Archive
HF 1598 – 2011 session
This bill proposes a constitutional amendment, to be voted upon by the people in the next general election. The question posed to the people:
“Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to require a three-fifths vote of each house of the legislature to pass a law that increases state income, state sales, or property taxes?”
Frankly, I like it. The only people that would oppose this are those that want it to be easy to raise taxes.
An interesting provision within the language states that if taxes are simply shifted, not increased, than a simple majority can pass the tax. For example, a bill that would increase the income tax, but lower property taxes (or vice versa) would only need a majority, assuming that it did not increase total revenues raised for the state.
Marriage
“[He] lies and says [he]‘s in love with him, can’t find a better man.” – Ed Vedder
———-
Why do so many Republicans want to define marriage? I’ve spent a lot of time this week pondering this question. Is it purely a religious thing? Do they really hate homosexuality so much as to deny them the benefits associated with marriage? It turns out, these are completely the wrong questions to ask. What is truly going on here is that there are Republicans that actually want to expand government without realizing it.
In the last election cycle, the term “RINO” (Republicans In Name Only) became an everyday word to describe those that perhaps had some Republican traits, but would vote in favor of government expansion. This includes votes for tax increases or growth in government regulations. For example, some would refer to former Governor Tim Pawlenty as a RINO, due to his increases to user fees (taxes) or his promotion of ethanol subsidies. I contend that the Minnesota Republicans in favor of defining marriage are true RINO’s.
How can a definition of marriage be an expansion of government? In simplest terms, it is an addition to what is already the country’s longest state constitution, though this point is merely meaningless rhetoric. To understand how this action should not be sponsored by a true Republican, we’ll need to understand what should be done with marriage – eliminate it.
I have been a long-time advocate of what has come to be known as “marriage privatization”. This is the idea that government should not be involved in marriage in any way. As the Wikipedia page puts it, “Marriage privatization is the concept that the state should have no authority to define the terms of personal relationships such as marriage.” Simply eliminate any mention of marriage from all statutory language, both at the state level as well as federally.
With marriage no longer being recognized by the state, any two (or more) people would be able to enter into a contract that would spell out the terms of the relationship. Anyone could get the benefits now available through marriage. Problem solved.
Hello
“And it’s never gonna be the same, so the life I knew comes to my house and says Hello, Hello, Hello” – Noel Gallagher
———-
I came to a realization while walking the dog this morning. It goes a little something like this:
If you want to eliminate all politicians, you’re ignorant. If you hate political parties, you don’t understand politics. If you don’t associate with a political party, then you don’t care about politics. If you do associate with a political party and you agree with everything that party stands for, you’re delusional. And finally, if you’re a member of a political party and that party doesn’t drive you nuts, if that party doesn’t piss you off from time to time, then you’re not paying attention.
I consider myself a quasi-libertarian. I believe in limited government, not the total absence of government. I believe in responsible spending, limited taxation, policy restraint, and truly equal rights. I’m pro choice, but against light rail. I’m for reduced government budgets, but against defining marriage. I’m believe in property taxes; Government should be as local as possible. I’m for the line-item veto and the unallotments.
As you can see, I’m what some would call the fiscally-conservative, socially-liberal type. I prefer Goldwater-Republican. There are wikipedia pages written about me (well, not specifically), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Republican and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classic_liberalism.
I am a member of the Republican Liberty Caucus because my realization has lead me to believe that the best way to change things is from the inside-out….and it has lead me to this: I have a pretty solid understanding of politics; I do care about politics; I don’t think I’m delusional; And I am paying attention.
