Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the Tim Walz category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘Tim Walz’ Category

This afternoon, I had a conversation with a long-time reader of LFR on the definition of a DFL moderate. What’s clear to me is that the only DFL moderates, outside of perhaps Collin Peterson, are Democrats running for office. Once they’re into office, they immediately turn into leftists.

A perfect example is Tim Walz. This article highlights Gov. Walz’s leftward turn:

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz said Tuesday that his administration will keep pursuing an appeal of an independent regulatory commission’s approval of Enbridge Energy’s plan to replace its aging Line 3 crude oil pipeline across northern Minnesota, siding with environmental and tribal groups in his biggest decision since becoming governor last month.

The state Public Utilities Commission approved the project last summer. Then-Gov. Mark Dayton’s Department of Commerce appealed that decision in December, as did several groups opposed to the project. The Minnesota Court of Appeals last week dismissed those appeals as premature and sent the dispute back to the commission for further proceedings. That move forced the Walz administration to take a stand by Tuesday after weeks of studying whether to continue to appeal or let the matter drop.

It’s time to stop pretending that Gov. Walz isn’t bought by the environmentalists. He’s clearly owned by them:

“When it comes to any project that impacts our environment and our economy, we must follow the process, the law, and the science,” Walz said in a statement. “The Dayton administration’s appeal of the PUC’s decision is now a part of this process. By continuing that process, our administration will raise the Department of Commerce’s concerns to the court in hopes of gaining further clarity for all involved.”

Enbridge followed the process that the legislature put in place. Then the environmental activists didn’t get the outcome they wanted. Enter Gov. Bought And Paid For, aka Gov. Walz.

Gov. Walz threw out existing law and went a different direction, though it must be pointed out Gov. Walz’s decision was utterly predictable. The DFL got exactly what it wanted when Walz was elected — a trustworthy leftist in moderate’s clothing.

It isn’t surprising that Gov. Tim Walz has caved to environmental activists. In fact, it’s entirely predictable.

Gov. Tim Walz says his administration will continue to appeal regulatory approval of the Enbridge Energy Line 3 pipeline project in northern Minnesota. State utility regulators last summer approved Enbridge Energy’s plans to build a new $2.6 billion pipeline to replace the aging and corroding Line 3. But, former Gov. Mark Dayton’s Department of Commerce appealed that decision. Walz on Tuesday said his administration will continue that effort.

Gee, I wonder what could’ve caused that cave. Perhaps this?

Last month, more than 50 people, including scientists from the liberal activist group Science for the People, gathered in the governor’s reception room to say the science is clear the Line 3 upgrade will aggravate climate change by facilitating further use of fossil fuels.

Gov. Walz is just as owned by the lefty environmentalists as Gov. Dayton was. No wonder our economy isn’t what it could be.

If this article is an indicator, Tim Walz’s economic record will be as lackluster as Gov. Dayton’s.

The article states that “Outgoing Speaker of the House Kurt Daudt suggested the state improve at enticing young people into trades and manufacturing — two industries struggling to fill positions. Gov.-elect Tim Walz said some school districts lack the money to properly train an adequate workforce thanks to the state’s over-reliance on local property taxes to pay for schools.”

The thing that DFL politicians haven’t admitted is that more people from all age and income groups are leaving Minnesota than are coming in. There’s a worker shortage because people are leaving Minnesota.

This is also why MnSCU universities are struggling. Until Minnesota starts worrying more about growing the economy with pro-growth economic policies rather than growing government, this problem will persist.

Part of the problem, too, is that environmental activists have successfully lobbied for strangling regulations. Our regulatory regime is so strict that it’s difficult to grow a business. More to the point, it destroys the incentive to even locate here. If you’re thinking about starting or growing a business, do entrepreneurs gravitate towards states with high taxes and outrageous regulations? Or would you gravitate towards states with lower taxes and reasonable regulations?

Last week, I received an email from Sarah Anderson talking about the state budget surplus. Rep. Anderson wrote “Dear Neighbors, today the state budget forecast was released showing a whopping $1.54 billion surplus.” We have another $2.45 billion in the State’s rainy day fund. Despite all this money sitting in Minnesota’s coffers, it’s stunning that the DFL is pushing tax increases.

It’s time to ditch Minnesota’s ‘business model’ and establish new priorities. The achievement gap isn’t closing, at least not compared to what they should be for all the money that’s gotten spent.

Minnesota’s economy isn’t terrible but it isn’t exactly hitting on all cylinders, either. The DFL spent most of the last decade building Minnesota’s government instead of building Minnesota’s economy. In 2013, Gov. Dayton and the DFL legislature passed the biggest tax hikes in Minnesota history. Since then, the middle class of all age groups have left Minnesota. The only income group that’s increasing their percent in the state are the lowest incomes.

It makes sense. From an education standpoint, Minnesota is mediocre. From a taxes and regulations perspective, Minnesota isn’t competitive. It isn’t close. If the DFL doesn’t admit that their blueprint isn’t working, we’ll quickly turn into a cold California. Why does the DFL think that raising taxes will strengthen the economy?

In 2007, the DFL insisted that spending should be indexed to inflation. Now Melissa Hortman insists that, because spending isn’t tied to inflation, the $1.54 billion surplus is really only $382,000,000. According to Hortman, that’s justification for additional tax hikes.

The moral to this story is that the DFL doesn’t understand a thing about economic competitiveness. They want their tax hikes regardless of whether it hurts or not. This move hurts badly. Throughout the state, people from all income groups (except the poor and the working poor) are leaving for lower-tax states. That’s what’s driving the worker shortage.

Let’s hope Hortman and Walz don’t kill Minnesota’s economic competitiveness entirely. BTW, this is how socialism kills economies. When people lose the ability to make profits, they either leave the state or they stop making what they’d been making.

Friday night, Tim Walz tried being the ‘I’m all things to all people’ candidate during his debate with Jeff Johnson on Almanac. On one of the first questions, Walz talked about single-payer health care being where most people finally arrive at. Then Walz went into a long-winded spiel about how preventive care drives down health insurance premiums, which is why we need single-payer.

That’s BS. What drives up premiums is aging. As we get older, we reach our high-use years. Preventive care is a worthwhile thing to do because, theoretically, it keeps us healthier longer. Still, it doesn’t drive down health insurance premiums. Then Walz totally stepped in it, saying “everyone knows that there’s no plan to protect people with pre-existing conditions unless you have the ACA in place.”

Johnson jumped in at that point, saying “That’s utterly ridiculous. We did it for 30 years in Minnesota before the ACA and we did it better before the ACA. But let’s be honest about what single-payer is. Single-payer means that everybody loses their insurance. There is no private insurance and we’re all forced onto one government plan.”

That’s true. I wrote about the DFL’s single-payer bill in this post. That bill has 31 coverage requirements for each policy. Think of it this way. It’s the ACA except that it’s totally run by bureaucrats. After the rollout disaster of the ACA, that can’t sound appealing.

Next subject up was immigration. Mr. Walz went first, saying this:

I spent 24 years on national security and numerous trips to the border to actually witness how we do security in-depth and how we do it electronically and with surveillance. Every sovereign nation has the right and the need to control its borders but the issue is about stoking fear and telling us we’re not stronger because of immigration. It doesn’t matter what your plans are. The next governor of Minnesota must have the capacity to bring people together to solve problems. Immigration has always been an issue that has bound us together and what we see is this fear of telling people that they are in danger instead of coming up with real solid plans like comprehensive immigration reform that passed in the Senate but was never heard in the House.

Notice that Walz criticized President Trump, criticized House Republicans, tossed out the Democrats’ favorite go-to phrase on immigration but didn’t actually tell the moderators whether he’d advocate for turning Minnesota into a sanctuary state. Eventually, Walz admitted that he’s for turning Minnesota into a sanctuary state before lying about what a sanctuary state or city is.

Jeff Johnson immediately highlighted the fact that “there are only — what — 5-6 states in the nation that are sanctuary states in the country. We’d be the only one in the upper Midwest and what that means is that we would prohibit our law enforcement officers from cooperating with law enforcement from the federal government in any way.”

Walz denied that description, insisting that violent felons would go to prison. That isn’t at question. What’s at question is what state law enforcement officials would be allowed to do when these violent felons are released from prison.

After hearing Walz insist that Republicans have been stoking fear amongst citizens on immigration, I’d love hearing how Tim Walz would “bring people together to solve problems.”

At other points in the debate, Walz’s answers were more word salad than serious policy prescription. At one point, I hit pause on the DVR and told my roommate that “this guy is ‘The Babbler’.”

I highly recommend you watch the entire debate. Tim Walz was all over the place. Jeff Johnson’s answers were short, concise and actually fixed problems.

Tim Walz just couldn’t resist the opportunity to play politics after the Tree of Life Synagogue shooting. After the shooting, Walz took to Twitter to say “As we learn more about what’s happened in Pittsburgh, my heart goes out to the victims, loved ones, first responders, and Jewish community at large. This is a pain that is all too familiar in America. We can and must take action to reduce gun violence in our communities.”

Does anyone seriously think he cares about the people killed by this gunman? I certainly don’t. This is just another attempt by Walz to curry favor with the gun grabber fringe in the DFL.


It’s clear that Tim Walz has gone from being a reliable vote for the NRA to being a reliable vote for Michael Bloomberg. He’s no longer a centrist. He’s a leftist. On Nov. 6, it’s time to retire Tim Walz, Tina Smith and Keith Ellison.

Jim van Houten’s article for Alpha News is important reading for all Republicans statewide. First, it’s focused on getting out Metro voters. While I staunchly agree that it’s important to increase GOP metro voting, I’m of the strong belief that we should increase GOP voting everywhere in Minnesota.

This paragraph explains why increasing turnout is so important:

In November 2016 Hillary Clinton won Minnesota’s presidential electoral majority by just a tiny 1.67 percentage points. However, in the metro, she beat Trump 70 to 30%, a huge 40 percentage point margin of victory in a medium sized voter segment. Trump won the remainder of the state by a margin of 58 to 42%, a smaller, but still significant, 16 percentage point margin. There are two critically important implications from these data: First, if Trump had increased his metro share of the 870,000 metro votes cast by 5.2%, his share of the metro vote would have increased only modestly to 35.4% from his actual 30.2% share. This small shift would have given Trump victory in the entire state of Minnesota. In 2010, an even smaller metro increase would have made Emmer rather than Dayton our governor.

Too many Minnesota Republicans think that we can’t win because the DFL always wins Hennepin and Ramsey counties. While it’s true that the DFL wins those counties, it’s equally true that Republicans own rural Minnesota.

After the 2016 election, I checked out the Minnesota House races for the size of the margin of victory for Republicans in rural Minnesota. The size of the margins astonished me. Check them out yourself. In 2016, Mary Franson won with 65% of the vote. In 2012, Mary won by 12 votes. That’s an improvement of 6,775 votes.

Here’s why this matters. If Tim Walz is elected governor, there’s a strong chance that he’ll shut down government if Republicans don’t agree to raise taxes and spending. There’s also no proof that he’ll hold oversized government accountable. Does anyone seriously think that Tim Walz will stand up to the public employee unions who run these departments? Can anyone picture him fixing MNLARS? That’s laughable.

If Republicans get out and vote like this is the most important midterm election in recent history, we have a chance to dramatically change the structure and performance of state government for a decade or more.

Reading through this article, the thing that’s most apparent is that Tim Walz is the ultimate empty suit. One of the questions asked of both candidates was “Do you support the creation of a non-partisan panel to handle redistricting?”

Walz replied “We need a redistricting policy that is transparent, accountable, and based on sound research and policy. I support a redistricting process that involves communities and ensures that it empowers people and their votes.” What type of mumbo-jumbo gobbledygook answer is that? I have no idea what that means.

By comparison, Jeff Johnson’s reply is straightforward:

Article IV Section 3 of the Minnesota Constitution says “the Legislature shall have the power to prescribe the bounds of congressional and legislative districts” so I would have a hard time handing over this power to an unelected commission or panel. In other states where this has been tried, the redistricting panels sometimes ended up more partisan and political than the Legislature. I believe the legislative process can work if we stick to redistricting principles such as equal population, compactness and preserving communities of interest.

In other words, Jeff Johnson believes in a process that requires accountability and eliminates as much partisanship as possible. Who knows what Tim Walz wants?

Empty Suit vs. Jeff Johnson
Here’s another question and the candidates’ replies:

Do you support gun reform, such as red flag laws? Why or why not?

JOHNSON: People deserve to feel safe in their homes, their schools and on the streets. Red flag laws can be a part of the solution to reducing gun violence perpetrated by troubled people as long as there is due process for these individuals in place.

More broadly, however, I don’t believe the answer to violence in our society is further restricting Minnesotans’ Second Amendment rights but rather to start addressing the difficult issues that are leading to this violence, such as family breakdown, mental illness, a pop culture drenched in violence and even school policies that ignore disruptive and violent behavior.

WALZ: As a sportsman, veteran and Moms Demand Action Gun Sense Candidate, I believe I am uniquely positioned to build the coalitions necessary to finally get something done on this critical issue. As governor, I would fight for common-sense gun reforms, including criminal background checks, an assault weapons ban, red flag laws and funding for gun violence research. We can do these things while protecting responsible gun ownership.

Walz once had credibility on Second Amendment issues. Then he chose to run for statewide office. In so doing, he abandoned law-abiding gun owners. Meanwhile, it’s totally apparent that Jeff Johnson wants to go after the root causes of gun violence rather than passing do-nothing bills that won’t have any effect on actual gun violence.

In short, Tim Walz isn’t a solutions-oriented candidate. He’s the empty suit candidate. Jeff Johnson is the solutions-oriented candidate. That’s who I’m voting for.

Traditionally speaking, Tim Walz’s running mate is Peggy Flanagan. From an agenda standpoint, though, Tim Walz’s running mate is Keith Ellison. If either of them or, God forbid, both are elected, Minnesota will become one of the worst states in terms of crime and illegal immigration.

According to a recent Reality Check by Pat Kessler, Tim Walz proudly states that he’d push for turning Minnesota into a sanctuary state:

Read between the lines of Keith Ellison’s issues page and it’s clear that Ellison supports sanctuary state status:

Minnesota has a proud immigrant tradition, from those seeking economic opportunity to those fleeing violence abroad. As Attorney General, I will fight efforts by the Trump Administration to remove protections from DREAMers who contribute so much to our economy and society. I will ensure that our immigration detention system is humane, and free from mistreatment, and will prioritize efforts to reunite families who were heartlessly separated at the border. I will stand up to the un-American, discriminatory Muslim Travel Ban. Our country is at its best when we welcome those fleeing horrendous conditions, not when we fan the flames of bigotry and division.

If Tim Walz and Keith Ellison are elected, it’s certain that Minnesota’s crime rate will head in the wrong direction. Kessler rightly highlights the fact that immigration is a hot issue for the GOP base. That’s why I expect Jeff Johnson and Doug Wardlow to highlight this issue as much as possible through Election Day. Follow this link to contribute to Jeff’s campaign. If you want a safe Minnesota, follow this link to contribute to Doug Wardlow’s campaign so he can protect Minnesota while finishing Keith Ellison’s political career.

When it comes to being a profile in consistency, Democrat Tim Walz, aka Two-Faced Tim, is anything except a profile in consistency. For example, Two-Faced Tim voted for and against the Keystone XL Pipeline project:

Walz Has Voted For And Against Measures To Approve The Keystone Pipeline
Walz Voted 3 Times In Support Of The Keystone XL Pipeline.

(S. 1, Roll Call #75, Passed 270-152: R 241-1, D 29-151, Walz Voted Yea, 2/11/15; CQ Summary, Accessed 4/23/18; H.R. 3, Roll Call #16, Passed 266-153: R 238-0, D 28-153, Walz Voted Yea, 1/9/15; CQ Summary, Accessed 4/23/18; H.R. 5682, Roll Call #519, Passed 252-161: R 221-0, D 31-161, Walz Voted Yea, 11/14/14; CQ Summary, Accessed 4/23/18)

In May 2013, Walz Voted Against A Measure To Approve The Keystone XL Pipeline.

(H.R. 3, Roll Call #179, Passed 241-175: R 222-0, D 19-175; 5/22/13, Walz Voted Nay)

Apparently, Two-Faced Tim votes the way the last lobbyist he talks to wants him to vote. It’s totally apparent that core principles are optional with Two-Faced Tim.

Nothing proves that last point more than Walz’s flip-flop on guns:

Unfortunately, the one thing Two-Faced Tim is consistent about is raising your taxes. His health care plan would double the size of the state budget. Does anyone seriously think that tax increase wouldn’t hit virtually everyone?

There’s a simple solution to this problem. Vote for Jeff Johnson, a man who isn’t afraid to express his core convictions.