GOP makes it "perfectly clear" - new state revenue, including gaming, is unacceptable
Posted by: Rachel E. Stassen-Berger under Gov. Mark Dayton, Minnesota legislature, Minnesota state senators, Republicans Updated: May 7, 2011 - 7:21 AM
Lest there be any doubt, the Minnesota Republican Party Friday made it "perfectly clear:" "any scheme to generate revenue" for the state runs counter to the party, the platform and candidates' campaigns.
The message contained in the party's weekly newsletter tells subscribers that: "There is nothing conservative, Republican or ‘free market’ about current proposals to expand gambling."
The missive comes as Republican lawmakers and DFL Gov. Mark Dayton are locked in stare down over the state's next two year budget. Dayton insists that the budget cannot be "all cuts." Republicans insist they will spend no more than $34 billion.
Although Republicans have been clear they will not raise taxes, they have also introduced -- although not approved -- a series of gambling proposals that could raise money for the state coffers. [...]
Read it all at Strib. Stassen-Berger includes a GOP quote I could quote, but instead, read Strib.
If no new revenue is the guideline, that has to mean refusing federal grant money toward the Ramsey Town Center let's have a Northstar stop putsch, and, specifically, refusing it to the pack of Republicans behind the current advancement effort for that commuter rail change.
If there is an integrated and consistent Gestalt to things involving Republicans, beyond naked union busting intent and action, then at least that is how new revenue from the federal government should be viewed, particularly when strident GOP voices are raised in chorus against revenue sharing from the US fisc for improving healthcare in Minnesota.
Or is there some other, more hidden and subtle meaning that I miss, to the word "integrity?"
That "integrity" is measured more or less, and not either-or? Among Republicans. And that in Republicans dealing with everyone else, to the Republicans "integrity" is a one-way street?
Owed to them, not owed by them?
What in this am I unable to understand?
If there's integrity across that GOP spectrum, then wanting to stick a pencil in the eye of the poor and the needy has to mean they can, and are willing, to stick their train station too.
----------------
Dayton should make that kind of point clear to whoever needs the clarity. It is what he was elected for. Moreso than for giving Zygi free money for a stadium. For sure, ya betcha.
The veto exists to bring conciliatory stances into play, but that only happens if the veto is appropriately used, as needed, i.e., as believed suitable and deserved.
And that is where Dayton's feet will be to the fire among those who supported and voted for him.
_______________________
Finally while on the subject of integrity, the opening Strib link has a link back to an "older post;" to wit, "Rep. says abortion encourages men to 'use and lose' women." Without caring to read it, I feel safe assuming that's not a report of any statement from Tom Hackbarth.