April 15-19, 2013
Apr 15 11:54 Exposed: Rep. Winkler's anti-business agenda Apr 16 03:19 The divided gang that couldn't shoot straight Apr 16 14:13 Will gay marriage create jobs? Apr 17 09:19 Sirota: Let's hope Boston Marathon bomber is a white guy Apr 17 16:12 Cullen's return sparks Wild Apr 17 19:22 Exposing the DFL's empty tax rhetoric Apr 18 09:00 DFL's tax policy: raise everyone's taxes Apr 18 10:10 Gabby Giffords NYTimes op-ed: emotional blackmail Apr 19 14:01 Strib/DFL hit piece misses real story
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Exposed: Rep. Winkler's anti-business agenda
Friday night on Almanac, Rep. Pat Garofalo exposed Rep. Ryan Winkler's opposition to small business during their debate on Rep. Winkler's minimum wage legislation. Here's the transcript of the opening exchange between Rep. Garofalo and Rep. Winkler:
REP. GAROFALO : Today, I was talking with a small business owner in Apple Valley named Erin. She runs Revive Salon in Apple Valley. She was talking to me today that, as a small business owner, she pays more in taxes to the government than she takes home for her family and the Winkler proposal will increase her costs by $5,000. Now Erin knows a lot about her business. She knows how to price her products and she knows she can price it at a maximum price before people are going to stop purchasing those services. Unfortunately, this is an unfunded mandate so the question I'd have for Rep. Winkler and anyone that supports the minimum wage would be how are businesses supposed to pay for these increases?
REP. WINKLER : That's just the same old line that businesses that oppose the minimum wage have used every single time it's been increased. In fact, all the evidence, all the history since the minimum wage was enacted in 1938 shows that there's been no negative impact on employment.
Apparently, Rep. Winkler thinks he knows what's best for businesses, though there's no history of him having run a successful small business.
What's worse is that Rep. Winkler apparently isn't interested in what small businesses are saying or the effect his legislation will have. The fact that he's willing to dismiss legitimate issues without a discussion indicates that he isn't interested in employers.
I wish I could say that I'm surprised but I'd have to ignore this post about how rudely Gov. Dayton was towards St. Cloud business leaders recently. Whether it's Gov. Dayton or Rep. Winkler, the DFL's hostility towards businesses isn't difficult to find.
Thoughtful people know that it isn't credible to first be hostile to employers, then say that you're pro jobs.
The 'proof' that Rep. Winkler supposedly has that increasing the minimum wage doesn't affect employment is ignoring reality. Anyone thinking that increasing businesses' costs during difficult economic times simply doesn't think staying competitive is important. Apparently, that's the DFL's belief, because that's the playbook they're following.
Posted Monday, April 15, 2013 11:54 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 15-Apr-13 03:17 PM
They will never answer the most simple question, of course, but here it is: "If raising the minimum wage has no effect on businesses or jobs, then why not make it $100/hour?"
Comment 2 by Bob J. at 16-Apr-13 10:09 AM
The typical liberal response from Winkler. Don't answer the question and try to change the subject. Meanwhile, the rest of us can simply obey.
The divided gang that couldn't shoot straight
Don Davis' post about the DFL's budget is enlightening. There isn't any doubt that the DFL wants to raise taxes. The question is which taxes they want to raise and how much they'd raise taxes by. Then there's the question about getting the House to agree with the Senate and the legislature to agree with Gov. Dayton.
There's still no doubt in my mind that it'll get ironed out. Similarly, there's no doubt that the DFL's tax increases will stunt job growth. There's no doubt that some businesses will expand outside of Minnesota rather than in Minnesota.
Bill Glahn thinks that the DFL will pass a budget on time . That said, he thinks it'll need fixing:
The budget will be passed before the "end" of session. Even if they have to cover up the clock to pretend midnight has not passed, even if they have to come back and fix it in special session.
The budget and much else will be passed at the last second, with bare partisan majorities, in massive bills that no single human being will have read all the way through before they are signed into law.
It will all be hailed as a once-in-a-generation political triumph. Until...months later...when someone gets around to reading the bills passed...and we all wonder: now what?
The thing isn't only about the confusion within the DFL, though that's certainly part of the problem. The biggest problem is that the DFL doesn't have a pro-growth economic agenda. The DFL's hostility towards businesses is getting noticed by businesses. The Minnesota Chamber of Commerce gets that . Here's part of what Jason Bernick, a member of the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce said recently:
I've often heard Governor Dayton say that 'you're entitled to your own opinion but you're not entitled to your own facts.' I have a great deal of respect for Governor Dayton as he has always been a good listener who has maintained a respectful discussion. However, since the beginning of this session, I have noticed this quality has been degrading and becoming disrespectful in Governor Dayton.
Teresa Bohnen, the president of the St. Cloud Chamber of Commerce, has talked with 4 companies who are thinking of expanding . During Gov. Dayton's townhall meeting, she spoke out against the jobs that would be lost if the legislature creates a fourth tier of income taxes. She said that these businesses might expand elsewhere if the legislature passes that higher income tax tier. Gov. Dayton, like the DFL legislature, doesn't take these warning signs seriously.
In the end, the omnibus spending bills will be significantly bigger than those passed by the GOP legislature. The Tax Bill will include some major increases, some of which will hurt convenience stores. That isn't the right path to prosperity.
Tags: Spending Increases , Tax Increases , Unemployment , Mark Dayton , Minnesota Senate , Minnesota House of Representatives , DFL , Minnesota Chamber of Commerce
Posted Tuesday, April 16, 2013 3:19 AM
Comment 1 by Speed Gibson at 17-Apr-13 07:32 PM
That's a good point, that there is no real legislative deadline. They can pass a place-holder budget now, call a special session later. One scenario would be, well we need more input on the Vikings stadium situation, have to delay the school shift again for now... And the Star Tribune will dutifully reprint their press release word for word, then applaud their "fiscally cautious" approach as opposed to the "cut, cut, cut!" (I wish!) GOP budget.
Will gay marriage create jobs?
While they campaigned last year, DFL legislators and candidates talked endlessly about their highest priority being creating jobs. This session, they've talked endlessly about creating jobs...while debating whether to pass legislation that made same sex marriage legal in Minnesota. Now there's talk that giving gay couples the right to marry would add tens of millions of dollars to Minnesota's economy :
Legalizing same-sex marriage in Minnesota would add $42 million to the state's economy and $3 million in tax revenue in the first three years, according to an analysis from UCLA law school.
The Williams Institute at UCLA conducts research on "sexual orientation and gender identity law and public policy," according to its website. Last month, the institute estimated same-sex marriage in Illinois would generate more than $100 million in additional spending and $8.5 million in tax revenue in that state.
In Minnesota, analysts figured, about 5,000 gay couples would choose to marry in the three years following legalization of same-sex marriage. A bill to make gay marriage legal is expected to be come to a vote later this session in both the state House and Senate.
Roughly $28 million would be spent on those weddings, the analysts figured, plus about $14 million in tourism-related spending by out-of-town guests. That activity would yield roughly $3 million in tax revenue for state and local governments, the report said.
Saying that this 'study' is suspect is understatement. The UCLA law school is famous for their radicalism. That's why people don't take their studies seriously.
This UCLA 'study' is more of a lifeline to legislators in need of political cover than it is a serious, peer-reviewed report that passes the laugh test.
Unfortunately, it wouldn't be surprising if the DFL attempted to use the UCLA study to justify their pursuing their radical, special interest-driven agenda. They need their special interests engaged to win elections. If they have to say foolish things to keep their special interest contributors contributing, then that's what they'll do.
A vote on this 'DFL jobs bill' is expected before the end of this session. It's great to see that the DFL is keeping its promise to put creating jobs at the top of its agenda.
Tags: Gay Marriage , Jobs Bill , Economic Growth , UCLA Law School , DFL
Posted Tuesday, April 16, 2013 2:13 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 17-Apr-13 08:13 AM
"The UCLA law school is famous for their radicalism. That's why people don't take their studies seriously."
Would there be a verification link, or two, where I could source check that hummer of a defamatory statement.
Sure opinion is not actionable, but "famous for their radicalism" is not opinion, but a statement that can be challenged for factual backing up. It is a detail, a tree and not the forest, but sometimes early post comments are so striking ...
Finally, opponents of allowing gay people equal civil rights, they do not exhibit a "radical, special interest-driven agenda?" Carrying their bibles and all...?
To me, getting into somebody's face and telling them what their lifestyle decisions should be is anti-liberty, and it seems that the liberty wing of the GOP has accepted that as a premise, with, of course, the Dobson's and Parrish's of your tent being in a snit and sulking. Holding back reform, keeping "the faith" vs winning elections based on concepts of liberty, is an agenda, which to me is a "radical" one for political activists in your party to hold.
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 17-Apr-13 08:48 AM
Here's a crazy idea: how about the government legalizes OPPOSITE-SEX marriage, and offers incentives for it? Since there are far more heterosexual couples living together who would get married given such an incentive, wouldn't the economic benefit be far greater?
And what makes anybody think that gay couples are being denied any "right," whatsoever? There is no right to a civil marriage unless you meet the requirements set by government. A religious marriage, yes, is a civil right, but that is already available to any gay couple that wants it. Why is that not enough?
Comment 3 by eric z. at 18-Apr-13 01:47 PM
J. Ewing - I suppose it is a civil right to bring firearms to a wedding site, or some Second Amendment advocates would say so, as would shotgun wedding fathers.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 18-Apr-13 11:21 PM
Eric, where do you come up with these BS comments? Nobody said anything about bringing firearms to weddings but that's what you're asking about. Isn't it time to meander back to living on this planet?
Comment 4 by Jethro at 18-Apr-13 07:23 PM
'The UCLA law school is famous for their radicalism. That's why people don't take their studies seriously.'
Would there be a verification link, or two, where I could source check that hummer of a defamatory statement.
Eric, you might want to check the definition of defamatory. Accusing the UCLA law school of radicalism is not defamatory in nature.
Sirota: Let's hope Boston Marathon bomber is a white guy
Minutes after President Obama said that it's too early to tell who detonated the Boston Marathon bombs, David Axelrod suggested that the White House thought it was a white guy because of Tax Day. Barney Frank then used the terrorist attack as an opportunity to say that the terrorist attack was proof we needed to raise taxes. This morning, Salon's David Sirota wrote this column to say that he hopes the terrorist is a white guy:
As we now move into the official Political Aftermath period of the Boston bombing, the period that will determine the long-term legislative fallout of the atrocity, the dynamics of privilege will undoubtedly influence the nation's collective reaction to the attacks. That's because privilege tends to determine: 1) which groups are, and are not, collectively denigrated or targeted for the unlawful actions of individuals; and 2) how big and politically game-changing the overall reaction ends up being.
This has been most obvious in the context of recent mass shootings. In those awful episodes, a religious or ethnic minority group lacking such privilege would likely be collectively slandered and/or targeted with surveillance or profiling (or worse) if some of its individuals comprised most of the mass shooters. However, white male privilege means white men are not collectively denigrated/targeted for those shootings, even though most come at the hands of white dudes.
Likewise, in the context of terrorist attacks, such privilege means white non-Islamic terrorists are typically portrayed not as representative of whole groups or ideologies, but as 'lone wolf' threats to be dealt with as isolated law enforcement matters. Meanwhile, non-white or developing-world terrorism suspects are often reflexively portrayed as representative of larger conspiracies, ideologies and religions that must be dealt with as systemic threats, the kind potentially requiring everything from law enforcement action to military operations to civil liberties legislation to foreign policy shifts.
Let's be clear about something important from the outset. The FBI's investigation should go only where the forensic evidence takes them. If forensic scientists determine that the bombs' markers suggest that the bombs were patterned after the Iranian-manufactured IEDs that were detonated against US troops in Iraq, then that's where their investigation should take them.
If the bombs' components suggest they were the work of a lone wolf domestic terrorist, that's the direction the investigation should head in.
Next, in the aftermath of 9/11, President Bush made clear that his national security team would welcome US mosques' help in tracking down terrorists. As the investigation into terrorist networks gathered information, he talked about specific Saudi, Pakistani and Egyptian madrassas as producing terrorists.
In other words, the accusations were based on the information that was gathered during their investigation, not because the Bush administration had it in for Muslims.
By contrast, the FBI hasn't uncovered a system of white guy training grounds to kill abortionists and others they don't agree with. For instance, the FBI didn't find a string of militias started in Tim McVeigh's honor. That means white guys who've committed acts of terror have acted without a network of support, thus fitting the description of acting as lone wolf terrorists.
Sirota then made this reference:
By contrast, even though America has seen a consistent barrage of attacks from domestic non-Islamic terrorists, the privilege and double standards baked into our national security ideologies means those attacks have resulted in no systemic action of the scope marshaled against foreign terrorists. In fact, it has been quite the opposite, according to Darryl Johnson, the senior domestic terrorism analyst at the Department of Homeland Security, the conservative movement backlash to merely reporting the rising threat of such domestic terrorism resulted in DHS seriously curtailing its initiatives against that particular threat. (Irony alert: When it comes specifically to fighting white non-Muslim domestic terrorists, the right seems to now support the very doctrine it criticized Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry for articulating, the doctrine that sees fighting terrorism as primarily 'an intelligence-gathering, law-enforcement, public-diplomacy effort' and not something more systemic.)
The Crooks and Liars post refers to Jared Loughner, the man who attacked Gabby Giffords in Tuscon. The Loughner attack on Giffords was tragic but it wasn't the act of a terrorist. It was an attack by a crazed madman who didn't have control of his faculties. Comparing Loughner's attack with the Boston Marathon terrorist attack is foolish.
First, there's no proof that Laughner pre-planned his attack. There's tons of proof that the Boston Marathon terrorist attack was pre-planned. Loughner bought ammunition for his gun, then went out and shot a bunch of innocent people. The Boston Marathon terrorist or terrorists bought the bombs' components, put them together, deployed them to specific locations designed to create the most bloodshed and fear possible.
It's right to say that the Boston Marathon terrorist attack was pre-planned while the Loughner attack, though tragic, didn't require any planning.
Second, as to the point about then-Candidate Kerry being right, that's laughable. Reading terrorists their rights isn't being right. Passing a global test isn't being right. Pretending that killing the Taliban in Afghanistan was all that was needed to end the war isn't being right.
When a domestic terrorist is captured, like the Lackawanna Six, the Bush administration used law enforcement. They applied for and got search warrants through the FISA Courts. When the NSA picked up chatter about a terrorist network while they surveiled terrorists in Pakistan or Afghanistan, the Bush administration used the CIA or other special forces to roll up entire networks of terrorists.
In other words, the Bush administration policy towards terrorists was complex and multi-faceted whereas the Kerry plan wasn't multi-faceted. It relied on reading all terrorists their Miranda rights, then hoping they could find out about the terrorists' networks by having a conversation with the terrorists.
Treating Jared Loughner and Tim McVeigh differently than foreign terrorists makes sense because the specifics are dramatically different. Loughner didn't pre-plan his attack. McVeigh pre-planned his attack but he wasn't assisted by a vast network of like-minded terrorists. Only time will tell whether the Boston Marathon terrorist attack was supported by a network of like-minded terrorists.
Simply put, let's hope the FBI captures the terrorist or terrorists before they can strike again.
Tags: Boston Marathon , Terrorist Attacks , Jared Loughner , Tim McVeigh , Madrassas , Terrorist Networks , Law Enforcement , Miranda Rights , FBI , Lackawanna Six , John Kerry , Progressives
Posted Wednesday, April 17, 2013 9:19 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 17-Apr-13 04:41 PM
Gary:
If it was preplanned it was poorly preplanned. If I understand right the bomb went off when the Boston Marathon was in it's fourth hour and the Red Sox came had ended over an hour earlier.
If I was planning to disrupt and injured I would've timed it around two hours earlier when the men's winner was about to take place and instant attention would've taken place.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Cullen's return sparks Wild
Before Matt Cullen and Dany Heatley went out with major injuries, with Heatley's injury ending his season, the Wild were playing inspired, winning hockey. They had won 7 of their last 8 games, scoring 4 goals or more in most of those games. When Cullen and Heatley were injured, Wild coach Mike Yeo had to do some juggling of his lines, which required some juggling of the Wild's lines.
As a result of those injuries, Wild GM Chuck Fletcher traded forward Johan Larsson and goalie Matt Hackett and a pair of high draft picks to Buffalo for Sabres captain Jason Pominville.
With all the lines getting re-shuffled, the Wild went into a tailspin, losing 6 of their next 9 games. During that stretch, they were shutout 3 times. Saying that they didn't play with the swagger they had during their winning streak is understatement.
It wasn't that Pominville didn't contribute. He's been great since joining the Wild. It wasn't that the entire lineup was in a funk, either. Rookie right wing Charlie Coyle has been a beast, playing with confidence both offensively and defensively.
When Matt Cullen rejoined the lineup in Calgary Monday night, though, Coach Yeo was able to put his lines together again. Coyle teamed with Mikko Koivu and Zach Parise on the first line. Cullen centered Pierre-Marc Bouchard. Suddenly, Pominville found himself on a line with Devin Setoguchi with Kyle Brodziak as their center.
It didn't take long for the Wild's swagger to return once Cullen returned. While it's wrong to give all the credit to Matt Cullen, it's accurate to say that he's been the catalyst that triggered the Wild's latest winning streak. That said, the Wild played well during their recent homestand, with Pominville, Parise and Charlie Coyle all playing well.
In fact, that trio of players will be key in the Wild's playoff push. If they play at the level they've played at recently, they'll cause tons of problems for the Wild's opponents.
Now that the team is back together, expect the Wild to finish with a flourish and to make some noise in the playoffs.
Posted Wednesday, April 17, 2013 4:12 PM
No comments.
Exposing the DFL's empty tax rhetoric
MN2020, the progressive think tank run by former DFL gubernatorial candidate Matt Entenza, is defending Gov. Dayton's budget :
Minnesota 2020, a progressive think tank that defends Minnesota's tradition of higher taxes and higher spending, has released a new report suggesting those raw figures are seriously misleading.
Adjust for inflation and the ups and downs in state general fund spending caused by accounting shifts and federal stimulus funding in previous budget cycles and the numbers show a different picture: $40.6 billion in spending in 2002-03, $35.4 billion in the current budget, $35.7 billion in the upcoming budget if Dayton gets his way, and $37 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars for 2016-17.
Even if the governor, who wants to raise income taxes on the wealthiest 2 percent of Minnesotans to support higher spending, is able to enact his entire budget, less than a third of the real-dollar cuts of the past decade would be restored, said Jeff Van Wychen, director of tax policy for Minnesota 2020.
'These cuts are eroding Minnesota's fiscal foundation and they need to be reversed,' said Van Wychen during a press conference in St. Peter, one of three held by the organization in southern Minnesota Tuesday.
Van Wychen's alarmist rhetoric should be ignored. When Andy Aplikowski wrote this post , he highlighted the DFL's habit of saying one thing, then doing another. Here's the Pi-Press article Andy highlighted:
Following a hush-hush courtship, top Minnesota lawmakers acknowledged Tuesday, April 16, that they are compiling a multimillion-dollar package of public subsidies and tax breaks to encourage an Illinois-based pharmaceutical firm to add 200 high-paying jobs and undertake a substantial construction project in their state.
The extent of the public offerings is becoming known months into a high-level recruitment. The name of the company, Baxter Healthcare Corp., had been constrained by a confidentiality agreement entered into by Gov. Mark Dayton's administration. Even lawmakers who have begun voting on the package didn't know which firm would benefit.
In other words, the Dayton administration is fine with cutting taxes if they're picking the winners and losers. This proves that the Dayton administration isn't that worried with "the rich" paying "their fair share" as long as cutting taxes on corporations creates jobs. The DFL won't admit that they'd be better off cutting taxes across the board and letting companies flourish.
Whether it's the DFL or their political allies like MN2020, they simply won't admit that they're hurting Minnesota's economy with their high tax, high regulation economic agenda.
This is yet another admission that the DFL's legislative agenda doesn't lead to creating jobs. The only time the DFL's economic agenda creates jobs is when they throw their legislation out the window.
Van Wychen's talk about inflation-adjusted budget figures quietly avoids talking about the money that's appropriated that's totally wasted on foolishness. It's a clever tactic to ignore a real problem by talking about something that isn't a problem. Inflation-adjusted budgets assume, incorrectly, that a) government operations can't and haven't been improved and b) every penny appropriated in 2002 was spent efficiently.
It's foolish to think that every penny of any biennial budget was spent on something we need and was spent efficiently. That's like believing that businesses can't grow without the government's assistance.
The bottom line on these discussions is that a) the Dayton administration just admitted that his economic policies don't work and b) budgets should be based on spending money efficiently on the things we need, not what special interests want. On that count, the DFL is 0-for-2.
Tags: Minnesota2020 , Matt Entenza , Mark Dayton , Corporate Welfare , Baxter Healthcare Corp. , The Rich , DFL , Tax Cuts , Jobs , Fortune 500 Companies , Pro-Growth Economic Policies , Capitalism , MNGOP
Posted Wednesday, April 17, 2013 7:22 PM
Comment 1 by Speed Gibson at 17-Apr-13 11:57 PM
I have a radar for seemingly extra words, like "fancy tuna" at the grocery store. Are there also "plain" and "sloppy" varieties? And is there "substantive tax rhetoric" from the DFL?
DFL's tax policy: raise everyone's taxes
Whether you're rich or poor, young or old, the House DFL's tax plan will raise everyone's taxes , with the exception of Baxter Healthcare Corp . Here's the House DFL tax plan:
Minnesota House Democrats are looking to fetch $2.5 billion by raising taxes on people with high incomes, those who smoke and those who drink alcohol. A tax package released Monday boosts those taxes to balance the budget, cut property taxes and increase school aid.
Including a temporary surcharge on top earners, Minnesota would carry the nation's third highest tax rate.
In other words, the House DFL's plan would raise everyone's taxes. Gov. Dayton and the DFL frequently fight, at least verbally, for a more progressive tax system. In reality, the DFL fights for raising taxes, whether they're progressive or regressive.
Gov. Dayton and the DFL frequently complain that "the rich aren't paying their fair share." If they truly believe that, why did the House DFL make cigarette and liquor tax increases a central part of their tax bill? House Speaker Paul Thissen says alcohol and cigarette tax allows the state to recoup the health effects, etc. caused by alcohol and tobacco.
What Thissen isn't talking about is the verifiable fact that raising those taxes a) loses money for the state's general fund , b) hurts small businesses like convenience stores and c) creates an underground economy .
QUESTION TO SPEAKER THISSEN: Why pass a tax increase that hurts small businesses and will create a revenue shortfall?
Then there's the DFL's plan to raise income taxes on "the rich who aren't paying their fair share." The top rate, including the DFL's surcharge, will be 12.49%. Those companies just got hit with a barrage of federal tax increases, including the employer mandate tax increase and the tax increase on health insurance policies.
QUESTIONS FOR SPEAKER THISSEN: Do you think these companies will just continue to let you tax away their profits? Why does the DFL insist on tax increases, knowing that the DFL's tax increase will lead to companies leaving Minnesota ?
St. Cloud Area Chamber of Commerce President Teresa Bohnen says she's recently talked with four local companies who say they may have to transfer their investments to other states if the Governor's plan goes through.
Speaker Thissen can't resist raising taxes even though he knows the DFL's tax increases will hurt Minnesota's economy. That's because ideology is more important to the DFL than creating a flourishing economy.
The DFL's policy of raising taxes on everyone will undermine Minnesota's recovering economy. The DFL's plan to raise tax rates to unprecedented and unjustifiable levels is, at minimum, counterproductive. At most, it's foolish. Unfortunately, most of the DFL's tax policies will become law. The good news is that these tax increases will inspire people to vote the DFL out of office in 2014.
Tags: Tax Increases , Cigarette Tax , Liquor Tax , Income Tax , Income Tax Surcharge , Paul Thissen , Mark Dayton , DFL , Convenience Stores Small Businesses , Chamber of Commerce , Teresa Bohnen
Originally posted Thursday, April 18, 2013, revised 27-Apr 2:54 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 18-Apr-13 04:09 PM
Gary:
I got a more interesting question. I watch Fox's big three on Monday-Friday. I notice a commercial from New York State on Fox where they are proud about saying that they cut taxes.
Como can't get it right on guns, but it looks like he has it right on taxes. Why can't we copy New York.
Not to mention have these lawmakers noticed every state bordering us is cutting taxes or at least keeping them the same. Oh I forgot each one of those states have a Republican governor.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Gabby Giffords NYTimes op-ed: emotional blackmail
Gabby Giffords' NYTimes op-ed is disheartening because it's based mostly on emotional blackmail. Here's a perfect example of her emotional blackmail:
SENATORS say they fear the N.R.A. and the gun lobby. But I think that fear must be nothing compared to the fear the first graders in Sandy Hook Elementary School felt as their lives ended in a hail of bullets. The fear that those children who survived the massacre must feel every time they remember their teachers stacking them into closets and bathrooms, whispering that they loved them, so that love would be the last thing the students heard if the gunman found them.
Thankfully, Charles Krauthammer's reply puts things in proper perspective :
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: The question is: Would it have had any effect on Newtown? If you're going to make all these emotional appeals -- he's saying you're betraying the families -- you've got to show how if this had been law it would've stopped Newtown. It would not have. It's irrelevant.
I wouldn't have objected, I might've gone the way of McCain or Toomey on this, but it's a kind of emotional blackmail as a way of saying, 'You have to do it for the children.' Not if there's no logic in this. And that I think is what's wrong with the demagoguery that we've heard out of the president on this issue. (Special Report, April 17, 2013)
The Manchin-Toomey Amendment wouldn't have prevented the tragic shootings in Newtown, CT or Aurora, CO. The Manchin-Toomey Amendment was the last part of President Obama's sweeping gun control legislation still left standing.
The rest of the Obama-Feinstein bill went up in flames because people noticed that the Obama-Feinstein bill wouldn't have prevented these shootings. For once, the American people insisted on genuine solutions to real problems. They rejected the Democrats' surely-we-must-do-something legislating style.
The American people said that we don't have to do something if it isn't a solution. Doing something for the sake of doing something is mostly about people feeling guilty.
Here's more from Ms. Giffords' diatribe:
Some of the senators who voted against the background-check amendments have met with grieving parents whose children were murdered at Sandy Hook, in Newtown. Some of the senators who voted no have also looked into my eyes as I talked about my experience being shot in the head at point-blank range in suburban Tucson two years ago, and expressed sympathy for the 18 other people shot besides me, 6 of whom died. These senators have heard from their constituents - who polls show overwhelmingly favored expanding background checks. And still these senators decided to do nothing. Shame on them.
Expanded background checks wouldn't have prevented Newtown. It wouldn't have prevented the Tuscon shooting. Both shooters, Adam Lanza and Jared Loughner, had mental health issues.
Rather than focusing on mental health issues, the gun confiscation crowd focused on confiscating guns :
The governor then laid out several ideas for how the state would enforce stricter laws on those so-called 'assault' weapons: ' Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option . Permitting could be an option - keep your gun but permit it,' he said.
Dianne Feinstein attempted to use the same emotional blackmail in justifying her legislation. Thankfully, Sen. Cruz, (R-TX), stopped that emotional blackmail dead in its tracks. Sen. Feinstein attempted to justify her gun confiscation legislation by talking about seeing a mayor shot down.
Horrific events don't give people permission to ignore the Bill of Rights. Apparently, Sen. Feinstein and Ms. Giffords don't agree with that principle. Their approach is to ignore the Constitution that they took an oath to uphold. Finally, this is disgusting:
Speaking is physically difficult for me. But my feelings are clear: I'm furious. I will not rest until we have righted the wrong these senators have done, and until we have changed our laws so we can look parents in the face and say: We are trying to keep your children safe. We cannot allow the status quo, desperately protected by the gun lobby so that they can make more money by spreading fear and misinformation, to go on.
Shame on Ms. Giffords. The "gun lobby" that she's decrying are mostly made up of ordinary citizens paying $35 a year for membership . These aren't high-powered K Street lobbyists. They're your neighbors and co-workers.
As for "the wrong these senators have done," they voted against an amendment that wouldn't have solved any problems. God help us if we think voting no on amendments that don't solve problems is a wrong that needs correcting.
Tags: Gabby Giffords , Dianne Feinstein , Emotional Blackmail , Andrew Cuomo , Gun Confiscation , Jared Loughner , Adam Lanza , Newtown Massacre , Mental Health , Democrats , Second Amendment , Ted Cruz , NRA , Bill of Rights , Constitution
Posted Thursday, April 18, 2013 10:10 AM
Comment 1 by Jethro at 18-Apr-13 07:19 PM
Great post! What happened to Gabby was horrible however these new gun laws are a feel good solution that would not have stopped her assailant. Attacking law abiding gun owners is not a solution...it is a problem.
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 19-Apr-13 04:39 PM
You know I will like some liberal to respond to a couple of things:
One, the shooter in CO didn't pick the nearest movie theater. Even though he was wearing combat gear to lessen damage from gunfire he went to the nearest movie theater that displayed no gun zone? You do realize that a sign for no guns is a magnet to these things?
Two, won't it have been great at Sandy Hook if one or more of the teachers that had time to hide students was carrying a gun. They could have fired one clip at the shooter thus helping create time for students and teachers to escape (thus keeping the killed to less than 26) while police came? Who knows a good shoot might have killed or wounded the mad man in the process?
In other words isn't the best remedy allow gun owners to carry their guns because that will scare of potential killers?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 3 by Chad Q at 21-Apr-13 12:44 PM
If Ms. Gifford is trying to keep children safe, then why is she not in favor of placing armed guards in schools or arming teachers? Is/was Ms. Gifford's just as furious when Obamacare was rammed down our throats or when billions of dollars was wasted on green energy? Is Ms. Gifford's furious that the true unemployment rate is still above 8% and 50 million people are on food stamps? See, these are the things real Americans are concerned with according to the Gallup poll.
No bill the liberals introduced would have stopped Aurora, Newton, or even Columbine because those guns were either lawfully obtained or they were taken from law abiding citizens. Also, criminals don't follow the law.
I feel sorry for the people who died or were injured but their death or injury does not mean that my rights should be limited. We can't keep legislating to the lowest common denominator.
Comment 4 by walter hanson at 21-Apr-13 01:26 PM
Chad:
You forgot to mention why isn't she outraged that the victims of Fort Hood can't be called victims of a terrorist act. After all that was only work place violence. Did Obama propose any new gun laws after that?
Um wasn't Sandy Hook work place violence?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 5 by Frank Jett at 22-Apr-13 01:09 PM
You truly are a heart scumbag.
Comment 6 by Frank Jett at 22-Apr-13 01:11 PM
You truly are heartless.
Comment 7 by Frank Jett at 22-Apr-13 01:12 PM
I replied that you are heartless, and I received a response that my comment is awaiting "moderation." In other words, you only accept comments they paint you in a favorable light. Interesting.
Response 7.1 by Gary Gross at 22-Apr-13 02:06 PM
Actually, Frank, WordPress sometimes requires me to approve or disapprove comments. For what reason, I don't know. But it happens. FYI- When you posted your comments, I wasn't by my computer. Calling me heartless because I criticized Gabby Giffords' NYTimes op-ed is a typical liberal tactic. You didn't like my post. I get that. Then you didn't bother putting together a calm, rational response. I get that, too.
Here's another FYI- Here at LFR, I'm committed to finding solutions, not just tormenting liberals. Deal with it.
Strib/DFL hit piece misses real story
This Strib/DFL hit piece is what I've been expecting considering the infighting between Ann Lenczewski and Tom Bakk over their tax increase bills. Here's the lede in Neal St. Anthony's Strib article:
Regardless, businesspeople aren't united on these issues. Case in point: Even 'United for Jobs' members are lobbying for increased funding for their favorite causes or to retain their tax breaks.
And not every businessperson opposes a tax hike if Dayton can make the case.
'An increase in the marginal income tax rate would have no affect on our business or whether to expand,' said Harvey Zuckman, 62, executive vice president and an owner of Minneapolis-based FirstTech, who also is president of the Twin Cities Metro Independent Business Alliance.
'Our hiring decisions are based on consumer demand and revenue. I put the question to our MetroIBA members and a number had a similar response.'
By St. Anthony's standards, anything short of unanimity of opinion equals division within the anti-tax increase ranks. It didn't occur to St. Anthony that there are lots of disagreements within the business community. Apparently, St. Anthony isn't too sharp on DFL tax increase history. Apparently, St. Anthony doesn't know about this DFL tax increase disaster . Similarly, St. Anthony isn't aware of Gene Pelowski's opposition to Rep. Lenczewski's 2009 'tax reform' legislation :
Pelowski said lawmakers won't have enough votes to override a Pawlenty veto of a DFL tax plan, and said the proposals are a "fiction" that will force lawmakers to scramble to craft another budget proposal after Pawlenty's veto. "We have to do what is real and not go through an exercise of what-ifs," Pelowski said. "There are no what-ifs. There is only the stark reality of this budget deficit."
This year's fight within the DFL on the differing tax increase proposals isn't something unanticipated. Here's a post I wrote about the infighting within the DFL over Rep. Lenczewski's 'tax reform' proposal from 2009:
'This bill proposes the most significant tax overhaul in 20 years,' said the bill's chief author Rep. Ann Lenczeswki, DFL-Bloomington.
In addition to the tax hikes, Lenczewski's bill removes a variety of tax breaks for homeowners and businesses. Charitable contributions, the mortgage interest tax deduction and the property tax deduction for homeowners are eliminated and replaced with a tax credit based on income. The bill also eliminates several business tax breaks, like the Research and Development credit and parts of the governor's JOBZ program.
Lenczewski said she wants to clean up the state's tax code. 'Which is to sweep the tax code clean of all of the preferential treatment and subsidies and things we can't afford anymore and instead bring a fairer, more progressive income tax to Minnesotans based on the ability to pay,' she said.
Here's Sen. Bakk's response to Rep. Lenczewski's proposed tax increase:
Senate Taxes Committee Chairman Tom Bakk, DFL-Cook, said eliminating the current mortgage interest deduction could hurt Minnesota's high rate of home ownership and higher alcohol taxes would drive some liquor shoppers across the Wisconsin border.
Simply put, the DFL has been split on which taxes should get increased for years. The notion that the business community is hopelessly split in its opposition to Gov. Dayton's tax increases is DFL spin.
Convenience store operators think that raising the cigarette tax will hurt their retail outlets. What's more, they can verify the fact that the DFL's cigarette tax increase will hurt their businesses.
With regards to the Dayton/DFL income tax increase on "the rich", Teresa Bohnen really has talked with 4 different companies who will likely expand their companies in other states :
St. Cloud Area Chamber of Commerce President Teresa Bohen says she's recently talked with four local companies who say they may have to transfer their investments to other states, if the Governor's plan goes through.
Most important in this is whether the Dayton-DFL tax increases will hurt Minnesota's economy, strengthen Minnesota's economy or cause Minnesota's economy to tread water, gaining a little hear, hurting a little there.
What's most likely to happen as a result of the Dayton-DFL tax increase is that convenience stores will get hurt, some businesses that were started in Minnesota will expand in other states while other businesses won't be affected by the tax increases. In other words, the best Minnesota should hope for from the Dayton-DFL tax increase is for Minnesota's economy to continue treading water.
That's unacceptable. Then again, that's what doesn't get reported when the Strib writes articles that could pass for DFL press releases.
Tags: Ann Lenczewski , Tax Reform , Tom Bakk , Mortgage Interest Tax Deduction , Mark Dayton , Tax Increases , Cigarette Tax , Liquor Tax , Unemployment , Economic Stagnation , Outmigration , Convenience Stores , Gene Pelowski , DFL , Teresa Bohnen , St. Cloud Chamber of Commerce Small Businesses , Capitalism
Posted Friday, April 19, 2013 2:01 PM
No comments.
