Blown Off by @kwatt From the @MNGOP #mnshutdown

Here is an example of the MN GOP blowing off what I consider to be a legitimate policy question related to shutdown negotiations. First the question I asked Kevin Watterson:

Asking @kwatt a Question

I waited a bit. Then a bit more. And checked @kwatt to see if he had gone offline. Nope. He was still online Twittering away and talking politics:

@kwatt Since I Tweeted at him

Which brings us back to this Tweet from @kwatt:

@kwatt on No New Taxes

At that point, Kevin Watterson confirmed that the MN GOP has lost the ability to make a rational argument. They are not opposing spending for a specific government service. They aren’t saying that a specific taxpayer funded project is wasteful. They are simply saying that government is bad without providing a specific example to back up their claim.

This about this: If the State of Minnesota announced that everyone could have jet packs if we raised taxes by 1%, the MN GOP would oppose it. JET PACKS! Why would anyone oppose jet packs? Because the MN GOP has decided that they don’t want to listen to rational arguments justifying state spending or make rational arguments justifying cutting specific spending items. Instead, they want to cover their ears and pretend that cutting spending has no societal costs.

To be clear, this post isn’t coming from a huge Dayton supporter. On October 19th, I wrote a post titled “ANYONE BUT TOM EMMER” that made my position clear.

In the time it’s taken me to write this, Kevin Watterson has tweeted again. This time, regurgitating a ridiculous tweet from Hockey Mom, Gymnastics Mom, Soccer Mom, Conservative, Minnesota State Representative 2002-2010, Minnesota Republican Party Elephant Club Chair., Rep. Laura Brod:

Laura Brod Tweets

That’s such a strange tweet. The programs paid for by the Dayton plan are obvious. They don’t provide revenue for yet to be named programs. They simply fund programs that already exist. On the other hand, the MN GOP plan cuts programs without specifically naming which programs should be cut and by how much. I guess you could call that a wet noodle spending cut, but a better name for it would be a cowardly cut in spending to support people making more than $1,000,001 per year after deductions.

6 thoughts on “Blown Off by @kwatt From the @MNGOP #mnshutdown”

  1. Sweet. I actually like your blog and enjoy being the subject of a post!

  2. @Kevin, it would be great to see you become a subject for a better reason than defending people making at least a million dollars a year over poor smokers. Based on your response, it seems like you’re not willing to share an opinion on who you’d support given a choice. I think that speaks volumes.

    It’s great to hear that you like my blog. If anything I wrote is not accurate, be sure to let me know with a comment or contact me directly.

  3. Someday I will, I promise. And with no more information that is known to me at this moment. It’s nothing major. It’s actually better written and closer to accurate than today’s NYT editorial.

  4. I agree with you Ed, you make a good point and I think one that can also been seen nationally as expressed in this article by David Brooks: The Mother of All No-Brainers –

  5. While it is true that cigarette taxes hit low income people more than people with higher incomes, consistent research has demonstrated that people with less income are more price sensitive. In other words, when you raise the price of cigarettes current smokers cut back or quit and some potential smokers (i.e. kids) never start. Sustaining this impact requires regular price increases but the trend has been observed in Minnesota and in other states again and again.

    From another perspective, one might note that tobacco-related diseases are also regressive and that price increases are an additional incentive to quit. And Minnesota has a free quit line for smokers that don’t have insurance, so there is a carrot to go along with the stick.

    Not all smokers will cut back or quit in response, but any progress against cancer, heart disease, diabetes, lung disease, etc could defray health care costs.

    As sin taxes go, the $1-per-pack that Dayton supported would raise revenue and reduce smoking.

    Compare that to the devastating impact of potential cuts to health care for the poor, education for the poor, increases in the cost of public transit, etc, etc, etc

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.