Archive for the ‘Liberalism’ Category
If I gave people the responsibility to put together a blueprint that’d Minnesota’s economy, it’d be difficult to do that quicker than the DFL, under the ‘leadership’ of Gov. Dayton and Rep. Ryan Winkler.
Between Gov. Dayton’s sales tax increase, which hits cities and the middle class hardest, Gov. Dayton’s income tax increase, which won’t hit ‘evil corporations’ but will hit small businesses and Rep. Winkler’s increase in the minimum wage, the DFL is quickly putting together a blueprint that’ll raise property taxes, incentivize entrepreneurs to leave the state and cause unemployment among young people to spike. Rep. Winkler’s delete-all amendment to HF0092, is particularly stunning. Here’s the language that’s particularly stunning:
1.14 (b) Except as otherwise provided in sections 177.21 to 177.35
, every large employer
1.15 must pay each employee wages at a rate of at least $5.15 an hour beginning September
1.16 1, 1997, and at a rate of at least $6.15 an hour beginning August 1, 2005. Every small
1.17 employer must pay each employee at a rate of at least $4.90 an hour beginning January 1,
1.18 1998, and at a rate of at least $5.25 an hour beginning August 1, 2005:
1.19 (1) every large employer must pay each employee wages at a rate of at least:
1.20 (i) $8.35 per hour beginning August 1, 2013;
1.21 (ii) $9.45 per hour beginning August 1, 2014;
1.22 (iii) $10.55 per hour beginning August 1, 2015; and
1.23 (iv) the rate established under paragraph (d) beginning January 1, 2016; and
1.24 (2) every small employer must pay each employee at a rate of at least:
1.25 (i) $6.50 per hour beginning August 1, 2013;
1.26 (ii) $7.75 per hour beginning August 1, 2014;
1.27 (iii) $9.00 per hour beginning August 1, 2015; and
2.1 (iv) the rate established under paragraph (d) beginning January 1, 2016.
2.2 (c) Notwithstanding paragraph (b), during the first 90 consecutive days of
2.3 employment, an employer may pay an employee under the age of 20 years a wage of $4.90at least:
2.4 an hour. No employer may take any action to displace any employee, including a partial
2.5 displacement through a reduction in hours, wages, or employment benefits, in order to hire
2.6 an employee at the wage authorized in this paragraph
2.7 (1) $6.07 per hour beginning August 1, 2013;
2.8 (2) $7.24 per hour beginning August 1, 2014;
2.9 (3) $8.41 per hour beginning August 1, 2015; and
2.10 (4) the rate established under paragraph (d) beginning January 1, 2016.
2.11 No employer may take any action to displace an employee, including a partial
2.12 displacement through a reduction in hours, wages, or employment benefits, in order to
2.13 hire an employee at the wage authorized in this paragraph.
It’s one thing to debate the merits of the minimum wage. It’s quite another to include in the minimum wage bill language that tells entrepreneurs that they can’t cut employees’ hours or benefits while dramatically increasing the employees’ wages.
If Rep. Winkler’s amendment isn’t gutted, these rules would go into effect on August 1, 2013. The spike in youth unemployment will start just prior to that. That’s because the hospitality industry will get hit hardest by Rep. Winkler’s legislation. HINT: The DFL isn’t the friend of young people.
Officials from Plymouth and other cities have testified that the additional expenses they’ll incur will almost zero out the LGA increase. That’s if they’re getting LGA. If they aren’t, these smaller cities will get hit exceptionally hard by Gov. Dayton’s sales tax increase.
This isn’t the blueprint for prosperity and job creation. It’s the blueprint for stagnation, higher property taxes and artificially high project costs.
UPDATE: Check out Mitch’s post about Rep. Winkler’s Brezhnev-style economic theories.
Tags: Minimum Wage Increase, Unemployment, Ryan Winkler, Mark Dayton, Tax Increases, Sales Tax, Income Tax, Property Taxes, Deficits, DFL, Entrepreneurs, Plymouth
Juan Williams and Mary Katherine Ham normally get along with each other. This morning, Juan Williams accused Mary Katherine Ham of not caring about victims of violent crime:
Here’s the spiciest exchange:
MKH: It’s fairly clear that this wouldn’t help in these situations, that very little gun crime comes from the things you’re trying to regulate. Those things only impact people who are already law abiding and that’s what we’re talking about. You can’t just pass laws…well, people do all the time, unfortunately, but federal laws shouldn’t be passed, saying “Well, it might work.”
JUAN WILLIAMS: I live in the District of Columbia and I can tell you theey have extremely strong gun control laws and yet we have a very high murder rate. And why is that? Because guns flow in from Virginia, which has lax gun laws.
MKH: We have lots of guns in Virginia and yet, we don’t have a high murder rate so maybe there’s a deeper social problem going on than lone gunmen and gangs and crime in big cities.
JUAN WILLIAMS: Oh so protecting my life and protecting my family means nothing to people in Virginia and I should….?
MKH: Oh, right. That’s what I said, Juan.
Here’s a hint to Juan Williams. Perhaps it’s better to live in cities where you can protect yourself. If you don’t want to move, then get DC to change their laws.
Saying that MKH doesn’t care about Juan Williams protecting his family is downright irresponsible. That’s as irresponsible as MKH saying that Juan Williams doesn’t care about the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment. It wouldn’t be difficult to make a case that Juan Williams doesn’t put a high enough priority on protecting people’s Second Amendment rights. That wouldn’t make it easy to make the case that Juan Williams doesn’t care about the Bill of Rights.
In the end, Juan hinted that he planned on apologizing to MKH after the interview. To her credit, Mary Katherine Ham didn’t lose her cool despite Juan’s ill-advised accusations.
Tags: Second Amendment, Bill of Rights, Constitution, Gun Crime, Newtown, Mary Katherine Ham, Juan Williams, District of Columbia, Chicago, Gun Control, Virginia
Mitch Berg’s attempt to educate Dave Mindeman about economics is a hopeless situation, though it is fun watching. Mitch tried explaining that Mindeman’s “Blizzard of facts” didn’t put things in context. Here’s part of Mr. Mindeman’s argument that the economy does better under Democrats’ leadership than under the GOP:
And just in case Mr. Berg wants to highlight Obama’s tenure….
A. Corporate profits have surged an average of 51.8% under Obama, the best out of any stretch of party control since 1933, S&P said.
Mitch was right in highlighting this:
Except it’s not because business is banging along on eight cylinders. It’s because businesses are sitting on their cash. They’re laying off workers and outsourcing jobs. They are not investing in new plants, new products and new hires.
Mitch’s observation is important because it highlights the fact that businesses aren’t expanding because President Obama’s regulatory policies (Dodd-Frank, the PPACA) discourage long-term economic growth. Rather than admitting that Mitch has a legitimate point, Mr. Mindeman threw this hissy fit:
So these are the “job creators”? They would rather sit on their wealth and tank the economy than move the country forward?
Glad the Republicans take advice from these characters.
The insinuation is that business is waiting for a better “business climate”. And what is that exactly? Is there a need for more workers? Unemployment says no. Better tax rates? If they have all this cash, why would they need tax cuts?
That’s proof that Mr. Mindeman isn’t an expert in connecting economic dots. That’s why I’m putting this post together. In the spirit of bipartisanship, I’ll answer Mindeman’s questions:
The insinuation is that business is waiting for a better “business climate”. And what is that exactly?
The best explanation I have for what constitutes a pro-growth business climate is a period in time when entrepreneurs know that regulations will be relatively stable, that labor costs will be reasonable and the opportunity to make profits is good. Right now, entrepreneurs know that President Obama’s administration is a regulation-making nightmare.
Entrepreneurs have said forthrightly that they don’t know if they’ll be complying with regulations today but might be out of compliance a week from now. Why would a business hire additional people if he isn’t certain about what regulations he has to comply with?
Better tax rates? If they have all this cash, why would they need tax cuts?
Nobody’s talking about tax cuts at this point. What’s been proposed is eliminating corporate welfare, broadening the tax base in exchange for lower rates and tax simplification.
So these are the “job creators”? They would rather sit on their wealth and tank the economy than move the country forward?
First, entrepreneurs can’t wait to create jobs and wealth. With this administration’s strangling load of new regulations and the threat of massive tax increases in the immediate future, these entrepreneurs would be foolish to put their capital at risk.
Second, this administration’s treatment of capitalists like villains isn’t conducive to job, wealth and prosperity creation. Telling businesses to put their money at risk so the government can confiscate it through outrageous tax rates is the best way to guarantee miniscule job growth, which is what we have.
But let’s look at Berg’s “bonus” questions…..
Why is Paul Krugman’s wet-dream state California floating toward the surface, its belly slowly rotating toward the sky, with a private sector that is leaving the state as fast as moving trucks can be secured?
California was the victim of the Republican “wet dream”, Proposition 13….which has shackled California legislation for decades. And the idea that super majorities are required to pass tax legislation (another GOP “wet dream”.) Now that California has formed Democratic super majorities, we shall see how the state can work.
This fight’s outcome has been determined. California will be a mess for the forseeable future. Prop 13 wasn’t the problem. After Prop 13 passed, economic growth in California continued.
What’s crippling California is their pension system and their cultish adherance to insane environmental policies. Environmental policies have crippled the agriculture economof California’s Central Valley. A different part of California’s environmental policies are preventing the state from tapping into vast energy resources lying just beneath the surface.
Rather than investing in job-creating fossil fuel project that would create wealth and prosperity, California took the opposite approach. They’re investing heavily in failed green energy economies. The only jobs the green industry has created are being filled with bankruptcy lawyers.
No amount of tax increases will fix California’s economy if they continue to ‘invest in’ failing green energy projects while not tapping into fossil fuel reserves. No amount of Mindeman’s arguments will put that in better context.
Tags: Blogs, Progressives, Economy, Tax Increases, Regulations, PPACA, Dodd-Frank, California, Green Jobs, Liberalism, Entrpreneurship, Capitalism, Prosperity, Conservatism
People for the American Way, one of DC’s most liberal special interest groups, is trying to kick Michele Bachmann off the House Intelligence Committee with trumped up charges. Here’s what they’re saying:
In an Oct. 3 paid message in The Nation magazine, People for the American Way said “these fringe conspiracy theories and McCarthyite fear tactics have no place in Congress and especially have no place on the House Intelligence Committee.”
Michele Bachmann, Louie Gohmert, Lynn Westmoreland, Tom Feeney and Trent Franks asked the IGs of several cabinet departments to investigate whether the Muslim Brotherhood was gaining undue influence on US foreign policy. That’s what PFAW characterizes as “fringe conspiracy theories and McCarthyite fear tactics.”
PFAW is nothing more than another fringe lefty organization. They’ve got a patriotic-sounding name and a radical leftist agenda. PFAW’s board of directors reads like a who’s who of committed leftists. Alec Baldwin, Mary Frances Berry, Julian Bond and founder Norman Lear are the highest profile board members. This key paragraph from PFAW’s statement on John Roberts’ confirmation as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court speaks volumes:
We are disappointed with those Democrats and moderate Republicans who chose to support Judge Roberts, despite his long record of working to undermine rights and legal protections, his evasive answers to the Senate, and the Bush administration’s continued refusal to release key documents that would have illuminated his record and approach to the Constitution.
That’s BS. John Roberts was a judge on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals for 2 years before his confirmation as Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. It’s impossible to accumulate a “long record of working to undermine rights.”
Now PFAW is criticizing Michele Bachmann, arguing that she’s using McCarthyite fear tactics.
“Rep. Bachmann’s reckless behavior is an abuse of her sensitive position on the committee, a threat to our national security, and an discredit her office and to our great nation ….I think the time has come for her to be removed from Congress once and for all.”
Graves’ statement sounds awfully similar to PFAW’s statement. That’s proof he isn’t the new Democrat he’s said he is.
Tags: PFAW, Ralph Neas, Julian Bond, Mary Frances Berry, Alec Baldwin, Norman Lear, Jim Graves, Liberalism, Michele Bachmann, John Roberts, Conservatism, Election 2012
Barney Frank is coming to Minneapolis to host a fundraiser for Jim Graves. They’ve picked the night of the first presidential debate to hold the fundraiser. Here’s the invitation:
Dear friends,
It’ll be a big night in politics indeed! And, I hope you’ll be there to enjoy the evening with me.
Congressman Barney Frank will be there too. He called last week, asking to host an event simply because he’s joined the legions of people across the nation who support me and my mission to restore sanity to American politics.
For fun, we’re timing his visit with abig-screen viewing of the first presidential debate in Cosmos at the Graves 601. It’ll be a lively evening, with drinks, great food and engaging discussions.
Did I mention that I sincerely hope that you’ll be able to join us?
The race against Michele Bachmann is polling within 2 points. I sincerely believe we’re going to win this thing, but she’s eons ahead of us in fundraising. We need to make sure we can get my message out – because it resonates with the voters!
The invite is below. Please do me a favor and pass it along to any friends and family you think may be interested as well.
If you can join me on October 3rd, simply RSVP to the email address on the invitation. (If you can’t, you’ll be missed but you can still go to [a deleted url] and make a donation).
Your support is deeply appreciated.
The thought that Barney Frank, one of the most unapologetic liberals in Congress the last 20+ years, is hosting a fundraiser for Jim Graves is like manna from heaven for Michele. She’s probably thinking that she just hit a Powerball jackpot.
First, Barney Frank is one of the chief culprits behind the credit/Fannie/Freddie meltdown. Michele voted against it. The odds of her putting an ad together on this topic are 100%.
Next, Barney Frank is one of the most divisive, combative congressmen in recent history. The thought that Frank thinks Jim Graves will “restore sanity to American politics” is laughable. Frank couldn’t find sanity if his life depended on it.
The fact that Graves thinks Frank is a plus for him give us insight into Mr. Graves’ thinking. The fact that he’s hosting the event in Minneapolis indicates he’s targeting the richest liberal fatcats in the state. The people who are likely to attend will have the ability to write checks with lots of zeros in them.
There’s nothing wrong with that. God bless free speech.
It’s just that it’s an indicator that Graves can’t get contributions from the richest liberal fatcats on Tuesday night, then tell Sixth District voters that he’s a centrist who’s bringing people together Wednesday morning.
That dog won’t hunt in the Sixth District.
Seriously, Michele must’ve thought Christmas came early when she heard about Barney Frank hosting a Jim Graves fundraiser.
Tags: Jim Graves, Barney Frank, Liberalism, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Credit Crisis, Dodd-Frank, Regulations, Democrats, Michele Bachmann, GOP, Election 2012
Ed has a great post up about MSNBC’s racist behavior. Here’s part of Ed’s commentary:
Why did they just happen to block all of these speakers? Obviously, it’s not a coincidence. They’re afraid of two outcomes by showing these speakers, the first of which is the exposure of the intellectual vapidity of their repeated accusations of raaaaaaaaaaaacism. The second is the possibility of acknowledging that conservatism appeals to a broad, diverse section of the electorate, which might encourage more people of color to consider its policies, especially with the powerful personal stories told by Mia Love and Ted Cruz. Instead of dealing with that reality, MSNBC chose to deliberately misinform their
15 1412 viewers. Fortunately, the MSNBC lineup (with the apparent acquiescence of Comcast) is so busy marginalizing themselves that it really doesn’t matter any more.
Ed’s point that MSNBC might be frightened of the thought that “conservatism appeals to a broad, diverse section of the electorate” is worth closer examination.
This past June, I attended the RightOnline conference, where I had a fantastic time. At the Saturday night banquet, I joined Gateway Pundit’s Jim Hoft at a table that included at least 5-6 women, including several women of color.
The point is that the TEA Party movement has appealed to Americans from a wide array of backgrounds. This isn’t Ronald Reagan’s Republican Party, though there’s no doubt that he’d approve of it.
This is this generation’s conservative movement, a movement represented by TEA Party favorites like Michelle Malkin, Mia Love, Susana Martinez, Scott Walker, Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin.
The racist myth that MSNBC is peddling was discredited before most people read their morning papers. Their dishonesty was that blatant.
Tags: Michelle Malkin, Michele Bachmann, Susana Martinez, Scott Walker, Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, GOP, MSNBC, Censorship, Media Bias, Liberalism
The last week, Chris Matthews has repeatedly accused Republicans of being racists. Newt Gingrich and Reince Priebus laughed at Matthews while he vented.
It’s in this context that this news must be viewed:
MSNBC wants you to think the Republican Party hates minorities. So much so that the liberal news network cut minority speeches from it’s convention coverage.
When popular Tea Party candidate Ted Cruz, the GOP nominee for Senate, took the stage, MSNBC cut away from the Republican National Convention and the Hispanic Republican from Texas’ speech.
MSNBC stayed on commercial through former Democratic Rep. Artur Davis’ speech, as well. Davis, who recently became a Republican, is black.
Then, when Puerto Rican Governor Luis Fortuno’s wife Luce’ Vela Fortuño took the stage minutes later, MSNBC hosts Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews opted to talk over the First Lady’s speech.
And Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval? Noticeably missing from MSNBC, too.
Mia Love, a black candidate for Congress in Utah, was also ignored by MSNBC.
In conventions past, liberal commentators on CNN, CBS, ABC and NBC commented about how the delegates at the Republican National Convention “didn’t look like America.” Based on shots of the convention floor, these delegates definitely look like America.
MSNBC isn’t about journalism. It isn’t about giving Americans accurate information. It’s all about sabotaging Republicans to keep President Obama in office.
Little Chrissie Matthews is a disgusting person. He’s arrogant, ignorant and insufferable. If MSNBC didn’t exist, they’d have to create it so he’d have a job.
Jeff Poor’s article has more about MSNBC’s disgusting behavior:
In lieu of airing speeches from former Democratic Rep. Artur Davis, a black American; Mia Love, a black candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from Utah; and Texas senatorial hopeful Ted Cruz, a Latino American, MSNBC opted to show commentary anchored by Rachel Maddow from Rev. Al Sharpton, Ed Schultz, Chris Matthews, Chris Hayes and Steve Schmidt.
MSNBC’s commentary is either proof that they’re willing liars or that they’re exceptionally lazy journalists. Their commentary has nothing to do with reality.
Tags: Racism, Chris Matthews, Lawrence O’Donnell, Rachel Maddow, MSNBC, Bigotry, Liberalism
Democrats talk like they’re the most compassionate people in the history of mankind. This article is proof that they aren’t the compassionate people they portray themselves as:
On Sunday, Ellen Barkin expressed her hope that Tropical Storm Isaac would smash up the Republican National Convention in Tampa and drown all its delegates.
She retweeted the message of one of her followers that read: “C’mon #Isaac! Wash every pro-life, anti-education, anti-woman, xenophobic, gay-bashing, racist SOB right into the ocean! #RNC” Barkin did not express any disagreement in her retweet.
Ms. Barkin is a disgusting hateful woman. What’s most disgusting is the fact that her accusations aren’t close to being accurate. They’re fictional. They’re chanting points that the DNC published 20 years ago.
What is it about Hollywood types thinking of themselves as being worthy of judging others? James Earl Jones, Harry Belafonte, Danny Glover and others have made disgusting, hate-filled, statements over the past 4 years. Had a Republican made their statements, the media would’ve demanded that the GOP cease to exist.
When this collection of bigots, has-beens and haters make the disgusting remarks that they’ve made, the press just shrugs their statements off. It’s time for the press to start criticizing these haters.
It doesn’t matter whether they’re role models or public figures that people look up to. They’re haters. People should reflexively ridicule haters wherever they’re found. PERIOD.
Ms. Barkin, you’re a disgusting human being. Step out of the public eye so we don’t have to tolerate your disgusting accusations.
Tags: Ellen Barkin, James Earl Jones, Harry Belafonte, Danny Glover, Hollywood, Hatemongers, Liberals
Rather than celebrating Gabby Douglas’ accomplishments, First Lady Michelle Obama got after Ms. Douglas for eating an egg McMuffin from McDonalds:
Granted, the Wicked Witch of DC used a teasing tone of voice in criticizing Ms. Douglas. Still, it’s the fact that the first thing Michelle Obama said wasn’t congratulations for Ms. Douglas.
The important part, though, is the fact that Michelle Obama wants government to dictate what people should eat. She started the movement. It didn’t take long for Michael Bloomberg to latch onto the repulsive idea.
It’s one thing to put nutritional information on a can of veggies or a bag of chips. That’s actually information that people want. It’s another for the government to tell people what they should eat. The worst is government limiting the size of slurpees or whatever.
Michelle Obama is the embodiment of the nanny state and all that’s wrong with that type of government.
I can’t wait for November, when we run her husband out of office and she loses the platform she currently exploits.
Tags: Olympics, Gabby Douglas, Michelle Obama, Nanny State, Democrats, Election 2012
Monday night, I went to what was billed as School Funding Talks. Instead of hearing a discussion of school funding, I literally heard an SEIU-sponsored campaign event that was offensive to listen to at times.
At one point, Bruce Watkins said that K-12 education was competing for dollars with HHS and road and bridge repair. I didn’t hear Watkins’ explanation on the state’s portion of funding K-12 education competes with road and bridge repair.
I confirmed through multiple sources that road and bridge repair is financed exclusively through the gas tax, which is a dedicated funding mechanism. Only 2-3% of the Transportation budget comes from the General Fund. That’s how office staff are paid. The general fund has nothing to do with road and bridge repair.
Dr. Watkins knows better. He just played to the crowd, which, like him, seemed totally disinterested in the truth. As long as it sounded good, they were satisfied.
Another feature was Caitlin Rogers, a speaker from OurFutureMN.org. Here’s some ridiculous propaganda from their website:
The Pay Back Our Kids Act would pay back the $2.4 billion Minnesota owes to its kids and schools by closing corporate tax loopholes. Politicians borrowed the billions from our kids to balance the state budget, leaving schools to cut, borrow, and eliminate needed teachers and programs. It’s time to do the right thing and pay our kids back!
During the 2010 campaign, Gov. Dayton said that his tax the rich sheme would generate $4,000,000,000 in additional revenue. It didn’t come close:
Democrat Mark Dayton’s second stab at a plan to resolve Minnesota’s projected budget deficit leaves him about $1 billion shy of a complete fix.
The former U.S. senator provided new details Tuesday that calls for $3.6 billion in new state revenue, mostly in the former of increased taxes on high-end earners. His plan relies on profits from a yet-to-be-authorized state-owned casino at the Mall of America or Minneapolis-St. Paul airport.
That’s after raising the top marginal rate from 7.85% to 10.95%. Now we’re supposed to believe that closing a minor loophole in the tax code will generate $2,400,000,000. That’s insulting. If a major tax increase won’t yield $3,000,000,000 in increased revenue, closing a minor loophole won’t yield $2,400,000,000 in increased revenue.
Included in the press packet was a mailer-sized card. On it was something titled “The Community Pledge”, which reads:
I commit to supporting elected leaders who invest in Minnesota priorities – great schools, good jobs, and safe, healthy communities with balanced approach budget solutions that responsibly raise revenue. I will urge my elected leaders to adequately fund education, public safety and vital services in our communities by requiring corporations and the richest 1% to pay their fair share.
That’s asking people to commit to supporting the DFL. That’s asking people to support raising spending without first examining whether the money we’re currently spending is being spent wisely.
Instead, it’s time to demand school boards to sign the Taxpayers’ Watchdog Pledge, which I’m creating as I type. Here’s the Taxpayers’ Watchdog Pledge:
I commit to asking school administrators the tough questions that I haven’t asked in the past. I promise to ask administrators why they’re spending money they don’t have on lobbyists they don’t need. In short, I promise to be the taxpayers’ watchdog.
The necessity of this pledge becomes apparent when reading this State Auditor’s report:
Table 2: Associations With Lobbying Expenditures Exceeding $100,000
Minnesota School Board Association $561,331
Association of Metropolitan School Districts, Inc. $252,417
Schools for Equity in Education $199,866
It’s outrageous to think that 3 education lobbying organizations, paid for by the taxpayers, spent $1,013,614 in 2010 alone. That’s just the most lucrative lobbying companies. Here’s a breakdown by ISD:
1S: $74,550
279: $20,000
535: $30,000
709: $73,346
728: $30,000
Grand Total: $227,896
Adding $227,896 to the $1,013,614 from Table 2 comes to a total of $1,241,510. That’s money taken off the top of the K-12 budgets. Before a penny makes it into the classroom, taxpayers have already been stuck with a bill of almost $1,250,000.
What’s worse is that these lobbyists are paid by taxpayers to lobby the legislature to spend even more of the taxpayers’ money.
The test of the school districts’ spending should be whether that spending improves educational outcomes. If it doesn’t, then that money shouldn’t be spent.
Monday night at the Whitney Senior Center should be expensed as an in-kind campaign contribution. This wasn’t about public policy. It was a DFL campaign event.
Tags: K-12 Education, Tax Increases, Caitlin Rogers, Bruce Watkins, Carol Nieters, SEIU, ISD742, Lobbyists, OurFutureMN.org, Community Pledge, DFL, Election 2012