June 1-5, 2016
Jun 01 04:43 Stand with Granite City Baptist Church, not the St. Cloud Times Jun 01 13:10 St. Cloud Times on a roll Jun 02 10:44 Debunking Dayton's demands Jun 03 14:14 Summer of recovery? Jun 04 09:43 Trump isn't a crook; he's a bigot Jun 04 13:55 First Amendment Hypocrisy Jun 04 22:21 Consensus is impossible when... Jun 05 10:43 Gov. Dayton overplaying his hand Jun 05 14:10 Let's identify the St. Paul problem
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Stand with Granite City Baptist Church, not the St. Cloud Times
Last week, I wrote this post about this St. Cloud Times editorial .
The Times owes the citizens of this community, especially Granite City Baptist Church, an apology for their vile, hate-filled editorial. Throughout their editorial, the Times used words that agitated. It started in the opening paragraph of their editorial when they said "And so it continues - this tour of anti-Islam, anti-immigrant, fear-mongering speakers who parachute in to St. Cloud, spread their messages of hate and misinformation and then (convenient only for them) leave." It continued, saying that Usama Dakdok's presentation has "become well-known for his evil schtick about how Islam is a "savage cult" and that Muslims will soon dominate this country."
The Times instructed people to listen "to local faith leaders, not Dakdok."
The Times covered the Friday night presentation relatively fairly in their news section. I wrote this article to highlight the vandalism visited upon Granite City Baptist Church prior to Friday night's presentation. What's missing is the Times' editorial telling people to stand with Granite City Baptist Church in denouncing this vandalism.
Perhaps, that's because the Times' editorial included this:
Based on news reports, it's a classic example of Dakdok's strategy: Pick smaller cities and rural communities where Muslims are new and few (if any) in number and deliver his toxic message. Plus, of course, collect the obligatory free-will offering. Then pack up and leave - quick, before the waves of hate he's fostered can crest across the community. (And before people can research for themselves his message.)
Faced with such a despicable dump-and-run tactic, this board urges faith leaders across St. Cloud and all of Central Minnesota to speak up again . Use their influential voices, their powerful sermons, their compassionate followers and even the Times Opinion section to refute Dakdok's divisive message.
The Times spent a bunch of bandwidth talking about Dakdok's hateful schtick. Now that the protesters have committed an act of vandalism, it's possible that the Times might want to get this episode behind them. This isn't a proud moment for the St. Cloud Times or for Mark Jaede. Jaede issued this press release through the SCSU Announce listserv:
The next day, the Times published its hate-filled editorial.
What a surprise.
Originally posted Wednesday, June 1, 2016, revised 25-Jan 4:26 PM
No comments.
St. Cloud Times on a roll
The St. Cloud Times is on a roll editorial-wise. Last week, they published this hate-filled editorial that ended with a church getting vandalized, thanks in large part, I suspect, to the Times editorial, which did everything except call the church a host for bigotry. A week later and the Times Editorial Board is at it again, this time telling Gov. Dayton to play politics rather than correcting the DFL's sabotaging of a bonding bill that would've fixed the most dangerous stretch of highway in Minnesota.
Apparently, the St. Cloud Times doesn't care that motorists will be put at risk because DFL senators put a higher priority of funding the Southwest Light Rail project than they put on fixing the 38-mile stretch of Highway 12 between Wayzata and Cokato. What a heartless bunch the Times Editorial Board is. Of course, they don't put it that way. Instead, they insist that they're recommending no special session because politicians need to be taught a lesson for not getting their work done on time.
There is no budget shortfall. The operation of state government programming and services is not contingent on legislation being drafted and approved. And there certainly is no natural disaster, no unemployment benefits nor even war bonuses for veterans (see Korea, 1958) that require legislators to reconvene in St. Paul this year.
So don't convene a special session. Make the best decisions you can about the legislation sent to your desk and be done with it.
Technically, the Times is accurate. Still, the Times is blind as a bat. There is an emergency that the DFL didn't address. The DFL Senate insisted that the House approve funding for the controversial Southwest Light Rail project be included in the bonding bill. By doing that with minutes left in the session, the DFL Senate killed the bonding bill and, with it, funding to fix Highway 12.
To the Times editors, I'll just say this: your editorial is shameful. You didn't think things through. Either that or you just don't care about public safety. Either that or you just aren't that bright to begin with.
Finally, before publishing your next editorial, think these things through. It's embarrassing to read an editorial that's this filled with depravity.
Posted Wednesday, June 1, 2016 1:10 PM
Comment 1 by Paul Brandmire at 02-Jun-16 06:01 AM
While you correctly pointed out that the DFL-controlled senate passed their bill minutes before the session ended at midnight, you forgot to mention that this was after, and contrary to, the bipartisan committee agreed on a transportation bill which would have gone a long way to serve that area by fixing Hwy 12 and a number of other congested and dangerous roadways in our state.so, instead of sending a good and much-needed bill to the governor, they played gamesmanship and lost.
Debunking Dayton's demands
Gov. Dayton's letter to the caucus leaders in the House and Senate is a negotiating document. As such, it should be seen for what it really is -- a campaign document -- and for what it isn't -- a serious policy document.
In the section of his letter titled transportation, Gov. Dayton said "Before I call a Special Session, I believe it is essential for the Senate and House to first revise and reconcile the transportation sections of the bonding bills, which previously passed their respective bodies." That's code for saying that he won't call a session unless House Republicans agree to fund the SWLRT project. Again, this is a poison pill. It isn't a priority. It's a project that's been argued over for at least 8 years and probably longer. SWLRT is a non-starter with Republicans and Dayton knows it.
Then Gov. Dayton includes some misinformation about the need for SWLRT, saying "The additional 750,000 people, who are expected to inhabit this region in the next twenty-five years, will be forced onto impossibly congested highways, if sufficient bus, bus rapid transit, and light-rail alternatives are not developed."
When I wrote this article about Minnesota losing the brain drain border battle, I highlighted how many young people are leaving Minnesota for Wisconsin and the Dakotas. When I wrote about redistricting in 2011-12, I wrote about how people left Minneapolis and St. Paul. That's when I coined the phrase that people "were voting with their mortgages."
CD-6 and CD-2 were over their target of 662,991 people per CD in Minnesota by 96,457 people and 69,204 people respectively. At the time, those districts were represented by Michele Bachmann and John Kline, respectively. By comparison, CD-4 and CD-5, the heart of downtown St. Paul and Minneapolis respectively, were down over 40,000 people per CD.
That's before factoring in Peter Nelson's study about how many people are leaving Minnesota:
Between 2013 and 2014, Minnesota lost nearly $1 billion in net household income to other states. Minnesota's 2014 net loss of $948 million represented a sharp increase over prior years. Just three years ago, the state's net loss of adjusted gross income was $490 million.
While it isn't impossible to believe that another 750,000 people might move into "the region", the truth is that it's most likely that most of those people will choose to live in the outer ring suburbs and exurbs where light rail is least effective.
More concerning is the precedent that these earmarks of State Highway projects set for future legislatures. Picking winners and losers according to the discretion of a handful of legislators behind closed doors, instead of basing those decisions on established priorities, is not responsible.
The DFL is the party that loves picking winners and losers. Further, while I generally hate earmarks, I don't reflexively disagree with all earmarks. In fact, earmarking funds for specific transportation projects is exactly the right thing to do.
In 2008, the DFL promised Rod Hamilton that they'd finish the Highway 14 project if he voted to override Gov. Pawlenty's veto of the transportation bill. After Rep. Hamilton voted to override Gov. Dayton's veto, the DFL didn't keep their promise.
Highway 12 is the most dangerous stretch of highway in Minnesota. Why isn't it proper for the legislature to insist that fixing it be part of the bonding bill?
Posted Thursday, June 2, 2016 10:44 AM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 02-Jun-16 06:03 PM
Sure MN will grow by 750,000 but it won't be hard working families that will be moving here, it will be low paid or no paid immigrants who seek the gravy train that is the MN welfare state. Meanwhile, hard working people who don't have a family trust fund to pay the bills with, will move to other states that don't hold the people hostage for billion dollar toys.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 02-Jun-16 07:22 PM
Though the DFL denies that statement, Chad, the IRS has the proof. The facts are the facts.
Summer of recovery?
Let's be blunt about something. Today's Marxist progressives don't have a clue about creating a growing economy. They never have. I'm betting they never will. That's why I'm not surprised that t his post criticizes President Obama's economic policies. Mockingly, its title asks "Are We Still In the Summer of Recovery?"
Here's a hint: we never had sustained healthy economic growth during the Obama administration. This administration has slowed the economy with intrusive, weaponized government to the point that the only thing keeping the economy going is quantitative easing. Companies aren't moving overseas because of bad trade deals. They're moving because this administration's regulations are killing jobs. They're moving because this administration thinks that sky-high minimum wage rates are good for people.
Sky-high wages for entry-level jobs are killing jobs. Here in St. Cloud, staffing cuts at fast food places have slowed order fulfillment to a snail's pace. It's gotten to the point where I can't call these little burger shops fast food places anymore.
But I digress.
Mark Levin puts things in perspective:
The Environmental Protection Agency chased Carrier out of this country -- or will. How do we know this? Carrier said so. So, why are none of these mouthpieces talking about the EPA? Why are none of these frauds talking about the EPA? The EPA is destroying 'the middle class;' it's destroying working people in this country; it's destroying coal miners; it's destroying oil jobs; it's destroying trucking jobs. The EPA is destroying our smokestack industries. The EPA is doing more damage to our economy and hardworking men and women in this country than any country in the world! And yet they won't talk about it. You know why? Because it doesn't rile people up as much. And you know why else? Because it's harder to deal with.
I've contended for 2-3 years that this is the sleeper issue that Republicans should latch onto. I don't know why they think that this won't rile people up. Frankly, it might be that the consultant class thinks that this isn't a traditional 'Republican issue'.
If that's the case, then they're wrong. Intrusive government, especially the weaponized government that the EPA specializes in, is explosive if it's explained properly. It doesn't take a ton of time, either, because it doesn't take time to tell people that coal regulations kill jobs, hurts the economy and drives up families' electric bills.
Frankly, I think Republicans are intimidated by President Obama. He's a cocky, dishonest salesman. There's only one way to deal with that and that's to ridicule him for thinking that excessive regulations create incentives to create jobs. This isn't the time for a civilized debate. It's time to, first, study the issue, then stand up to the narcissist living in the White House.
Posted Friday, June 3, 2016 2:14 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 03-Jun-16 02:53 PM
Fifteen bucks an hour "sky high?"
Everybody only has so many hours before they croak.
Selling one for less than fifteen, being forced that way by the holders of all the playing cards, is an absolute, total, unequivocal insult.
Nobody should be subjected to such an abuse.
I do agree, the Republicans should point to the economy and ask what happened. They would reap what they've sown. They will not. It will be Ryan and Trump, hand in hand.
Comment 2 by JerryE9 at 04-Jun-16 09:20 AM
Nobody will force you to work for less than $15/hour, Joel. Nor are they likely to offer you $15/hour. Just the threat of that minimum wage is on its way to eliminating millions of jobs that American robots are perfectly willing to do for less money.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 04-Jun-16 12:05 PM
Eric, paying an entry-level kid $15/hr. isn't a solution to anything. Those jobs are disappearing because businesses will replace workers with technology if the price is too high.
If the price is reasonable, they'll keep them around. If the price isn't reasonable, those jobs will be cut.
The problem isn't that we need a higher minimum wage. The problem is that the Obama economy (yes, that's who's to blame) stinks. The fat cats that Obama is always denouncing do well thanks to his policies.
The people getting hurt by President Obama's policies are small businesses & the middle class. With the tons of regulations, small businesses can't form & create jobs.
As a result, wages stagnate, more part time jobs get created & the fat cats live the life of luxury.
Bernie & Pocahontas have a massive appeal in the Democratic Party but that's just because Democrats don't understand how the economy works.
Comment 4 by Chad Q at 05-Jun-16 06:54 AM
The Obama and Dayton administrations have done nothing to further the economy for the actual working people in this country and state but like you said, the fat cats are doing quite well as are those that are living off of the entitlement programs. The US and State have lost many jobs to other countries and states due to high taxes and regulations. The democrat solution to that is to penalize those companies and people for trying to keep more of their money.
Paying someone $15/hr for a $9/hr job will only raise prices across the board and soon those people will be in the same boat as they were before. Only the government (more taxes collected) and union employees (contracts usually tied to min wage) win when the min. wage is artificially raised to appease economically challenged democrats and their loyal followers.
Trump isn't a crook; he's a bigot
Friday night, I watched David Wohl debate Guy Benson about Donald Trump's bigoted statements about Judge Curiel. I watched in amazement because Trish Regan, who was guest-hosting for Megyn Kelly, brought up the question that Trump had attacked Judge Curiel to take attention away from his Trump University lawsuits.
Wohl seemed to think that was possible. If that was Trump's strategy, it was an exceptionally foolish strategy. The Trump University lawsuits essentially accuse Trump of being a crook, promising people a path to riches if they just followed the Trump blueprint for success.
Trump's statement that Judge Curiel hated Trump because Trump is promising to build a wall on the US-Mexican border is outright bigotry. It isn't brilliant to call attention to your bigotry rather than your dishonesty. Trump is hoping that he can increase turnout of lower-income white people. It's as if Trump thinks he can win by winning the bigot vote. The thing is that there aren't enough bigots in enough states for Trump to win.
Had Trump been smart, he would've accused the judge of being appointed by President Obama. Had he done that, he would've taken attention away from being accused of being a crook and put the spotlight on Obama's judges
Posted Saturday, June 4, 2016 9:43 AM
Comment 1 by Bob J. at 06-Jun-16 02:55 PM
Donald Trump is the most odious human being ever to seek the Presidency.
Given that Hillary Clinton is currently running and we've had a race-baiting socialist running the country for the last seven years, this is quite a statement to make.
Comment 2 by eric z at 07-Jun-16 12:49 PM
Trump is not as bad as Paul Ryan.
Trump may be a crook and bigot; but he's not yet shown himself to be more hostile to the poor than Scrooge, which is the Paul Ryan persona.
I would take Trump over Ryan in a heartbeat. There is hope for Trump; Ryan is beyond hope.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 08-Jun-16 12:14 AM
Eric, you haven't paid attention, have you?
Comment 3 by AHodge at 07-Jun-16 01:38 PM
rish is right about attacking Curiel. it will give his followers an excuse to ignore the bad news now and a possible judgment against him.
Trump is also timeline challenged. He only went negative on Mexicans--build a wall-- about a half year ago. This judge has been on the case nearly two years, plenty of time to give the summary dismissal trump wants, before he went negative on Mexicans.
Comment 4 by Bob J. at 08-Jun-16 04:07 PM
While usually it's a given that Eric isn't paying attention, he does bring up a point. Both Ryan and Trump are fake conservatives.
Yet, there's no hope for Trump. His brand of misogyny, racism, bullying and incompetence can't be fixed. His Stormtrumpers disagree, but the only way the Republican Party's problems are even close to fixable is for a delegate revolt in Cleveland.
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 08-Jun-16 05:38 PM
I agree with the open revolt plan.
First Amendment Hypocrisy
This LTE highlights some Muslims' hypocrisy. Hudda Ibrahim's LTE is filled with double standards, with none being bigger than when she said "Dakdok is known for preaching against Muslims in America. He claims Muslims are taking over America, which is far from the truth. Although the speaker exercised the right of speech, he was blithely unaware that the Constitution allowed everyone in the United States to practice their faith."
I doubt that Ibrahim thinks that Usama Dakdok was cheerfully ignorant that the Constitution protects the rights of everyone to practice their faith. Later in the LTE, she wrote "The presence of an Islamophobic speaker like Dakdok is not the problem. Granite City Baptist Church, which invited him to St. Cloud, should shoulder most of the blame." If Granite City Baptist Church believes as I believe, they have a moral obligation to speak out against things they don't believe in. Sitting silently while another religion essentially preaches the opposite set of beliefs isn't the free exercise of religion. It's a capitulation to an opposing set of beliefs.
Muslims certainly haven't preached tolerance of Israel. Even moderate Muslim nations like Jordan doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist. There are certainly significant portions of Muslims who have preached death to Israel and death to the United States. That certainly isn't a tolerant viewpoint.
Further, Ibrahim's statement that Rev. Dakdok is Islamophobic is projection at best. The definition of Islamophobia is hatred or fear of Muslims or of their politics or culture. What proof does Ibrahim have of that? I can find proof that Rev. Dakdok passionately disagrees with Muslims. I can find proof that Rev. Dakdok wishes that Muslims would accept Christ as their Savior, though I'm certain he isn't holding his breath waiting for that to happen. I can't find proof that Rev. Dakdok is afraid of Muslims or that he hates Muslims.
Later in her LTE, Ibrahim writes "To dispel prejudice and prevent further division in the community, there's an urgent need for a 'dialogue of life.'" The definition of prejudice is "an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason." What proof does Ms. Ibrahim have that Rev. Dakdok or Pastor Campbell disagree with Islam blindly? Why can't Ms. Ibrahim believe that they've formed their opinions based on what they've learned by studying the Bible? Why doesn't Ms. Ibrahim think that they've formed their opinions about Islam based on what the Koran says? Finally, there's this misguided paragraph:
I urge our communities, regardless of their faith, skin color and language, to learn to practice tolerance. Faith leaders should not allow controversial speakers coming to our city to drive a wedge between our communities. Our religious leaders should preach love and tolerance, but not hate.
When Granite City Baptist welcomed Rev. Dakdok to their church, their doors were filled with foul-mouthed graffiti, including the F-word. We still haven't found the criminals who committed this crime but police are certain that it wasn't a member of Granite City Baptist.
It's interesting that Ms. Ibrahim likes Christians who don't question her religion but criticizes Christians that question her religion's principles. I'd call that hypocritical.
Posted Saturday, June 4, 2016 1:55 PM
Comment 1 by Dave steckling at 04-Jun-16 10:54 PM
Thanks for the commentary.
Consensus is impossible when...
Rep. Paul Thissen's statement sounds reasonable until you think things through. Then it sounds totally unreasonable. In his statement, Rep. Thissen said "We are supportive of Governor Dayton's parameters for a special session and agree that we should work to reach consensus on a long-term transportation package. That was everyone's top priority heading in to session and it would be a failure if the House Republicans walked away from a compromise."
The DFL's plan calls for raising the gas tax and funding SWLRT. The GOP plan wisely rejects that proposal because the DFL's tax increase doesn't produce the revenue required to fix Minnesota's roads and bridges and because the SWLRT is the biggest waste of money this side of Sen. Bakk's Senate Office Building spending spree. Actually, Sen. Bakk's Senate Office Building is the better deal because it 'only' cost $90,000,000. That's kind of a frightening thought.
When Rep. Thissen talks reaching consensus, what he really wants is for Republicans to do everything that the DFL wants. That isn't happening this time so Rep. Thissen is issuing threatening-sounding statements like Wednesday's statement.
Minnesotans are frustrated that the legislature did not get the job done. Yet instead of taking any responsibility, Speaker Daudt continues to play the blame game.
This is the pot calling the kettle black. I wrote this post to highlight the fact that the DFL's hatchet operation, aka ABM, was already affixing blame on Republicans while the legislature was still in session . What's worst is that ABM's hatchet lady was still getting paid by Minnesota's taxpayers because she's a DFL staffer, too.
Rep. Thissen, the DFL intentionally sabotaged the bonding bill. They did it through the amendment process in the Senate. They killed a bill that passed by a 91-39 margin in the House. That's 10 more votes than they needed to pass a bonding bill.
The DFL is a contemptible political party, something that I'll highlight in a future post. In that respect, Rep. Thissen is perfectly qualified because he's a contemptible human being.
Posted Saturday, June 4, 2016 10:21 PM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 05-Jun-16 09:46 PM
A $900 million dollar over taxation "surplus" and the DFL wants to raise taxes even more. If that does not show the world that the DFL only cares about taking people's hard earned money and spending it the way they see fit, I don't know what does.
Gov. Dayton overplaying his hand
The latest scuttlebutt from St. Paul is that Gov. Dayton will veto the bipartisan tax bill by not signing it into law. Technically, he will use a provision known as a pocket veto. In the real world, it'll be another example of Gov. Dayton overplaying his hand. When Gov. Dayton vetoes the bipartisan tax bill, he will argue that there's a wording error in the bill's language. Technically, that's true. It's also a dodge.
As this article says, this happens all the time. The article says "Those type of language errors happen all the time and are most often fixed by the Office of Revisor of Statutes, rather than requiring legislative action" before saying "Governor, this has all happened before - with DFLers and Republicans - on other issues. And there is no disagreement on the need for change in the language. ... Governor, let the hostage bill go."
Let's be clear about this. Gov. Dayton plans on vetoing a bill with tons of middle class tax cuts in it, property tax relief for small businesses and farmers and that some tax incentives that will diversify the Iron Range's economy. He's threatening to veto the bill if House Republicans don't agree to include funding for the Southwest Light Rail in the bonding bill, something that they've opposed for years.
Gov. Dayton initially said that he wouldn't hold the tax bill hostage to get leverage on a bonding bill. Now he's reneged on that promise. While I'm upset from a policy perspective that Gov. Dayton plans on vetoing the tax cuts, I'm thankful he's doing it from a political standpoint. Let me explain.
Gov. Dayton has undoubtedly read the articles saying he has the most leverage over a special session. While that's true in the sense that he's the only person who can call a session, it isn't true in the sense that the GOP put together some very appealing legislation. The tax bill is a perfect example. That passed with overwhelming support in the House and Senate. It passed in the House 123-10. It passed in the Senate 55-12.
Further, on the bonding bill, Gov. Dayton and the DFL are essentially saying that funding for the SWLRT is more important than fixing Highway 12, the most dangerous stretch of highway in Minnesota. Does the DFL really want mailers showing up telling stories about traffic deaths that they voted against. See here , here and here for stories about fatalities on Highway 12.
Those mailers will be especially effective against DFL senators because they voted to stop funding for fixing Highway 12. Picture a mailer showing up in Terri Bonoff's open seat in Plymouth that highlights her support for SWLRT at the expense of fixing Highway 12. Imagine that mailer showing up in Chris Eaton's Brooklyn Park/Brooklyn Center district. I can't imagine this playing well in John Hoffman's district or in Alice Johnson's district, either.
If Gov. Dayton wants to bet that funding SWLRT is more popular than middle class tax cuts or fixing Highway 12, it's my advice that Speaker Daudt and Sen. Hann should call his bluff. I'm betting that DFL legislators in swing districts won't like Gov. Dayton playing hardball with those issues.
Posted Sunday, June 5, 2016 10:43 AM
No comments.
Let's identify the St. Paul problem
Patrick Condon's article reads like it was written by Paul Thissen. It opens by saying "Minnesota Republicans, who seized control of the House two years ago on promises to cut taxes and boost road and bridge spending across the state, now could go zero for two on those priorities because of bad blood with DFL Gov. Mark Dayton."
Let's correct that to tell what's really happened. Gov. Dayton and Rep. Thissen have tried pushing a metrocentric agenda down Minnesota's throats. Thanks to Speaker Daudt and House Republicans, we've actually had real solutions proposed that would've fixed Minnesota's roads and bridges while providing tax relief to small businesses, college students and farmers.
The metrocentric DFL has fought against road and bridge repair by insisting that Minnesota's gas tax be increased. When that failed, they insisted that the bonding bill include funding for the SWLRT project, something that's been controversial for a decade. Speaker Daudt should tell Gov. Dayton that Republicans are prepared to take the message of DFL obstructionism to the voters and let them decide if they want DFL legislators interfering with the Republicans' positive, solutions-oriented agenda.
It isn't the Republicans' fault that Rep. Thissen and Gov. Dayton hate outstate Minnesota. It isn't the Republicans' fault that Gov. Dayton is willing to veto a bill that would provide tax relief to tens of thousands of Minnesotans. If Gov. Dayton wants to veto a bill because it has a technical error that Republicans have agreed to fix in a special session, then it's Gov. Dayton, not Republicans, who is standing in the way of helping Minnesotans.
Thus far, Gov. Dayton has publicly stated that he's willing to stand in the way of fixing the most dangerous stretch of highway in Minnesota. He's also threatened to veto a tax bill that would provide tax relief to tens of thousands of Minnesotans. If Gov. Dayton wants the DFL to get the reputation of being the obstructionist party in Minnesota, that's his decision. If Gov. Dayton wants the DFL to get the reputation of insisting on raising Minnesotans' taxes each year, that's Gov. Dayton's and the DFL's decision.
If Gov. Dayton wants the Republicans to get the reputation of fixing problems like eliminating student loan debt and helping parents save for their kids' college education, that's Gov. Dayton's choice. That isn't to say that Republicans don't wish that they could do a couple of things differently in terms of bringing bills to the House floor. It just means that their policies are superior to the DFL's ideas.
Posted Sunday, June 5, 2016 2:10 PM
No comments.
