Tag: Minnesota

Another Reason Why the GOP is a Joke

There’s no two ways to put this, the Republican Party (GOP) is dying. Actually, the GOP is already dead, it’s advocates simply don’t know it yet. I think the major turning point for the GOP was when it began to embrace religious fanaticism. We live in a post-Enlightenment world, religion doesn’t count for what it once did, and anybody trying to implement religious laws in the Western world is in for a bad time. Not satisfied with merely adopting religious zealotry, the GOP has also gone out of its way to adopt some of the most ironic politicians. Take Tony Sutton, the former chair of the Minnesota Republican Party. The GOP constantly advertises itself as the party of fiscal responsibility so one can only laugh when the chair of the Minnesota Party files for bankruptcy:

A hard-charging former state Republican Party chairman whose constant refrain to DFLers and even GOP lawmakers was “live within your means” has declared personal bankruptcy, the latest twist in one of the most dramatic political downfalls in recent state history.

At the height of his power, Tony Sutton demanded that Republican legislators oppose all tax increases and keep state spending strictly in line with revenue. Few realized it at the time, but the GOP’s finances under Sutton’s management were a shambles, and the same scenario was playing out in his personal life.

Sutton and his wife, Bridget Sutton, an Inver Grove Heights school board member and former Republican operative, say they owe $2.1 million, including $70,000 of credit card debt, $20,000 in federal student loans, unpaid state and federal taxes, and hundreds of thousands of dollars in unsecured personal loans to cover business expenses. At the time they filed, the Suttons had no life or health insurance.

If this was an isolated incident it wouldn’t be a big deal but it seems GOP politicians are constantly getting caught in situations where they practice what they preach against. There’s no hope for a party when it’s higher ups aren’t ideologically consistent. Any plan that involves the Republican Party should be abandoned and a plan B put into action.

The Minnesota Advisory Committee on Capitol Security Looking to Prohibit the Carrying of Firearms at the State Capital

Just a heads up, the Advisory Committee on Capitol Security is holding a hearing tomorrow at 11:00 to review the law that allows individuals with carry permits to carry at the State Capital (after providing notice):

The “Advisory Committee on Capitol Security” has scheduled two meetings to review law and policy around firearms at the Capitol Complex, as part of their efforts to make recommendations to the legislature on improvements to Capitol security.

Representative Michael Paymar, a committee member, has repeatedly attempted to pass a law to prohibit law-abiding Minnesotans from carrying at the Capitol. Of course, this is a solution in search of a problem: we are unable to locate even a single instance where a law abiding gun owner has caused any security concern within the capitol complex.

If descending into the den of the damned is your thing you may find this hearing of interest. Personally, I think we should wait until the state Senate and Congress are in session, get a few thousand people to show up at the Capital, and erect a 30 foot wall around the building and its grounds to quarantine the infection that is government. It would be mutually beneficial. They don’t want us to carry firearms in their temple and we don’t want them spreading their violent statism in our communities.

One of These Things is Not Like the Other

Since Mark Dayton vetoed the legislation that would have brought “stand your ground” to Minnesota, it’s not surprise to see him attempt to justify his political position by shoehorning “stand your ground” into the Zimmerman case:

He commented on the acquittal last weekend of George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer who shot and killed the 17-year-old Martin in Sanford, Fla., in February of 2012. Florida has a law similar to the one Dayton vetoed, although it is not clear that it figured into Zimmerman’s successful claim of self-defense.

“Whether we agree or disagree with the decision, we have to carry on,” Dayton said, in his first comments on the case. “We have to learn from the mistakes of the past — learn that these kinds of laws that are supposedly empowering citizen vigilantes to take matters in their own hands have catastrophic effects.”

Of course, as pointed out by Andrew Branca at Legal Insurrection, the Zimmerman case had nothing to do with Florida’s “stand your ground” law:

Traditionally, it was required that you take advantage of a safe avenue of retreat, if such was reasonably available to you, before using deadly force in self-defense. This was what is referred to as a generalized duty to retreat. It always had exceptions, such as the Castle Doctrine which lifts the duty when you are in your home.

The “stand-your-ground” law expands the scope of the Castle Doctrine beyond your home to every place you have a right to be. So, even if there were a safe avenue of retreat reasonably available to you, you no longer have a legal duty to attempt to make use of it before using deadly force in self-defense.

The duty to retreat itself, however, only applies where safe retreat is possible. If there is no safe avenue of retreat, there is no duty. If there is no duty, the “stand-your-ground” statute that relieves you of that duty is irrelevant.

This was this situation in the Zimmerman case. When George Zimmerman made the decision to use deadly force in self-defense he had already been trying to escape for at least the 45 seconds he was screaming for help and getting his head smashed into a sidewalk. There simply was no reasonably safe avenue of retreat available to him. Therefore he had no duty to retreat, and without any such duty “stand-your-ground” has no role to play in lifting that duty.

The claim that Zimmerman got off because of Florida’s “stand your ground” law is incorrect. Zimmerman deployed deadly force only after he was pinned to the ground. Since he had no avenue of retreat he could legally use deadly force in self-defense regardless if the statute existed or not.

Sadly, the myth that Zimmerman’s verdict was determined by “stand your ground” legislation is unlikely to die, especially when you have governors like Mark Dayton perpetuating the lie.

There’s Still Hope for Minnesota

When looking at the Minnesota government’s rules and policies one is often left with a feeling of hopelessness. Fortunately, this is a weird state politically and from time to time hope arises:

Say hello to Mayor Robert ‘‘Bobby’’ Tufts. He’s 4 years old and not even in school yet.

Bobby was only 3 when he won election last year as mayor of Dorset (population 22 to 28, depending on whether the minister and his family are in town). Dorset, which bills itself as the Restaurant Capital of the World, has no formal city government.

If you’re going to have a mayor you should elect one that is harmless. Some cities have accomplished that by electing a cat while other, such as Dorset, have done so by electing a small child. I hope other cities can learn from their example. In fact, now that I think about it, there is a Minneapolis mayoral election coming up.

Asking the Important Questions

I’ve mentioned my love of newspaper opinion sections before. Those sections give a rare glimpse into the thoughts of the some of the most… interesting individuals in an area. Here in Minnesota opinion sections are often filled with some of the most insane rants known to man. Thankfully, in all of the insanity, one man has risen to ask an important questions:

Did the City Council’s actions opposing preserving marriage make the citizens of Duluth vulnerable? Duluth suffered a flood six months later, on June 17, 2012. Instead of accepting the truth that the City Council’s unnatural actions contributed to the city’s vulnerability, it was chalked-up to a bad infrastructure or global warming.

I once knew a guy who cheated on his wife. Years later the east coast was hit by a super storm. Did the man’s infidelity make the east cost more vulnerable?

I Guess We’ll Need a New Tax in Minnesota

At the beginning of this month a new tax on cigarettes took effect here in Minnesota. While proponents of the new tax claim it will help fund education the tax is actually being used to bailout billionaire Zygi Wilf since the proceeds from gambling having met the levels projected by the politicians who decided to provide public funding for the new Vikings stadium. Unfortunately, the politicians may have to find something else to tax now that cigarette sales have dropped:

DULUTH – After the Minn. state tax increase on cigerettes on July 1., Duluth tobacco shops and gas stations said their sales have decreased.

Some gas stations said cigarette sales are down by thousands of dollars a week.

Meklye Wahedi, a cashier at “Cigs for Less” said carton sales are especially down.

“People were buying 3 or 4 at a time, they would come in the next week and but 3 or 4 again, and yeah, it increased a lot,” Wahedi said. “When July 1 first hit, that’s when it was really slow.”

We will have to wait and see if sales increase but if they don’t the Minnesota legislation will likely have to create a new tax on something else. This demonstrates the issue with taxes, as taxes are increased individuals begin to avoid those taxes. If a new tax on cigarettes raises the overall price of cigarettes sufficiently less people will buy them and the state will take in less tax money, leading to more taxes. It’s a never ending cycle.

Amazon’s Bait-and-Switch

Last month the Minnesota government passed an Internet sales tax law. Although proponents of this law claimed it would raise revenue (isn’t funny how statists always consider other people’s money the state’s revenue), those of us who opposed it pointed out that it wasn’t enforceable. The State of Minnesota can only enforce its laws against entities physically located here. This being the case, Internet merchants not wanting to pay Minnesota sales taxes need only relocate to another state.

In response to the passage of Minnesota’s Internet sales tax law Amazon has decided to terminate it’s Associates Program with Minnesotans, effectively ending its physical presence in this state:

We are writing from the Amazon Associates Program to notify you that your Associates account will be closed and your Amazon Services LLC Associates Program Operating Agreement will be terminated effective June 30, 2013. This is a direct result of the unconstitutional Minnesota state tax collection legislation passed by the state legislature and signed by Governor Dayton on May 23, 2013, with an effective date of July 1, 2013. As a result, we will no longer pay any advertising fees for customers referred to an Amazon Site after June 30 nor will we accept new applications for the Associates Program from Minnesota residents.

Libertarians and other advocates of small or no government are jumping for joy because this move demonstrates that tax increases drive businesses away… or does it? If you continue reading their notice you’ll see that avoiding taxes, a noble cause, isn’t Amazon’s goal:

We thank you for being part of the Amazon Associates Program, and look forward to re-opening our program when Congress passes the Marketplace Fairness Act.

Herein lies Amazon’s goals, they want to drum up support for the Marketplace Fairness Act. The Marketplace Fairness Act promises to level the playing field between online merchants and traditional brick-and-mortar merchants. In reality, the law is blatent protectionism, which is why Amazon is in support of it.

The text of the law says any online retailer that has over $1 million in gross online sales must pay sales taxes in all 50 states. Since Amazon is an online retailer and has well over $1 million in gross online sales it would stand to reason that it would oppose this law, right? Not exactly. Amazon is a massive company that rakes in tremendous amounts of cash. It can easily absorb the costs associated with complying with 50 different tax codes. However, its smaller competitors may not be able to.

$1 million in gross online sales isn’t that much when you figure in the expenses of paying employees, maintaining a website, building and shipping product, etc. A company that made $1 million in gross online sales may not be turning much of a, if any, profit. Even if it is turning a profit that money is unlikely to be enough to ensure compliance with 50 different tax laws, which may require hiring 50 different tax lawyers. Whenever a large company supports a piece of legislation always ask yourself how that legislation will harm its competitors, because that’s usually its end goal.

Amazon wants the Marketplace Fairness Act to pass because it would reduce the number of competitors. In order to get the bill to pass Amazon is sending members of its Minnesota Associates Program an ultimatum: support the Marketplace Fairness Act or never again enjoy the benefits of being an Amazon Associate.

In the end, Minnesota’s Internet sales tax law was a lose-lose-lose for everybody besides Amazon. The State of Minnesota won’t gain any additional funds since online retailers can easily relocate to another state. Members of Amazon’s Associates Program are no longer able to rake in that program’s benefits because Amazon wants to use them as political pawns to crush its competitors. Finally, everybody in the United States loses because Amazon’s exploitation of Minnesota’s Internet sales tax law will likely create more supporters for the Marketplace Fairness Act, which would increase the amount of taxes we have to pay.

What Michele Bachmann’s Retirement Means

Since the BBC is covering the story I must assume that everybody in the world is now aware that Michele Bachmann announced that she won’t be seeking reelection to Congress:

“The law limits anyone from serving as president of the United States for more than eight years,” Mrs Bachmann said in an eight-and-a-half minute video posted to her website on Wednesday morning.

“And in my opinion, well, eight years is also long enough for any individual to serve as a representative for a specific congressional district.”

Many members of the Minnesota Democratic Farmer Labor Party (DFL) are jumping for joy because they believe Bachmann’s retirement removes a powerful Republican player from the field. I believe they are incorrect. Bachmann simply said she wasn’t seeking reelection in the 6th congressional district, which means she could still pursue a run for the Senate. I’m doubtful that Bachmann will seek another office simply because I’m guessing her recent announcement has something to do with the recent ethics investigation of her campaign. If her announcement was influenced by dirt dug up by the investigation I can’t see it not also preventing her from making a Senate or governor run.

Even if she doesn’t run for another political office the field has been changed greatly. I’m guessing Bachmann will seek a job as a lobbyist, adviser, or consultant with a major politically connected corporation. What’s worrisome about such a move is that she would actually gain the ability to change things politically. While Bachmann was insane she was also politically impotent, which is a fact seldom considered by political types that hate her. Personally I would rather have Bachmann in a position where should could loudly express her opinions but remained unable to act on them then being in a position where she will likely be quieter but gain the power to influence politicians. The real political power doesn’t lie within Congress, it lies within the lobbyists who buy congressmen.

Most of what I wrote above was speculation but what I’m going to write now is hard fact. The DFL are stoked because they think Bachmann’s exit is a guaranteed victory for Jim Graves, the person who ran against her last election cycle. It’s not. In fact the chances of Graves winning are probably lower now than they were when Bachmann was his leading opponent. To quote Sun Tzu, “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” The DFL knew Bachmann and therefore had a better chance of fighting her. Now they don’t know their enemy. Republicans in the 6th district may elect one of the most charismatic individuals in the area to run against Graves. Instead of having years of Bachmann’s statements to use against her in a campaign the DFL will have to wait until a candidate is elected and dig up dirt on him or her and hope they find something good (especially when you consider the 6th district’s habit of leaning Republican). A powerful player was removed from the field but it is not know if another, potentially more, powerful player will be replace her.

It could be an interesting race if you’re into politics.

Why the Unions Succeeded in Minnesota

It’s time for another installment of Politics 101.

Last night was the last night was the deadline for political matters in the State of Minnesota. During the final hours a bill was passed that will allow unions to force daycare providers to unionize. Obviously most people who identify with the “left” side of the political spectrum are cheering while most people who identify with the “right” side of the political spectrum are calling foul. Political matters don’t interest me but it’s worth pointing out why the bill passed because it’s the same reason any bill passes.

Let’s look at the two sides of this debate. On one side we have the unions. For the most part modern unions are big businesses. They purport to defend workers from their bosses but most of the higher ups in the major unions are bosses themselves. The two unions involved in this fight were the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). Being high up in the AFSCME has its benefits as does being high up in the SEIU. Any organization able to offer six-figure salaries tends to have plenty of resources to throw at politicians.

One the other side we have the daycare providers and anti-unions activists. Many of the daycare providers are independent entities operated by a handful of people while the anti-union activists are primarily there because they don’t like unions (or, at least, the unions involved in this fight).

Neither group has a great deal of resources at hand compared to their competition, which is why they lost. Politics is the art of initiating force en masse. The initiator of force, the state, exists solely through expropriation. In order to accomplish something politically you must have something to offer the state. The AFSCME and SEIU, being major corporations, have a lot of resources that can be transferred to friendly politicians. Major campaign contributions, jobs as lobbyists and consultants for politicians exiting politics, and even some information that is of value for insider trading can all be provided by the two unions. Meanwhile the daycare providers and anti-union activists have little to offer. Since most daycare providers are small organizations they cannot offer major campaign contributions or jobs for politicians exiting politics and since they’re generally private entities they have nothing for politicians to trade on the stock market. The same goes for anti-union activists.

In order to succeed politically you must have sometime of value to offer the politicians. The reason the gun control advocates lost this year is because they had nothing to offer while gun rights advocates could offer plenty of headaches for politicians who voted for gun control. When one side is offering nothing and the other is offering headaches politicians tend to give the side offering headaches what they want hoping they’ll go away. The battle over daycare providers is slightly different since one side has nothing to offer while the other side has a great deal to offer. In such cases the politicians will almost always align themselves with the side offering the riches.

It doesn’t matter how many protests you perform or how many people you get to support your side at the Capitol, if you doesn’t have a sacrifice to offer the politicians you’re not getting anything from them. Democracy isn’t about the will of the people, it’s about the will of the decision makers and the decision makers can be bought.

Of course there is a solution but it would require daycare providers to join the “underground” economy. That is what I suggest all people do but, for some reason, many people believe that the “legitimate” economy is where they should conduct business.

Business Opportunities are Everywhere

Smokers of Minnesota are up in arms over the increase in cigarette taxes:

MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) – Outside downtown office buildings, many smokers didn’t want to talk about the possibility of a tax that will push a lot of cigarette packs into the $8 range.

Dan Jones says the tax may be the push he needs

[…]

The state says it has built the expected drop in smokers into their revenue projections. The current tobacco tax pulls in $423 million, and the state is predicting the higher tax would pull in $618 million a year.

The tax hike isn’t surprising since Mark Dayton stated plundering from smokers was one idea to subsidize billionaire Zigy Wilf’s stadium. What is surprising is the reaction many are having to the news. Many smokers are pissed, other smokers are thinking about quitting, and small government advocates are rightly pointing out that smoking is an activity enjoyed by many poor individuals so a tax on cigarettes is a burden on the poor (to enrich the top 1% no less!). I guess, to borrow an old marketing phrase from Apple, I think different. A tax increase on cigarettes in Minnesota is a business opportunity! Anybody willing to buy cheaper cigarettes out of state, deliver them to Minnesota, and sell them to people addicted to nicotine stands to make a tidy profit.

Tax increases, while depriving some portion of the population of wealth, generate business opportunities for smugglers. Increasing the tax on cigarettes makes the unprofitable enterprise of buying cigarettes in one state and selling them in another profitable. In fact, depending on the tax difference between the state cigarettes are purchased in and the state they are sold in, the profit could be very high.

One of my goals in life is to show people how statism can be exploited for personal profit without resorting to the statist tactic of initiating violence. Smuggling cigarettes into Minnesota is looking to be one of those wonderfully exploitable endeavors.