During the last couple of legislative sessions, the DFL wrote a whole bunch of moral checks.
Since we’ve got an election coming up, how about we see how many of them bounced?
Abortion
Unrestricted abortion is one promise the DFL trifected promised and delivered on.
Perhaps very very overdelivered.
The DFL brought a certain brusque brutality to the issue:
And delivered on it with teutonic precision, leaving no potential abortee behind:
And have brought a certain totalitarian panache to trying to erase all dissent
Green Energy
Was your powrer cheaper?
Why, no. It is not.
Social Security Taxes
Remember when the DFL ran on eliminating taxes on Social Security?
They are certainly hoping you don’t:
MINNEAPOLIS, MN – For the second time this month, Minnesota Senate Democrats voted against eliminating the taxation of Social Security benefits – despite a massive projected budget surplus of $17.6 billion. Five of those Democrats have also already broken promises to end the taxation of social security benefits and did so again today; Sens. Hauschild, Gustafson, Kupec, Putnam and Seeberger all voted to maintain the tax again after doing so earlier this month. The Republican Party of Minnesota issued the statement below in response:
“This latest vote shows that Democrats in St. Paul are only interested in one thing – partisan politics. Instead of voting to provide much-needed tax relief to seniors by ending the tax on Social Security benefits, the Democrats voted to kill this bill for the second time this month. Meanwhile, Democrats in the legislature along with Gov. Tim Walz continue to push tax increases and one-time political gimmicks. With a budget surplus of more than $17 billion, Minnesota taxpayers deserve more than petty partisan games. Democrats need to stop the petty politics and work with Republicans to pass real, permanent tax relief for Minnesota families and businesses.” – Republican Party of Minnesota Chairman David Hann
“Fully Funding Education”
The term was intentionally misleading – when you finally got a DFLer to admit what this little word salad starter meant, it boiled down to rolling back a Pawlenty-era accounting shift.
Forget for a moment the flurry of teacher strikes and headlines about districts running out of money – as the DFL wants you to forget them – because it was never intended as anything but a campaign slogan to gull the gullible.
The results are self-explanatory…:
…provided you can read and do math which, fortunately for the MNDFL, more and more Minesotans can’t.
“Reducing Poverty 30%”
That was a promise they made before the 2023 session – and abruptly stopped once they started legislating.
Because while the stats aren’t in for this last few years yet…:
Find more statistics at Statista
…the leading indicators just aren’t that good.
Just want to keep that memory hole exhumed for election time.
RE: Reducing poverty
I noticed the lack of numbers didn’t stop Walz from touting that 30% reduction in childhood poverty during the VP Debate. I also noticed that the two moderators didn’t bother to fact check that claim.
Liebling artfully dodges the reality that every law against homicide has as its premiss the notion that those killed are human. So she argues, in effect, against the entire corpus of laws protecting human life.
Watch out, to put it mildly.
Regarding the poverty rate, it strikes me that the DFL modus operandi is to more or less assume that their new program (e.g. free school lunch for all) will lift people out of poverty, and that the poor will not adjust their behavior because they feel like they have enough, and don’t need to work. Yes, I am saying that as long as bellies are full, there are a certain number of people who don’t seem to mind poverty that badly, and that means all projections from the government will be hopelessly optimistic.
Pingback: In The Mailbox: 10.08.24 (Evening Edition) : The Other McCain
bike, I don’t know if I’d use the adverb artfully as opposed to bluntly or curtly (or murderously even) to describe that Liebling dodge.
I was impressed that the local newspaper (part of a chain just outside the metro) editorialized about the need for more money in education without ever once mentioning how the 2023 session fully funded education in MN.
It’s not a question of when a baby becomes a human. It’s always a human, meaning Homo Sapiens, which is defined by DNA which does not change with age.
And the law does not protect the lives of all humans. We recognize specific exceptions for wars, death penalty, and self-defense.
The question is when does a baby’s life become entitled to the protection of the law? Right now, Minnesota law is unclear. For sure it’s not protected not during pregnancy and apparently not through the moment of birth and possibly not for some time thereafter, if the “born alive” critics are correct.
So when does the baby’s legal status change from “unprotected” to “protected?” One minute after birth? One hour? One day? One week? Are Democrats seriously arguing the mother of a month-old baby can kill it and suffer no consequences, because after all, it’s a mother’s personal decision? How about a year? Two years? When?
BIke is correct. The argument that it’s a mother’s choice and not a legislative matter puts the baby in the same legal position as a Negro slave in the Old South, subject to the master’s whim to kill her at any moment. What a monstrous position for a modern legislator to take.
John,
While you’re not wrong that it’s always a human, the pro-abortion people don’t even acknowledge that. They prefer terms like clump of cells, or the more scientific embryo or blastocyst. That’s why the question to keep asking them is “When does it become a human?” People generally don’t like the idea of killing a human being, especially a defenseless and innocent one. Heck, we’ve got plenty of libs in this country that argue against your right of self defense because violent criminals trying to hurt or kill you are people too. Getting someone to acknowledge that a fetus, embryo, or blastocyst IS a human being is a major step towards making that person prolife. Most people avoid making that connection as a way to rationalize abortion.