Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: East St. Paul 651 forever (or North St. Paul) .
2,860 posts, read 3,392,849 times
Reputation: 1446
Advertisements
I know it's old news, but the swearing in is today. Could be bad things to come for the state. It's bad when the House, Senate and Governorship are all the same branch. We'll see in a few years where this leads.
Quote:
Last week's election can likely be described as a game-changer for the state of Minnesota -- with Democrats seizing control of both the state House and Senate.
Four DFLers were elected in the Review's coverage area, and just two Republicans prevailed. Incumbent Republican Kathy Lohmer won her bid for re-election in House District 39B, and fellow Republican Karin (pronounced CAR-in) Housley, a political newcomer, beat out DFLer Julie Bunn for the Senate District 39 seat.
And with a DFL majority in the Legislature and a DFL governor already in office, Review-area Republicans said they face a tough road ahead.
There is nothing inherently bad about one party controlling the legislature and the executive branches. I suspect you are more concerned with the party in control than one-party control.
But the GOP will have their own tools. For one, if the DFL actually oversteps, the GOP is free to hold them accountable. And the DFL will require some GOP members to get through a bonding bill.
Certainly divided government isn't much better. What did we get? Filling a budget gap with tobacco revenue and not paying the schools, a state shutdown, and two constitutional amendment proposals that failed and probably contributed to sweeping the GOP out of control. Is that success?
I'll take a different approach to this discussion...considering the GOP showed relatively little practical difference to the DFL in enough areas, I'm not sure there is really that much a loss. Like their national brethren, the MNGOP has yet to show they are actually interested in REDUCING the size of government like conservatives are supposed to be interested in advocating; advocating only "less growth in spending" and "growing the size of government less than the the DFL" does not constitute "smaller government". When the GOP indicates they are pushing to reduce bloated and unnecessary programs (which cost money) and reduce the amount of the budget, then there will be an actual discussion to be had.
The GOP would also have garnered significantly more support if, instead of bitterly fighting the Ron Paul conservative liberty movement, they embraced the vision of actual smaller government. Sadly, the establishment GOP was more interested in power for power's sake than ideas and principles (that would have grown the GOP base). They are likely only following, again, their national brethren.
The above would be a good start towards a MNGOP actually offering Minnesotans a contrast and different vision (though only a good start...)
I'll take a different approach to this discussion...considering the GOP showed relatively little practical difference to the DFL in enough areas, I'm not sure there is really that much a loss. Like their national brethren, the MNGOP has yet to show they are actually interested in REDUCING the size of government like conservatives are supposed to be interested in advocating; advocating only "less growth in spending" and "growing the size of government less than the the DFL" does not constitute "smaller government". When the GOP indicates they are pushing to reduce bloated and unnecessary programs (which cost money) and reduce the amount of the budget, then there will be an actual discussion to be had.
The GOP would also have garnered significantly more support if, instead of bitterly fighting the Ron Paul conservative liberty movement, they embraced the vision of actual smaller government. Sadly, the establishment GOP was more interested in power for power's sake than ideas and principles (that would have grown the GOP base). They are likely only following, again, their national brethren.
The above would be a good start towards a MNGOP actually offering Minnesotans a contrast and different vision (though only a good start...)
I might add that they should cease their attempts to dictate who you can marry, and to cease their attempts to make it harder for non-whites to vote. And as for reducing the size of government, that's a joke; you're really talking about austerity. Take a look at Europe circa 2013 and let us know how they're doing.
As for the DFL "controlling" the state government, I would advise Republicans not to worry. Democrats at the national and state level over the last several years have proved themselves completely spineless. They are almost 100% unwilling to stand up for the things they supposedly believe in.
The MNDFL has pretty much already kiboshed marriage equality; Dayton himself said marijuana is a non-starter. So right there, on two of the biggest social issues, you might as well have Republicans in charge. The DFL will probably raise some taxes, but I'm skeptical that they'll go far enough. I would like to see regressive taxes like the sales tax lowered and income taxes made more progressive. Property tax in Minnesota has blown away the threshold of completely ridiculous.
The party *stupidly* elected a conservative Democrat from far out-state to be their senate majority leader. Honest to god, I have no idea why a mostly urban party would give Tom Bakk the keys when over 60% of the state's population is right here in the Twin Cities.
2014 is going to be another very rough, ugly election. I believe the DFL should move forward on policy under the assumption that they will lose control of the state house (and possibly the governorship) in 2014 no matter what they do. That is, this is their one shot to effect big change. So far I don't see anything coming out of the capitol that suggests that they even begin to understand the political realities.
The above would be a good start towards a MNGOP actually offering Minnesotans a contrast and different vision (though only a good start...)
Someone who identifies are libertarian might see such differences (am I correct in remembering that you identify that way...I know we have at least a few on this board), I see plenty of people who think the GOP equals small government. Coming from a staunchly conservative family, I can attest to it even in my own family.
The real problem is that people don't particularly like cuts. Sure, they like the idea of reducing government spending (I assume in the hope that they'll pay less money in taxes), but ask even most Republicans about specific cuts and they'll come up blank. Over 80 percent of budget dollars go to education (both K-12--the biggest item in the budget--and higher ed) and health and human services. That's pretty meat and potatoes stuff for a state budget. (On another note, it's strange how little is given to transportation, according to this, though it's probably because a lot is local?)
Of course, I have no doubt there's plenty of fat that could be trimmed. But I'm more concerned with efficient and effective government than smaller government at all costs.
Being that I am older than 21 like a lot of you, historically our businesses have done better, our bank accounts look better, overall economy is better when the democrats have been in office. For about 3 years after the other part has been in control and run the economy into the ground, it takes the dem's time to rebuild that. No, I don't like the deficit, however, if you look back at who CAUSED that, it's not the dem's. They are just dealing with the aftermath. I saw a bumper sticker that said "everyone does better when everyone does better". There is a lot of truth to that. Cutting spending is a short term solution to a long term problem. Go live in states that don't value this. Try living in Alabama for a while--see how nice things are there because the government doesn't spend money on the right things. See the poverty that causes. Then come back and tell me how you feel about paying taxes in MN
I might add that they should cease their attempts to dictate who you can marry, and to cease their attempts to make it harder for non-whites to vote. And as for reducing the size of government, that's a joke; you're really talking about austerity. Take a look at Europe circa 2013 and let us know how they're doing.
I guess, if you are on the receiving end of a government handout, having it eliminated and needing to use your own talents and skills (as opposed to demand someone else go to work for your benefit) would seem like "austerity". However, advocating the government get out of the many areas it should not be involved, plus eliminating the taxes that prop up those programs isn't "austerity" - it would be more of letting the free market be the free market (not the crony capitalism we see today in both the main parties) A big difference between what I advocate and what Europe is doing is I don't see any wholesale move to lower taxes or reduce government programs, just their benefits; Europe is seeing when benefits are freely handed out everyone goes running to the trough and you end up with more takers than producers.
Margaret Thatcher said it well when she said, "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
Quote:
Originally Posted by xandrex
Someone who identifies are libertarian might see such differences (am I correct in remembering that you identify that way...I know we have at least a few on this board), I see plenty of people who think the GOP equals small government. Coming from a staunchly conservative family, I can attest to it even in my own family.
The real problem is that people don't particularly like cuts. Sure, they like the idea of reducing government spending (I assume in the hope that they'll pay less money in taxes), but ask even most Republicans about specific cuts and they'll come up blank. Over 80 percent of budget dollars go to education (both K-12--the biggest item in the budget--and higher ed) and health and human services. That's pretty meat and potatoes stuff for a state budget. (On another note, it's strange how little is given to transportation, according to this, though it's probably because a lot is local?)
Of course, I have no doubt there's plenty of fat that could be trimmed. But I'm more concerned with efficient and effective government than smaller government at all costs.
I am not a card carrying member of the LP, but generally embrace what they advocate. If a Republican will embrace the ideologies of liberty (such as Ron Paul), I would likely support that candidate. In fact, given the predominance of the Republican Party, it makes more practical sense to support the candidate in the party that can get elected. However, I no longer see myself voting for the "lesser of two evils", especially when that "lesser evil" is only marginally different than the "greater evil" (are you listening, Romney & Co.?). Shoot...if a Democrat advocated liberty principles, I would consider that candidate. Obviously, by including yourself in the Democratic Party, you generally are far enough from liberty principles that I cannot support your candidacy.
And, Xandrex, you're right...people don't like the cuts, especially if it affects their pet project or handout. Republicans are frankly as guilty of that as Democrats - it's just what programs each is receiving. That said, two things:
1) I fully suspect after some initial discomfort and they start seeing more of their paychecks staying in their pocket to spend or invest as they wish, we would adjust. Furthermore, if we had a true free market vs. crony capitalism where government hands out goodies making for winners or losers arbitrarily, the free market would bring prices down through lower business costs and competition, meaning you have more of your money in your pocket.
2) Cuts are coming one way or another - either when we go broke because the expenditures far exceed the ability to tax or pay, or people finally get sick of working and paying for others wants and lifestyles.
The ugly alternative is a continued printing of green pieces of paper to the point of being meaningless; the specter of Weimar Republic hangs in the background (or, if you prefer a more recent historical reference, Google on the Zimbabwe Dollar. I was at a coin show where one of the dealers was selling a "novelty" 100 trillion dollar Zimbabwe note.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfgal
Being that I am older than 21 like a lot of you, historically our businesses have done better, our bank accounts look better, overall economy is better when the democrats have been in office. For about 3 years after the other part has been in control and run the economy into the ground, it takes the dem's time to rebuild that. No, I don't like the deficit, however, if you look back at who CAUSED that, it's not the dem's. They are just dealing with the aftermath. I saw a bumper sticker that said "everyone does better when everyone does better". There is a lot of truth to that. Cutting spending is a short term solution to a long term problem. Go live in states that don't value this. Try living in Alabama for a while--see how nice things are there because the government doesn't spend money on the right things. See the poverty that causes. Then come back and tell me how you feel about paying taxes in MN
I guess the TOS indicating "no personal attacks" is only a suggestion, snide comments about other posters age (and all it insinuates) are okay?
Who am I to say GG's bank accounts weren't better "when the Dem's have been in office"? I'll take you at your word. That said, I don't remember real recent history where one party has controlled the Statehouse and the Governor's Mansion - which was the point of this thread to begin with. As such, it is a simplistic talking point to say "the economy is better when Dem's are in power" (even setting aside my assertion there is little practical difference between the two parties in terms of deficit spending and often even what programs they want to spend on). Furthermore, I don't recall if GG has mentioned what her business is, but we have no idea if that business hinges on government subsidies or contracts. If so, it would be unsurprising to hear the business does better under a degree of Dem control.
As far as the equally snide comment of "living in Alabama for a while", this is a simplistic non sequitur argument. "It does not follow" that Alabama has problems only because of low taxes. Move the 20 or so Fortune 500 companies from Minneapolis/St. Paul to Birmingham and my guess is it won't take long for a new city to rise. It also doesn't explain three states over in Texas with relatively low overall tax burden and a strong economy. If more taxes is the simple answer, then we should see the whole of California in utopia instead of a number of all but bankrupt cities, or we should see a bustling Detroit instead of one where the city trying to stave off bankruptcy by turning out the street lights in vast portions of the city and refusing to send police to those areas due to cost.
All that said, to those advocating "higher taxes means more prosperity", I welcome you to advocate and participate in 100% income tax - every dime you make will go St. Paul or DC. A government bureaucrat will then decide what you will get for food, housing, clothing, and other expenses - all "for the common good" of course. I'm sure there will be no corruption in giving government bureaucrats that kind of power and I'm sure everyone will only work the system to ask for what they need to get by - they won't go running to the trough to get anything they can scheme their way into... I'm also sure we won't see a black market economy rise out of that scenario to avoid the 100% income tax.
Interestingly, I have yet to see a liberal advocate for 100% income taxes and the natural progression of their ideology...well, maybe other than government bureaucrats on the receiving end of that power and wealth...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
