It astounds me how much time is being wasted on divisive social issues in St. Paul as the budget and a still-recovering economy sit on the back burner.
It seems the only time we hear the legislative majorities talk about jobs and the economy pertains to huge tax increases that would stifle both. We received a breather this week when Gov. Mark Dayton formally announced he is abandoning a number of tax increases he planned to foist on Minnesotans, including a business-to-business tax and expanding taxes to include services like haircuts and oil changes.
We are not out of the tax woods just yet. The governor’s tax proposals are merely part of his budget recommendations. Democrats in the House and the Senate ultimately will be responsible for authoring bills to form our state’s next biennial budget. They did not immediately take Dayton’s lead in scrapping tax increases.
To the contrary, a House committee recently heard a Democrat bill that would raise taxes on snack foods. This follows bills to raise taxes on alcohol (by 350 percent for some), cigarettes (by $1.60 per pack), gasoline (10 cents per gallon) and more.
While we wait for details on the Democrats’ tax increases, they have been advancing social issues. Restrictions on guns, unionized day care providers, government involvement in our health care and redefining traditional marriage have come to the forefront. I do not support any of these proposals.
Barely one-third of all Minnesotans support redefining marriage. All precincts in District 9A voted in favor of a constitutional amendment proposal in 2012 to protect traditional marriage.
The new majorities should fulfill promises they made last fall to focus on jobs and the economy, along with paying back money owed to our school children. That is what the citizens of Minnesota expect and deserve.
Rep. Mark Anderson, R-Lake Shore,
District 9A
Comments (130)
Add commentThanks for all your hard work
Thanks for all your hard work in the Tax and spend debacle!
Atta boy Mark!
keep up the good work.
Here's some more wasteful spending by our Government
(CNSNews.com) - The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has awarded $2.7 million to study why lesbians are at a higher “risk for hazardous drinking.”
The University of Illinois has received grants since 2009 for its project, "Cumulative Stress and Hazardous Drinking in a Community of Adult Lesbians," which aims to develop “culturally sensitive” strategies to prevent lesbians from being drunks.
I had to chuckle
I had to chuckle too!
http://joeforamerica.com/2013/03/%ef%bb%bfmarch-19-a-great-day-for-gun-rights/
I love America!
(CNSnews.com) - The National
(CNSnews.com) - The National Science Foundation (NSF) has awarded a $384,949 grant to Yale University for a study on “Sexual Conflict, Social Behavior and the Evolution of Waterfowl Genitalia”, according to the recovery.gov website.
The grant description says,“The project examines how reproductive morphology covaries with season, age, and social environment in a diverse sample of duck species that differ in ecology, territoriality and breeding system."
The grant was made available through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, better known as the stimulus package.
And they wonder why I dont like Government!
Another Lesbian study recently in the news
Was trying to figure out why gay men were more apt to be in better shape and more well groomed vs why lesbians were more apt to be fat and cared less about how they looked.
Hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent determining the boys (gay men) want to be girls and the girls (gay women) want to be boys.
Have you noticed that all the good looking and sexy lesbians are only on film or video??
Gee?
Seems like resident liberals havenothing to say when faced with facts, how typical.
The Blue Angels have been
The Blue Angels have been grounded - and it's all B.S.from top to bottom. Let's not lose sight of the fact that despite Obama's "Chicken Little" tour, "The Sequester" does no more than stop the increase in government spending and it's a miniscule amount at that when you look at the entire picture of government expenditures.
Obama and his Democratic cronies are going to do everything they can to "make it hurt" so that the sheeple will whine to their Congress critters to lift "The Sequester" so that they can keep pissing away OUR money. They are doing what they are doing for purely political reasons and it has nothing to do with the money not being available. It is.
Right on point!
So much for priorities and any fiscal responsibility with the DFL in St. Paul. The only time taxpayers, families and businesses are safe is when the Legislature is not in session. Thanks for sticking to your guns and your constituents Rep. Anderson!
Looks like Ds.Gusting Whackodoodle is still trying to banish me
The nit-wit isn't capable of rational debate (just look at his idiotic post above), so he sent another unhinged complaint about me to the Webmaster (no doubt they see him as a real pain in the butt), with the goal of denying me my right of free speech. What a hypocritical tool!
How do you know is was DS
How do you know is was DS Nancy?
Hey Nutcase
I haven't sent anything in regarding your behavior since your last violation of the board policies. Read the rules and participate in an adult fashion and I won't have to do it again.
I'll be happy to debate you anytime on any issue and I will be consistently rational, as always. Regarding my post above, idiotic is how the government spends our money. It is not idiotic to show examples of it. If you think I made it up, here's a link you can read.
http://reason.com/blog/2013/03/12/studying-why-lesbians-tend-to-be-overwei
or google "government study about lesbians being fat" and find your own media source on the subject.
By the way, I was even going to log on and give jackpinenomo/oncemore a virtual pat on the back for actually posting his thoughts without the vitriol and childish intentional misnaming. I don't agree with his positions very much but at least he uses the language correctly.
Here's another!
This study is about the high use of alcohol among lesbians. Here's the link for those interested and of course, nutcase because he thinks I make this stuff up.
http://www.examiner.com/article/despite-sequester-government-spends-2-7-million-on-lesbian-drinking-study
They even have a "world renowned" univ or illinois professorette who is "recognized internationally as an expert in the field of high risk use of alcohol among lesbians". I wonder how many of our millions were spent preparing MZ. Tonda Hughes of the U of Illinois to reach such a pinnacle?
boozers help drive the economy
so do the smokers and the partakers off all the other vices in our world.
These were examples of wasted tax dollars so I'm hoping that you might actually agree with me Jackpine...wouldn't that be a shocker?!
I didn't realize that my second post was redundant until I read the article and Jay's post regarding the drinking lesbians that I subsequently repeated. My apologies to the readers.
To your contribution Jackpine, yes, there are a lot of boozers at the local watering holes right now. It's still legal, you know. How they leave is another story.
There is a reason ?
Yes, there is, it's because the takers are more than happy to vote for the party that gives them other peoples money.
I can't find justification for funding that study
From what I can see, it was a waste of money.
What I found idiotic was Ds.Gusting's implication that gays are the way they are simply as a lifestyle choice. Of course that regressive kind of thinking goes against the scientific evidence.
Did you know that yesterday
Did you know that yesterday the State Department announced that it would free up $500 million in blocked funds for the “Palestinians” and the Obama administration will seek another $200 million for them.
What I found idiotic
Is the typical liberal rant against anyone that is not happy with the taking of other peoples money to finance liberal "studies"
Not to mention the projection that seems to come with it.
On top of "Shotgun Joe
On top of "Shotgun Joe Bidens" outrageous Hotel bills overseas,
Also on the receipt was $321,665 for a limousine company.
It would be nice
if they'd just stop using the taxpayers as their travel buget.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/more-vacation-month-obamas-2013_711998.html
Ubber Rich?
Do you mean the ones that pay 70% of the cost to run the country?
"The 10% of households with the highest incomes pay more than half of all federal taxes. They pay more than 70% of federal income taxes, according to the Congressional Budget Office."
And before you whine about the good ol daze...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324705104578151601554982808.html
I watched it on CNN, Wolf
I watched it on CNN, Wolf Blitzers show the situation room.
Sleepy will never understand this, but...
but it is a fact that the super-rich control an even higher portion of the wealth than the protion they, as a group, pay in taxes. But a rightwing parrot, he is programmed to only mention the taxes they pay, and leave out what is far more telling.
He and the extreme right don't care about glaring facts, like that, because they have been manipulated to serve as proxy chumps for the super-rich. They have been brainwashed into believing that the alarming trend toward concentrated wealth is just fine, despite being so clearly against any middle-class person's economic interests.
So I'll ask the question: Do
So I'll ask the question: Do you two want Socialism?
Jaysoffhisrocker wouldn't understand this, but...
most of us (in the real world) don't want socialism. Besides not even having a clue what socialism is, you are of the 'all or nothing" mentality. After all, it's far easier for ignorant people to see the world in such simplistic terms, with the absence of gray area or nuance.
LOL I gues a link
that show the definition of fair is offrnsive to the mods.
Fairness: In all fairness, I must admit that fairness is an arbitrary concept. So, you could make the argument that no one could get "fairness" wrong. Still, liberals do because they don't make any effort to actually "be fair." As a practical matter, liberals define "fairness" as taking as much as possible from people who they don't think are going to vote for them and giving it to people who may vote for them in return for their ill gotten largesse. Certainly conservatives, libertarians, and moderates might disagree about how much money to take from the wealthy to redistribute to the poor or how to help the disadvantaged, but the only liberal answer to the question, "How much is enough?" is "more."
Another fact
that the mods do not like.
http://youtu.be/661pi6K-8WQ
I'll ask the question again,
I'll ask the question again, do you two Liberals want Socialism?
More facts: Income of bottom 90% only rose by $59 over 40 years
More documentation on the alarming trend toward income inequality, and how the middle-class is getting screwed:
http://www.taxanalysts.com/www/features.nsf/Articles/C52956572546624F85257B1D004DE3FC?OpenDocument
You rightwingers will: 1) simply be in denial because it contradicts what you are programmed to think, 2) blow-off the credibility of the Pullitzer Prize-winning author, or 3) simplistically call startling facts, like this, "socialism", "communism", "Marxism"....
What would you two "Moderate"
What would you two "Moderate" Liberals call taking from one class of income and distributing it to another?