A Very Good Voter ID Discussion

I’m way behind on my reading, but I was just scanning through my Google Reader when I noticed the topic “Voter ID Poll” on Bill Roehl’s Lazy Lightning site.  It is a great topic to discuss.  If you have read my posts or talked to me about Voter ID Requirements, you know I am against voter ID laws because I think it is a waste of money and it will disenfranchise some voters.  Even if it isn’t very many voters who are disenfranchised, I would bet a large sum of money that more voters will be disenfranchised than there are voters who commit fraud. 

The 37 comments on Bill’s post are the highlight and worth reading with a good comments on both sides of the issue.  WCCO’s Jason DeRusha’s comment is very good, although he did not mention one of the biggest arguments against voter ID requirements, the cost involved in voter education, equipment (if we scan IDs,) training, providing IDs, and a big cost that people often ignore, the numerous lawsuits that will result from a voter ID bill.

My wish is that politicians and activists who claim to be fiscally responsible, would be fiscally responsible and stop echoing the social activists and socially motivated political leaders who have an agenda that ignores real budgetary solutions, job creation and economic viability ideas for the future.

Link to Bill’s Post:  Voter ID Poll, 6/12/2011

Follow MNDem on Facebook and Twitter

Rightwingers please stop saying “it’s debatable” if it isn’t

I made a comment on a rightwing blog this week, but I was annoyed by a response I received.  My last post was about that blog post.  In essence, the rightwing blogger called on moderate Democrats to join the Republican’s plan to reduce services that hurt those least likely to afford it like the elderly, people with disabilities and workers who have lost their jobs, rather than tax the 40,000 Minnesotans who make over $300,000 an extra 2% on the income over $300,000.  (By the way, if somebody makes $500,000, they would pay about an extra $4,000.)  My response was that the “moderates” were in the common-sense, moderate position of supporting Governor Dayton because he is 100% right, and a majority of Minnesotans think he is right too.

I made that comment on the original rightwing blog, and received the following response:

markmwhite says:
June 27, 2011 at 2:51 pm
whether the majority is standing with Dayton is debatable. the folly of continuing to grow government at unsustainable levels is not. good luck to Steve and the rest of the looters. let the class war continue

I tend to comment on a lot of right wing blogs, and I’ve learned (and this is nothing new or shocking to politically active bloggers) that rightwing comments tend to be either vague or insulting without proof.  (Example: Michelle Bachman.)  It is not always the case, I know several conservatives/ Republicans/ Libertarians who are very thoughtful, have strongly held beliefs, and make a lot of sense, I just don’t often agree with them because I have my own strongly held beliefs.  But what bugs me are the vague defenses to my comments.

In this case, it is “whether the majority is standing with Dayton is debatable.”  How is it debatable?  That phrase “it’s debatable” is very common.  Here are three polls from three different politically leaning organizations that say it isn’t debatable:

Startribune Minnesota Poll May 2011:
Solve budget…
Primarily with service reductions 27%
Tax increases and service reductions 63%
Don’t know/refused 10%

Public Policy Polling (Raleigh, NC) June 2011
Would you support a tax increase on the wealthiest 2% of Minnesotans to help balance the state budget, or do you think the budget should be balanced through cuts only?
Would support a tax increase on the wealthiest 2% of Minnesotans 63%
Budget should be balanced through cuts only 32%
Not sure 4%

KSTP Survey USA Poll May 2011
Minnesota has a five billion dollar budget deficit. Should Minnesota
Raise Taxes on Wealthy 31%
Raise Taxes on All 4%
Cut Spending 36%
Both 27%
Not Sure 2%
(That is 62% that would support Dayton’s proposal for the math challenged)

Those are three polls that all say about two-thirds of Minnesotans support Governor Dayton and the DFL position.  What is debatable?

Oh, and by the way, I’m no looter, but I think I am fine if a class war begins.  At the rate we are becoming more and more lopsided economically, something needs to change or a class war is inevitable.  If you need proof, look at our nation’s and the world’s history.  It is repeating itself, it happened a century ago, and a century before that, and as we often do, we have forgotten (or are too stupid to rationalize) the hard lessons we learned.

Rightwing bloggers are very wrong on assumptions about moderates.

A couple of days ago a rightwing blogger recently asked why Republicans have to make all the “major compromises” in our current budget battle.  Then went on to call out middle of the road DFLers because they have not sided with the Republican plan to make Minnesota less like Minnesota and more like an average or below average state. 

His exact quote was:

“The reality is that so-called moderate DFL legislators haven’t stepped forward and acted like statesmen and women.”

That is where rightwing bloggers and hard core Republicans are so very wrong.  The so called moderate or middle of the road Democrats are right where they should be.  The Republican plan is wrong, and Governor Dayton’s plan is moderate, middle of the road and just plain common sense.

This is a tight financial time for the budget in the middle of a serious financial crisis started (at least many people feel it was started) by these exact extremist policies geared toward helping and protecting a small group of well-off citizens at the expense of the majority of the population including those that can least afford it like the elderly, people with disabilities and people that have lost their jobs because of these stupid policy decisions.

Mr. Rightwing Blogger who thinks it is “an extremist agenda by Governor Dayton” is delusional!  And the fact that moderate DFLers are standing with the governor is proof that the Democrats are right this time, and the Republicans are wrong!

Chip Cravaack’s entire common-sense government frugality mantra is a lie

Two congressmen from Minnesota lease cars at taxpayer expense, Collin Peterson and Chip Cravaack.  Rep. Peterson leases two Ford Focuses, spending $652 a month in taxpayer money for his staff to use cars to travel the district.  Rep. Cravaack spends about $1,000 a month in taxpayer money for a Chevy Equinox.  It is “about $1,000” because even though the most recent report lists the car $1,700, a Cravaack spokesperson said that figure included lease startup costs so the true costs will be about $1,000 every month in taxpayer money.

It seems just a little bit hypocritical that Chip Cravaack who said “Congress must learn to do what families in Minnesota do every day, live within our means,” is the same Chip Cravaack who has a $1,000 a month car lease that very few Minnesotan families could afford, but who are still the taxpayers paying for his high lease when he is supposedly concerned about government living within its means. 

It also seems just a little bit hypocritical that the Chip Cravaack who has been painting a grim picture of the consequences of current government spending, who said at a May town hall meeting that if spending doesn’t change, the U.S. will end up facing the same economic issues as Greece and Portugal, is the same Chip Cravaack who is spending $1,000 a month in taxpayer money on a car lease, when he thinks government spending needs to change.

And I guess it seems still just a little bit more hypocritical that the Chip Cravaack who thinks the U.S. is so broke that we can’t afford to continue to fund something so basic, and crucial to our wellbeing as a nation like funding Medicare and Social Security, is the same Chip Cravaack that thinks it is different to spend $1,000 a month in taxpayer money on a Chevy Equinox SUV so his staff has a safe, roomy and reliable car to travel around the district in.  Did I mention at taxpayer expense?  That means government spending. 

In fact, Chip Cravaack’s entire common-sense government frugality mantra is nothing more than a lie to get voter’s who may not be paying really close attention to support him.  He and practically every other Republican don’t have an answer for what to cut or how to solve our financial problems.  They have a darn good slogan though.  It seems like the only money saving ideas they have are to cut services and benefits in the country as long as those services and benefits don’t affect their own services and benefits.  So they cut Medicare, Social Security, education, worker’s rights, gay rights, women’s rights, child labor laws, clean air laws, clean water laws and every other line item as long as it does not reduce their livelihood coming from big business, big oil, financial markets and military spending.

Here’s an idea Rep. Cravaack.  You could have gotten three of Collin Peterson’s Ford Focuses for $978, had your staff running around your district like hamsters in a habitrail, and still saved taxpayers $22 a month.  That’s a start toward changing government spending.  Here’s another idea, stop spending $15 billion a month on wars and let those countries govern themselves.

The Gay Marriage Ban and the Slippery Slope

The citizens of Minnesota are going to have the opportunity to vote on banning gay marriage in November 2012.  Outside of the obvious insecurity in their marriages or religious convictions, why is a single group of people advocating for the government to take away another group of people’s rights?  

Since we have this little thing called “separation of church and state” that was originated to keep the government neutral in matters of religious values, I guess it is safe to ignore perceived religious reasons for banning gay marriage.  Otherwise, that would just contradict the whole basis for why people persecuted for their religion came to America in the first place.  So that can’t be it.

It can’t have anything to do with procreation otherwise there would be a big push to ban elderly people from getting married.  I guess the best arguments they have is that it’s icky, or just look at what happened to the (insert now defunct empire here) Empire, and who knows what it would lead to next.

I’m fond of the “slippery slope argument,” what would it lead to next?  Wasn’t it Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum that used to use the “man on dog” analogy?  Good luck Rick on your run for President.  Yep, slippery slope, somehow gay marriages will start a chain reaction that will destroy the very existence of what marriage is and means.  The argument usually includes children, incest or animals, followed by the statement “we have to draw the line.”  

But what is great about any slippery slope argument is that there are always two sides to that slippery slope.  For instance, if we make it constitutional to disapprove of this type of marriages, where do we draw the line?  What if we require government approval to get married?  Or what if we follow the Catholic Church’s doctrine and deny divorcees of the right to marriage?  Why couldn’t we prevent an American citizen from marrying an immigrant?  Read with very sarcastic tone: Everybody knows that immigrants and THE gays brought down the Roman Empire…

Excluding the Republicans who have been terrified by three decades of fear mongering by political strategists and egomaniacal right-wing religious leaders, is it really for the rest of us to decide who can get married?  Should we care whether two consenting adults love each other enough to make a formal commitment to each other?

Obviously I’m not the only one who thinks two grown adults should have the same legal and tax rights that I have.  A recent CNN poll shows that a majority of Americans support gay marriage rights.  And opinions are drastically shifting on this issue toward more Americans supporting that right.  The changing poll numbers over the last two decades show how drastically public opinion is shifting in favor of gay marriage.  In 1990, less than 20% of the public supported gay marriage while about 70% opposed it.  In April 2011, 51% of the population thinks gay marriage should be recognized.  I expect that trend to continue, so this could be among the last couple years that a law like this could even be considered.

With public opinion shifting so quickly towards acceptance, you kind of wonder why this is so important to legislators who might be viewed quite negatively in a few years.  A couple days ago, we got a robo-call call from a Christian group pushing for this amendment.  Then it clicked.  Republicans are more concerned with supporting those radical groups that got them elected in 2012, than supporting the will of the people.  OK, got it.  I guess it had to be done, if nothing else for Republican political fundraising reasons. 

31 states have put a vote to ban gay marriage on the ballot, and it has passed in all 31 states.  I think Minnesota has the legitimate potential to be the first state to vote one down. That gives me hope, but I’m not looking forward to the flood of spending on divisive political TV and radio ads from local and national groups on both sides of the issue.

I kind of wonder what’s next though if they are successful, should gays be allowed to vote?