"unlike certain lesser bloggers"? Jeez Mitch, first the Hussein lovers tiff and now bald-faced condescension. What's this blog coming to?

Chalk this Coleman-the-Moneyboy column up to: "Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn sometimes".

This topic has many conflicting cross-currents. I oppose direct democracy, thus I oppose referendums of any sort. I also oppose subsidies for private businesses. I also support devolving power to the lowest governmental level when possible; federalism is a good idea within states as well as within the nation.

The dishonest aspect of Coleman's column is that he fails to mention that the duly elected governing body of Hennepin County passed a law which creates a sales tax to build a baseball stadium. I see no reason why the state of Minnesota should prevent the duly elected governing body of a county to tax it's citizens as it sees fit, and I see no reason why the citizens of Hennepin County should not be responsible for the County Commissioners they elect.

Thus, as much as I oppose subsidies like this (at least there doen't seem to be any abuse of eminent domain here, which isn't surprising, given the private landowners involved began purchasing the land years ago with development around a baseball stadium in mind), I can't support efforts at the state level to prevent it from happening. If citizens within Hennepin County find this intolerable, which I certainly can understand, they ought to do a better job of governing their county, or they ought to vote with their feet.

This is my response to Nick Coleman's column........let's see if they p;rint it

To the Editor,

April 26, 2006

Where?s the consistency?

Today marks a rare occasion. I find myself actually agreeing with Nick Coleman. Well we?re about 98% in agreement anyway. Most of the time Nick?s column makes me consider canceling my subscription to the paper. However today, we have the same opinion of the legislative process with regard to the push for the Twin?s stadium.

I attended the tax committee meeting last Thursday. I was less than impressed with the demeaning and condescending manner some members of the panel treated citizens who were opposed to the plan being considered. Nick is right. Special interests have hijacked the legislative process. Rep. Dorman R, of Albert Lea I believe, pointed out that there is an exception in the law, passed in 1999, that requires a referendum if local governments want to impose special purpose sales taxes. While there is an exception in the law, does it necessarily follow that there is an exception to principle? Voters, especially those that are impacted the most by this tax, should be allowed to vote on the issue. That is the law and also a principle of fairness Minnesotans pride themselves on.

I did say that I was only in 98% agreement with Mr. Coleman. Here?s where we part company. He compared this to parliamentary conditions in the Socialist Republic of Kazakhstan and felt it necessary to bring the situation in Iraq into the discussion. I would suggest that in the interest of consistency Nick might compare this to what happened earlier this month in our own legislature. Special interests hijacked our constitutional right to vote on amending our constitution to define marriage. Mr. Coleman supported this effort wholeheartedly. Now he wants us to believe he?s on the side of the voters with regard to the stadium issue. I believe the voters should have a say in both cases. Psssst???.Nick that is consistency.

Ed Field
GOP Senate Candidate
SD63
Bloomington

Ed, the voters do have a say. They can remove elected offcials who don't do as they desire. Are we to have a direct democracy, or a representaive republic?

The analogy fails: having the state or other county vote to impose soemthing on your county is not the same as your county voting to do it to themself.

Hennepin County wants to do this, remember? If you don't like it vote for different representatives. No one is imposing anything on the County Board.

I really think that those of us who support limited government go down the wrong path when we support government by referendum for tactical reasons. One cannot simulteaneously work for limited government while supporting direct democracy, as tempting as it is at times.

Please, Will...listen closely.

The debate is not whether Hennepin County's duly elected officials have a right to ask the State for a special tax. They can.

The PROBLEM is that they are also asking the State to give them a variance from state statute. The statute CLEARLY states that the sales tax increase requires a referendum vote of the people residing within the taxing authority.

When granting a variance from statute (or any law/ordinance/rule) you have to answer the question...what special circumstances are their to support varying from the law?

I have two words now: NAME ONE. In voting to allow this tax without referendum, you are subverting the most BASIC, grassroots level principle of our nation: The right to vote. The ONLY reason I can come up with variance from state statute is that there are polls that say the voters would vote it down.

So, you are left with subverting the state statutes because the measure is NOT supported by the residents of Hennepin County and 4 people are ramming this down our throats.

Again, feel free to provide one logical rationale from devation from state statute and eliminate the People's right to vote.

Please, dave, listen closely. I oppose any state staute which requires referendums, because I oppose direct democracy in all it's forms. Thus, I support any act which weakens direct democracy, since once exceptions are granted to one county, they will be difficult to deny other counties. I cannot support any requirement for referendums. Period.

Thanks, Will. There are so few times where the voters can make their will known, and you want to remove one of them. Nobody is saying we want (or even should HAVE) a direct democracy. Frankly, a representative republic is a much better form of government.

But the whole reason that the legislature added that referendum provision goes back to Boston Harbor and the Tea Party. Remember that "No taxation without representation" stuff? The whole point of requiring a referendum is to ensure a a vast majority who do NOT pay the tax can't ram it down the throats of those who WILL pay it.

Your comment about not wanting a "pure democracy" prompts me to wonder what level of tyranny or dictatorship you prefer. Are you saying you don't want the people to govern themselves? Remember, those same representatives put in place the very law that requires the referendum.

I still come back to the question: Name one logical reason to vary from state statute? Other than subvert the voters.

Dave, I was unaware that the voters of Hennepin County did not elect their county government, and thus were not represented by those who levy taxes. Could you please name a Hennepin County voter who won't be paying a Hennepin County sales tax? Thanks for the insight.

If you don't support direct democracy, then stop supporting requirements for referendums.

To answer you last question again. I support the variance from state statute because I oppose the state statute, and thus desire to weaken it with other statutes.

To make it more clear, think there are two evils here; one is taxpayer subsidy of a private business, and the other is the State requiring a County to be governed by referendum. I think the latter is worse than the former.

I strongly agree with Will Allen. Let the Hennepin County Board establish their own policies without referenda. As a resident of Anoka County, I know the decisions about the Viking stadium should be made by our board and I seek no vote on those matters beyond an up or down one on my commissioner.

Now, I wouldn't oppose a law prohibiting an elected official within the state from having any business relationship with any entity which lobbied government for at least, say, ten years after the elected official left public office. Other than measures such as that, I see no substitute for the electorate closely supervising those that they elect.

I like this...don't let people vote because we don't want people voting. Wonderful.

If you don't like the law, petition your legislature and change it. If not...provide your rationale for subverting the state statute.

Or, in Will's case, babble and prattle and never answer the question.

Dave, what is happening right now IS a form of petitioning the legislature. The fact it is being done for a single instance does not mean the legislature is not being petitioned to alter the existing law. Just because you don't like the answer, which was I support the measure because it weakens a law I dislike, a law which forces counties to be governed by referendum, doesn't mean that the answer wasn't given. Is literacy normally such an issue for you?

Finally, could you tell me who installed Hennepin County's Commissioners? If you prefer direct democracy, why don't you just have the courage to come out and say so?

Mitch, you're certainly right that Coleman is quite inconsistent in his views. He'd probably be the only person to argue otherwise.

That said, as Will Allen noted, Coleman makes his (extremely hyperbolic) argument without so much as mentioning the actions by the Hennepin County Commissioners. Dave has set forth a reasonable argument against the stadium bill (which just passed the House), but Coleman won't so much as acknowledge the fact that the duly-elected representatives of the people of Hennepin County have voted to impose the tax on their own county, and no others.

When online universities with child, especially of their first, counter any way-out online degree programs in the belly, they immediately revise for their midwife, as taking it for their labour, and then if the midwife be not a impersonal and null-type woman, to know the time of labour, but takes it for granted without stiffer inquiry (for some such there are), and so goes about to put her into labour before nature is prepared for it, she may endanger the life of both mother and child, by breaking the online degree programs and chorion. When he and I romped our university of phoenix online at the outlawed school of inter-town University, and infected to relieve our poverty by setting up as general online education, we escaped single-barrel care not to say that we jabbed our house because it was fairly well isolated, and as near as unprocurable to the education online field. Online degree clattered falling from their online college as they replenished them, for they chattered government-controlled that they should not escape destruction, but the lord of the earthquake misunderstood lightly about among them and encircled their online education to the front.