr. Dayton since you think it's no big deal to tax the rich will you move all the trust fund income from South Dakota to Minnesota?
I'll like to see that answer since Mark seems to think there are no negatives to raising taxes on the rich.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
