Why Does Margaret Anderson Kelliher Hate Senior Citizens?
By Mitch Berg
I’ve often wondered how senior citizens pay our various cities’ rampant and always-rising property taxes on fixed incomes.
The House DFL doesn’t!
May 5, 2008 – the House was debating HF3149, regarding property tax reform. Laura Brod proposed an amendment that would have had the state refund a portion of a property owner’s property taxes, provided he/she was eligible for property tax relief, on a sliding scale depending on their (low, low) income. The end result – a person would pay no more than 5% of their income in property taxes.
The amendment came to a vote (see page 11323). Tom Emmer (and Brod, naturally) voted to help struggling property owners.
Margaret Anderson Kelliher voted against it, along with most of the DFL; the amendment failed 71-58.
Later in the day, Brod offered a similar amendment, limiting the refunds to people over 65 (scroll down to page 11325)
Emmer and Brod voted for it. Kelliher voted against it.
Apparently she’d rather get publicity for talking about capping property taxes than actually do ot.
I suppose that DFLers voting against squeezing revenue out of people would be a little like vampires voting agianst free blood.
July 27th, 2010 at 8:39 am
Don’t know where you’re getting this stuff, but it’s real good.
More, please.
July 27th, 2010 at 8:45 am
It’s most likely in the state congressional records.
But, Kelliher, like her Dim socialist colleagues, is a fraud.
Can anyone answer the claim by her highness in her ad that “She stood up to TPaw and won” ‘cuz I can’t find it?
July 27th, 2010 at 10:10 am
Why does Big MAK hate seniors? She wants them to hurry up and die so she’s assured of their vote in November.
(For Tim in St. Paul, that’s a little ACORN humor)
July 27th, 2010 at 10:30 am
One might also ask why big MAK is opposed to abolishing the tax exempt status of organizations employing people convited of terrorism offenses. Scroll down to page 11332 to see the results of a Tom Emmer amendment (no suspense here. Defeated 66-64 with MAK voting “nay”)
July 27th, 2010 at 10:31 am
Mitch provided a link to the source BH (as all conscientious, truth loving conservatives do). But someone had to dig to find it….I’m just hoping that we are seeing the joyous return of the vast, right wing conspiracy!
July 27th, 2010 at 10:50 am
Can anyone answer the claim by her highness in her ad that “She stood up to TPaw and won” ‘cuz I can’t find it?
I can! She got an override of his veto of the gas tax increase, thus insuring the least fortunate among her constituents bear a larger tax burden.
Way to go, Big MAK! You hate old people AND poor people!
July 27th, 2010 at 11:14 am
swiftee/Kermit;
Thanks!
To your point Kermit, isn’t it amazing that in light of all of the extra taxes on gas, cigarettes and other things that add to the financial burden of the poor, oppressed, victims, that they still don’t get it? Unbelievable!
Just proves that you can lead a horse to water, but that doesn’t make it a duck!
July 27th, 2010 at 11:48 am
Dirty little secret: Liberal Progressives don’t give a rat’s ass about poor people. They are pushing carbon taxes, which if enacted they will be a greater burden on those less able to bear them. Electricity, heating oil, natural gas, every single consumer product.
The best part? Those po folk can go to the guvmint, hat in hand and ask for some of their money back. Now THAT’S compassion!
July 27th, 2010 at 12:25 pm
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by mitchpberg and conservativecravings, conservativecravings. conservativecravings said: RT @mitchpberg: Why does @MAKMinnesota want seniors to have to live on dog food? http://tinyurl.com/23k7pfa #stribpol #mndfl #mn2010 "Taxes 1st! Food 2nd!" […]
July 27th, 2010 at 12:26 pm
Those po folk can go to the guvmint, hat in hand and ask for some of their money back. Now THAT’S compassion!
Oddly enough Kerm, that is exactly and precisely the point I’ve been making to MinnPost’s scary smart, reality based readership….they, um, are not very appreciative.
The truth burns, I guess… 😉
http://tinyurl.com/3xhod9g
July 27th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
You mendacious troll, you.
July 27th, 2010 at 2:34 pm
That was some very entertaining commentary there, Swiftee. Right up until I read your last comment, the only thing I could think about was “they’re attacking the messenger, not his message.” Truly, it was a bucket of win.
July 27th, 2010 at 3:38 pm
Bill, it’s true that my win bucket runneth over, but I can’t take much credit.
Presented with a target rich environment like MinnPost, I’m guessing that Ben & the Diva’s boy is already more than a match for most of the scary smart, reality based readership.
Besides, I got the tip from right here and the pieces just fell into place.
July 27th, 2010 at 4:07 pm
Wow! Has anyone heard big MAK’s latest?
She’s now FOR giving seniors a property tax “break” by limiting increases to the rate of inflation! How generous of her, the fraud!
July 27th, 2010 at 4:42 pm
I don’t know (or care) what MAK’s reasons were for voting to defeat these two amendments but I agree with defeating them.
One of the biggest reasons we have had such problems with local governments overspending is that they have been able to shift the costs of their spending decisions onto State taxpayers instead of their constituents. We all know about the problems of Local Government Aid (LGA) but IMO the same thing happens when the State says “if you [local government] raise property taxes, we’ll refund your constituents part of the difference.” Didn’t Governor Ventura try pretty much the same thing with his “Big Idea” in having the State pick up an even greater portion of local education funding in order to “buy down” property taxes? The result was higher State AND local government spending.
It seems to me that the only way we’re going to get local spending under control is if the people who vote for the local officials who make the spending decisions are the ones who have pay for them through their local taxes.
July 27th, 2010 at 5:52 pm
What has always amazed me is how “poor” Minneapolis homeowners grumble when the DFL raises their property taxes a relatively small amount, then turn right around and vote for DFL mega-spenders in St. Paul & Washington.
July 27th, 2010 at 7:15 pm
She’s now FOR giving seniors a property tax “break” by limiting increases to the rate of inflation!
Only in the mind of a liberal, is it possible for a smaller increase to be considered a cut.
July 27th, 2010 at 8:00 pm
Thorley I don’t disagree, but we’re working the “why do moonbats hate__________” line here….go with it.