First of all, I thought that the GOP speakers did a great job yesterday. I told Steve Gottwalt last night that if truth & coherent logic were all that mattered, the veto would’ve been sustained with votes to spare. I’d also like to thank Steve & Dan Severson for their stirring speeches. They certainly made GOP activists everywhere proud.

Thats’ why I transcribed their speeches. GOP activists who are going to be meeting in the next week or so will want to hear their speeches, both because of their content & their passion. Let’s start with Steve’s speech because he got things started:

REP. GOTTWALT: Thank you Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker & members, we all know what’s at play here today. I’ll pick up where I left off last week. Is this the best that we can do? The answer that I’ve heard resoundingly from my constituents– maybe you’ve heard it from some of your constituents, too– is no.
This is not the best that we can do. This is not fair to rural Minnesota vs. Metro. It is not fair to the taxpaying citizens of Minnesota. It is an undue burden at a time when they can ill afford it. And we have a responsibility & an obligation to go back to the drawing table, work together on real compromise that includes a conversation with us & the Governor’s office & put together a package that Minnesota can support & sustain. Members, I urge you to vote red on the motion to bring this back.

Steve laid out some important principles that should guide our policymaking the rest of this session. The most important of those principles is to listen to your constituents. That should be the first demandment that BPOU chairs should make of candidates that are looking for their endorsement.

Another principle is that the legislation must make sense in the context of what people are willing to pay in new taxes. Minnesotans are sick of tax increases. Before the week’s end, the DFL is planning on bringing up the tax bill.

The bill that was overriden Monday is the biggest in Minneosta’s history. The Tax Bill they’re brining up later will likely eclipse that. Any candidate or incumbent who isn’t committed to keeping the rest of the taxes low shouldn’t be endorsed. It’s that simple.

Next is Dan’s speech:

REP. SEVERSON: Thank You Madam Speaker & members. I’ve been sitting on the Transportation Committee for the last six years & I ran on transportation as one of the major issues because it produces infrastructure. It produces jobs & it’s important to our economy. And we’ve been through a process this year. Two years later, after I got into the House, the Governor put forward a plan with a very aggressive proposal with $800 million in bonding. MnDOT realized the debt service on that bonding by creating efficiencies within the agencies itself. So we have had some creative history in the past & bringing these things to pass.
I will tell you that I am passionate about ensuring that we have a transportation bill this session. This is probably one of the most important bills we can pass. But this bill is not that bill. When I’ve been in the district– and I’ve been in the district– and I’ve been talking to people & I’ve been getting calls this weekend about this bill. I get calls from people that say ‘You know what?’ I got a call from a man who has to go down to Rochester twice a week to get medical care. He’s not rich. He’s rural. He’s out there. He’s gotta drive a lot of miles to make it happen. This bill will significantly dip into the discretionary spending, of which he has very little of now. Yet we’re talking about looking at a budget deficit coming up on Friday. Why are we going after this one which adds more tax burden to our taxpayers today? At a minimum, we oughta be discussing this next Monday after we get this prognosis.
You know, when we started this session, just to bring it back, last March, when we voted for this transportation bill, a bill that was smaller than this bill, it was passed off this floor, the Governor vetoed the bill in April. At the end of April, we did not bring this bill up to the floor.
It wasn’t until the last 30 minutes of the session that we got a chance to take another look at that transportation bill. No time to bring forth any compromise. So what happens this year? We get an even bigger bill. So Sen. Pogemiller is standing up at the Chamber of Commerce meeting & he’s saying that this is going to be a bipartisan bill. This bill has got to go through all the committees. And we’re gonna get bipartisan support for this. You know what? I’m thinking that sounds good to me.
I go to the Transportation Committee & the debate before that committee was “Well should we even offer amendments to dress up this…large animal? And you know what? We said that we were going to take them at their word. They said that they were going to work bipartisanly. And we put four amendments forward. You know how many went on? Zero. This last year & this year, we have had less members, less than 5 percent of the minority’s amendments absorbed into any of this legislation. And so those people who are listening, want to talk about bipartisanship & reaching across the aisle, let me tell you. It ain’t happenin’. This bill that we’re talking about today puts $4.3 million into the Great River Road Building Project. What does that have to do with roads & bridges? This bill puts in one & a half percent into the bonding requirements into bicycle trails in the Metro area. What does that have to do with moving buses & cars & people on roads?
Members, there’s a bunch of pork in this bill. This is not a bipartisan vote even if you have some members from our caucus vote for it. We had no input into this process. And I would urge you, members, to sustain the Governor’s veto. Let’s get a bipartisan, a truly bipartisan– if the Governor doesn’t want to participate, that’s fine– but we have voices in the Minority here. Let’s get a truly bipartisan bill put before us.
If you reach forward & you punch the green button, what you’re saying to the taxpayers is that “I’m reaching deep into your pocket & I’m pulling out all the green in your wallet & I’ll leave you the change.” That’s the kind of change that we’re talking about here. Members, I urge you to vote red on this motion.

I’ve talked numerous times with Dan. I’ll tell you that Dan doesn’t like the thought that such a tiny amount of amendments get taken seriously. This DFL-dominated legislature has accepted less than 5 percent of the amendments that the GOP has offered & they have the audacity to talk about compromise & bipartisanship? That’s downright insulting. In fact, insulting isn’t strong enough. Let’s keep these statistics in mind this fall when the DFL runs another ‘say one thing, do another’ campaigns. Let’s tell the people how dishonest they are. Let’s remind the people that they campaigned on not raising taxes, then passing the biggest tax increases in Minnesota history. Let’s remind them that they inherited a $2 billion surplus & within a year turned it into a $1 billion deficit.

Most importantly, let’s remind them that the DFL promised to be fiscal moderates & governed like the most out-of-control liberals in the history of the state.

We’re loaded for bear on these points.

The DFL passed a budget that would’ve spent 17 percent more than the previous biennium. It’s a good thing that Gov. Pawlenty vetoed that budget, keeping the spending to 9.6 percent.

Last but certainly not least, here’s Mark Buesgens’ speech:

REP. BUESGENS: Thank you Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker & members, I want to touch on that word compromise once again. And I had brought it up last week when this bill was up before us & I’ll bring it up again. This idea of compromise
is so shallow here at the legislature. What this bill is is a compromise between those that wanted to take a whole lot of money away from the taxpayers & those that wanted to take a little less than alot away from the taxpayers of Minnesota. If this were truly a compromise, we would’ve been looking for ways in which the government can trim spending on one hand & while others want to increase taxes on the other. This is a compromise among thieves. If we’re truly looking at compromise, then there should be some give & take between the government & the people they’re supposed to represent. And yet, nowhere in this bill does it tell government to live within its means. Nowhere in this bill is the taxpayers protected.
Instead, this bill is full of increases after increases after increases. And it’s the families back at home who are going to pay for these increases. And we have people who stand up on this floor who have the audacity to say that this is compromise. There’s no compromise within this bill. There is no compromise within what we’re going to do today, to the families, to the taxpayers, to the hardworking people of the state of Minnesota.
You know, it’s gonna be easy for some people to say yes. And we’ve got the whole tribe outside the door, everyone bellying up to the trough. They want more & more & more while the people that fill the trough, while the workers of the state of Minnesota are out trying to squeak by.
I don’t know if any of you looked at your local newspaper recently, but my foreclosure list has tripled in the last two years.
Over & over & over again, people are losing their jobs. They’re on unemployment in my district. I don’t know about yours.
And yet we want to compromise with the people of the state of Minnesota. We’re gonna ram this through because we’re afraid of what Thursday will show. We’re afraid that Thursday’s gonna show that people are even hurting more. And yet this piece of legislation is called a compromise.
A compromise amongst thieves, members, & we should reject them both. We should go back & truly look at a compromise between the people outside this door & who are gonna make billions of dollars if this bill passes & the people outside this city who are working their tails off to afford the bill what we’re about to do today.
That would be true compromise. That would be true courage. That would be statesmanship & if we could do that, that would truly make the people of the state of Minnesota proud of this body.

Rep. Buesgens is absolutely right. This bill didn’t represent compromise. This bill was ramrodded with little attention paid to the minority. The DFL is passing bills quickly. They think that they can do no wrong. This November, they’ll find out that they’re out of touch with their voters.

Here in the greater St. Cloud area, Mssrs. Haws & Hosch should get used to seeing their names in print telling their neighbors & constituents that they were part of the DFL majority in the legislature that turned a $2 billion surplus into a $1 billion deficit in less than a year.

Next November, it’s time for thoughtful people to step forward & end the DFL Disaster. They’ve unearned our trust with their policies, their broken campaign promises but most importantly with their ingoring the will of the people.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2 Responses to “Impressive Speeches, Great Perspectives”

  • Cole says:

    All those truthful and logical people let bridges fall down. Start telling the truth about how small of an impact this has on average people, and how much good it’ll do for the state. Or leave.

    And the GOP ran it’s own show last session, which was mercifully blunted by Dean Johnson. How many committees had vice-chairs from the DFL under your House? None.

    Finally, if you plan for infation in your personal budget, then you’d better expect government to do the same, and if you don’t plan for it, you’re not very bright.

  • Gary Gross says:

    All those truthful and logical people let bridges fall down. Start telling the truth about how small of an impact this has on average people, and how much good it’ll do for the state. Or leave.

    This intelligence is typical of a liberal. All those truthful and logical people didn’t let bridges fall down. One of the contributing factors to the collapse was a design flaw when the bridge was built 40 years ago.

    Finally, if you plan for infation in your personal budget, then you’d better expect government to do the same, and if you don’t plan for it, you’re not very bright.

    Isn’t it curious that small businesses don’t budget based on the inflation rate but rather on what level of income they’ll have coming in. If revenue shrinks, the shrewd businessman adjusts by not spending as much. When’s the last time a liberal majority did that?

Leave a Reply