Secrets of the City

I can understand why the Republicans stripped those guys of leadership.

If it were six rogue Democrats, I’d have expected party leadership to do the same thing.

Remember Randy Kelly!

Remember. Randy. Kelly.

The DFL didn’t do anything to Randy Kelly, Rat, except shake their heads in disbelief. It was the voters who showed him the door…

You have a point. But how popular was he at the Capital?

Those six repulicans are done come election time.

When he was a legislator? Very popular. He was considered one of the smartest guys in the room, with a good knack for politics. Hense everyones’ surprise when we stumped for the President.

What was he thinking? One of the strangest stories in Minnesota political history.

Hard to do much as political party when you have guys you can’t count on.

There’s a big difference between bucking the party line on a legislative vote when it might be in your constituents interests, and endorsing someone from the opposing party.

There’s a big difference between bucking the party line on a legislative vote when it might be in your constituents interests

As soon as you believe representatives are actually expected to represent their constituents over their political party, the terrorist have won.

There’s a big difference between bucking the party line on a legislative vote when it might be in your constituents interests, and endorsing someone from the opposing party.

What they did was pull the rug out from the republican party. No one said that some form of funding was not going to be authorized for roads and bridges but negotiation 101 is that you say no to the first offer. The six just jumped ship and went to the other side. Why be part of a party if you are not going to stick with it to some degree as a leverage for your parties agenda. You have to give a big high five to Margret Anderson, she was able to mow over the governor and the republican party. That woman is going somewhere. In the end the 6 traitors just destroyed all hope for some tax relief in this session but hey the republicans were out maneuvered and got their ass kicked. No wonder the party is in trouble.

swandog, your forgetting that this has been an issue over several years. What happened in these early weeks of the session was a continuation of last session.

You can’t seriously think there was going to be any widespread tax relief when the whispers are that we’re going to see a $1 billion shortfall revealed tomorrow, and we were already looking at a significant shortfall previously.

The party (and the Democrats, for that matter) is in trouble not because they were outmaneuvered, but because they’ve lost touch with what it means to be a legislator.

Those six crossed the aisle because they felt it was in the best interests of the state, whether you agree with that assessment or not. Punishing them for voting their conscience does nothing but damage the legislature’s credibility as a democratic body. The constituents need to be the ones to decide right and wrong here — not a political body that seems to have taken some notes on parliamentary procedure from Russia.

what petty bullshit party politics is. vote the party line or else! nevermind having your own opinion and weighing things as they come along!

No no! You must always side with your party or you are cut off! I guess this means we elect party platforms rather than thoughtful candidates? So any schmoe can stand in as long as s/he listens to the party line for everything.

Totally agree with wayno. This whole thing reminds me of high school. if you’re not with us, you can’t sit at the cool table. Gees!

For even more entertainment, check out the MN Monitor’s piece on the folks replacing the six in their minority leadership positions.

You know we’re in for an interesting ride when one of them has called Pawlenty “pro-homosexual.”

You can’t seriously think there was going to be any widespread tax relief when the whispers are that we’re going to see a $1 billion shortfall revealed tomorrow, and we were already looking at a significant shortfall previously

No, in reality I hoped that they could have cut a better deal and mitigated the tax hike. The republicans are on the ropes. Part of the problem is that they attract people like me strictly for their party platform on taxes but I get sick of the evangelicals controlling the party. They have lost almost all of the independents in this state and possibly the country. All one can hope for is a 3Rd party.

all of this is such good news for the dfl …….

just imagine mr. average mn citizen:

mr. average citizen knows absolutely nothing about state politics or parties. he doesn’t like taxes, but he knows the bridge fell down and it was national news and was pretty scary.

he sees the people at the capital get help to bridges and is happy.

he sees a republican governor oppose it and is confused. he sees it still pass, but republicans fire the people who pushed for it, and is confused.

mr. average citizen now knows something about state politics: state republicans don’t like to fix the bridges and oppose people who do.

all of this is so politically stupid for the state republicans it’s unbelievable.

You know we’re in for an interesting ride when one of them has called Pawlenty “pro-homosexual

They just cut their own throat. If the republican party thinks it is going to win on gays, and abortion they are sadly mistaken. The only issue they have left is taxes. Please someone at the capital in the republican party please understand that it taxes NOT JESUS for fuck sake. That’s the solution to loosing and getting your ass kicked bring in the kooks of your party, yea, that is going to do it.

I think it’s lame what the GOP is doing to those legislators. But look what the Dems did to Lieberman. Knee-jerk, extremist partisan politics is killing this country (and the whole world, really). Long live the moderates (from both parties)!

I agree that the Democrats should’ve let Lieberman continue as a Democrat. But the key difference is that they endorsed someone else in the election and Lieberman ran and won as an independent. There were no punitive measures taken when he was still in office, and he still caucuses with the Dems.

also could tpaw be any more of a one-issue politician? the issues in politics are way more multidimensional than “TAXES BAD! VETO PEN SMAAAASH!”

If I profiled six DFLers and only used their positions on social issues, I’d be accused of trying to distract people with divisive social issues.

Just thought I’d point that out.

I agree that the Democrats should’ve let Lieberman continue as a Democrat.

They have. He’s Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. ANd he still caucuses with the Democrats.

Are you suggesting that the Democrat Party should have overruled the CT primary voters and kept him as the Democratic candidate after he lost in the primary?

That’s an important distinction. Committee leads are chosen via internal decisions to serve internal purposes. They’re not chosen by voters and it’s not like Washington where being a committee honcho means you get to do all kind of pork and sh*t.

It’s sort of like if you’re leading a project at your job and your boss decides to replace you with a different project lead. It’s not like you got fired and lost your job completely. All your co-workers still like you and you still get donuts and juice at the weekly meeting. (I wish we had donuts and juice at the weekly meetings!!!)

As far as party support goes, that is determined by voters. Parties support endorsed candidates and endorsement is a title bestowed by voters. There’s no indication the RPM has any intention of changing that practice.

At this time it might be good to remeber that another moderate Republican, Arnie Carlson, won twice without his party’s endoresment, as I recall.

There are not many Republicans of the caliber of Carlson remaining. They were purged by the evangelicals and scoop jackson wing of the party.

It’s too bad Arnie’s not in it anymore, I would totally vote for him after listening to him on his various MPR appearances.

This whole thing just makes me hate the GOP even more. They’re a bunch of slimeballs, apparently legislators are supposed to be glorified monkeys who just vote what they’re told to.

Are you suggesting that the Democrat Party should have overruled the CT primary voters and kept him as the Democratic candidate after he lost in the primary?

No, I’m saying they should’ve let him be a member of the party once he won the election. He caucuses with the dems, but isn’t actually one.

I wonder if that is not by his own choosing? He is awfully buddy buddy with a certain Senator from AZ right now.

No, I’m saying they should’ve let him be a member of the party once he won the election. He caucuses with the dems, but isn’t actually one.

My understanding is that is a matter of his own choice. Not something that the Democrats in the Senate imposed on him.

To be honest, I’m not entirely sure. I’ve seen it referenced both ways. And sadly, Joe isn’t returning my calls.

There are not many Republicans of the caliber of Carlson remaining. They were purged by the evangelicals and scoop jackson wing of the party.

Scoop Jackson was a Democrat, therefore there never has been a Scoop Jackson wing of the Republican Party.

In fact, Joe Lieberman is probably one of the last members of that wing.

To be honest, I’m not entirely sure. I’ve seen it referenced both ways. And sadly, Joe isn’t returning my calls.

Call harder.

Call hard with a vengeance.

Well, they let him caucus with them, they gave him the committee chair he was in line for. Seems to me it’s mostly a matter of him not willing to call himself a Democrat anymore.

Now, to be fair, if the Democrats solidify their Senate majority this fall, I wouldn’t be too surprised if they boot him from the caucus. He has, after all, endorsed a Republican. But I also wouldn’t be surprised if he left the caucus on his own before they had a chance to address the issue.

Live free or call hard!

MNspeak: Politics for guys who like movies.

If I profiled six DFLers and only used their positions on social issues, I’d be accused of trying to distract people with divisive social issues.

well, to be fair, we all already know how they voted on the transportation bill…

“As soon as you believe representatives are actually expected to represent their constituents over their political party, the terrorist have won.“

Sad but true.

“No one said that some form of funding was not going to be authorized for roads and bridges“

Right, cut spending on education? Health care?

“but negotiation 101 is that you say no to the first offer.“

That was not the first offer. Spending on roads and infrastructure has been on the table for years and gotten nowhere.

“The six just jumped ship and went to the other side. Why be part of a party if you are not going to stick with it to some degree“

To some degree? Does the term “lock step” mean anything? I about shit when I heard that a handful of (R)’s had the balls to stand up to their party. Now their party is turning on them like rabid dogs because they had the nerve to think for themselves.

If I were in Republican leadership, I’d have slapped them down, too. This is a big piece of legislation — billions of dollars — you can’t have people going off the reservation.

If the tables were turned and it was Democrats, I’d have wanted loyalty.

You hang together, or you hang by yourself.

Right, cut spending on education? Health care?

Its going to have to be cut now – real, literal cuts – with a $1 billion deficit coming tomorrow. The DFL had the political capital to spend on 1 tax increase, and there not going to get another to balance the general fund.

By the way…did we assure ourselves we’re not going to become a cold Alabama with this new gas tax? Because if government services make a state great and ensure a great standard of living, theres no reason to limit ourselves to a dime a gallon. More taxes mean more government services. Don’t we really have a responsibility to fund as much government services as we can? Why aren’t we giving all our money to the state?

“More taxes mean more government services.“

Could we possibly get any more simplistic?

Ugh, us good. You bad. Now where’s that damn club…

partisan politics means nothing gets done. I’m sick of legislatures that don’t do anything and waste the entire session. Kudos to the republicans who did the right thing and crossed over.

Don’t we really have a responsibility to fund as much government services as we can? Why aren’t we giving all our money to the state?

Nobody disputes that there is a point at which high tax rates result in diminished revenues.

The “Laffer Curve” results in diminished revenues at both extremes of tax rates. Too high or too low brings in less revenue.

The argument then, is where is that “sweet spot” that maximizes revenues.

Right, the purpose of the tax code is to generate maximum revenue to the government. More revenue means more services, which is a measure of a states greatness. So why aren’t we being much more ambitious and discussing much larger tax hikes?

At the very least, I should think the legislature could pass new tax code fairly quickly that would require every state resident to turn over their federal rebate this May when its issued.

Well, mnblrmkr, some of us understood what you were saying….

Nobody disputes that there is a point at which high tax rates result in diminished revenues.

I don’t dispute that there’s a point of diminishing return, but the “Laffer Curve” is myth perpetuated by the heritage foundation. The point of dimishing return is much, much higher than the no-taxers would have you believe.

Even the Wikipedia page about the Laffer Curve contains a section stating that the revenue-maximizing tax rate might be as high as 80%.

In the same way that creationists try to poke holes in Darwin while at the same time ignoring the 170 years of research that has built upon his theories do the anti-taxers cite Keyens while ignoring the last 70 years of research.

er… Keynes.

That sounds good – 80% tax rates. The State of Minnesota has a duty to implement 80% tax rates, because that would raise maximum revenue to the government, which would allow for the greatest amount of government services. Because its government services that are keeping us from becoming a cold Alabama.

So why arent we doing that? Huh, Huh?

I’ll take a high-tax Minnesota over Kenya any day.

Even the Wikipedia page about …

Ha ha!

So, JC, if you have to turn over as much as 80 percent of your income, don’t you think you start to lose your incentive to produce wealth?

I think I would lose my incentive at about 30 percentage points less than that.

You pay above 50 percent, you seem to become something of a slave.

My salary went up to the mid 40,000 dollar range this year and I appreciate that. It was about a 20 percent increase. But my taxes both federal and state are almost double what they used to be. That is not and will never be fair to an honest hard worker.

You think your taxes are high now, wait until you get free healthcare from my government.

I love how conservatives try to panic people about the cost of government, right up until the moment they start a war.

Be very careful about throwing around words like slavery when talking about something like tax rates. If you really, really hate taxes so much feel free to move to some no-tax haven. I’m sure South Dakota or Texas would love to have you. Paying for the benefits provided by government is wholey different from being owned as property.

Now on to the serious discussion, no I probably wouldn’t want to turn over 80% of my income in taxes, especially if I didn’t receive any services in return. On the other hand if my taxes were to go up say 10-15% (on some progressive scale, and I admit I’d be on the higher-rate end of things) to cover such benefits/services as single-payer healthcare for all (and free for the poor). And significant or free post-secondary education for all I think that would be a bargin.

In the interest of full disclosure I live in a state that has significantly lower individual tax rates than Minnesota and equal corporate tax rates. And let me tell you, it shows. The infrastructure is falling apart and there’s no money to do anything about it. There are large swaths of the city dotted with burned-out houses and abandoned cars and there’s no money to do anything about it.

I’m not trying to claim that taxes are a magic bullet, though I’m sure someone will say I am. However you cannot expect to provide services if you don’t tax. And in my personal, although anecdotal experience, you get what you pay for.

This state does provide services. This state does tax.

I simply reject the rhetorical premise that we are undertaxed and underserviced, and that there are quanitifiable gains in quality of life to be had from funding provided by small tax increases. I just don’t buy it.

I love how conservatives try to panic people about the cost of government, right up until the moment they start a war.

Panic evoking propoganda has often been guised as prudent or conservative, but the result is always the same; the parties hijacking the terminology are neither prudent nor conservative.

The same can be said of the word “liberal”. E.g. How has term “Power to the People” worked out so far?

Aren’t the rights to that song defended by the RIAA?

More revenue means more services, which is a measure of a states greatness. So why aren’t we being much more ambitious and discussing much larger tax hikes?

More services is not the measure of a states greatness. The quality of life is. Some services will add to the quality of life in the state, others may not. It matters very much what services are provided.

A program that provided every citizen with a free puppy isn’t likely to have much influence on the quality of life.

Programs that maintain public infrastructure, provide for educating the population, protect the environment, or look after the health of the population will have a major influence on the quality of life.

I simply reject the rhetorical premise that we are undertaxed and underserviced, and that there are quanitifiable gains in quality of life to be had from funding provided by small tax increases. I just don’t buy it.

Many others disagree. It’s not so much that they believe we’re “undertaxed,” it’s that they see value to the services that are and might be provided. If those services are going to be provided, they need to be paid for.

Even the Wikipedia page about the Laffer Curve contains a section stating that the revenue-maximizing tax rate might be as high as 80%.

That doesn’t seem to be written very clearly. When I read it, it seems to me they may be talking about an 80% marginal rate. Which would be very different.

It seems one of the biggest difficulties here is that some or many people will accept higher tax rates if they can associate it with services received.

If I had a job that didn’t provide health insurance, I could easily accept a higher tax rate for universal health coverage. The increased taxes will be much less than what I would pay to buy my own personal coverage (assuming I can find someone to even issue me a policy to begin with).

I admit I’d be on the higher-rate end of things) to cover such benefits/services as single-payer healthcare for all (and free for the poor). And significant or free post-secondary education for all I think that would be a bargin.

But you’re not sure, right? You want to sacrifice your health care, or more importantly, the health care of the people you love? The people who might rely on you?

The Hillary Clinton plan says: If you have a health care plan you like, keep it. Is that acceptable to you?

Interesting bit from Mary Lahammer:

Republican lawmakers were annoyed Pawlenty was gone in D.C. for days during the critical override. Sure, he worked the phones. But on those phone calls the recipients say it was a pretty soft sell, telling them to just “vote their conscience.” Then there’s the now famous comment in caucus that if some Republicans did decide to override to do it on the first attempt.

So, apparently you can’t take Gov. Tim for his word.

“But you’re not sure, right? You want to sacrifice your health care, or more importantly, the health care of the people you love?“

But we wouldn’t be sacrificing ours nor our family’s health care, and that is where the fear mongering comes in. Right now, with no consumer protection, no oversight, and no competition, our health care is the most expensive in the world. If I did not have my employer paying for a large portion of mine, I could not afford it, and I make a decent salary. Private health care may continue to be the solution, but not in its present form. It is completely unsustainable. Shit, just recently in the news I heard about a woman whose health insurance provider had cut off her coverage IN THE MIDDLE OF BREAST CANCER TREATMENT. What the fuck kind of inhuman shit is that? I can tell you that if that had happened to my mom during her treatment, there would be one less health insurance bureaucrat making people’s lives miserable. Subhuman filth.