Priorities
I got the most interesting email from Rep. Mark Buesgens (R-35B) the other day.
Lest you think he jests check out page 9477 of the daily Journal of the House where SF 599 was put on the calendar for the day. This is a bill that was introduced last year in the House and the Senate (with bi-partisan support I would add) but it languised in committee and never saw the light of day until Feb. 19. It was passed out of the House Commerce and Labor Committee on Feb. 19 and sat until March 31.
It just seems to be a little strange that this bill is even being considered when you look at waht this state is facing. Why in heavens name would our legislature stick it's collective noses into Federal business when we have businesses fleeing the state due to a deteriorating business climate. Forbes Magazine lists out the best and worst metro areas to do business and when it comes to the cost of doing business (based on costs of labor, taxes, energy and office space) in the Minneapolis/St Paul metro, we come in at 172 out of 200! Our overall ranking is 103 out of 200, based on the high education ranking (percentage of population with a bachelors degree or higher), but when you look at just the cost of doing business and the job growth ranking (which does not include this current job downturn) this state is in world of hurt. Why is our legislature spending money that they don't have on projects that are not "essential" to the survival of the state?
That is, I think, the question we must ask ALL of our legislators. Why are we discussing Federal trade restrictions with Cuba when we have a rising unemployment rate and faltering economy of our OWN to worry about?
As Monday's snowstorm continued, the Minnesota House of Representatives plans too take up the all important issue of. a resolution urging the President and Congress to end trade, financial, and travel restrictions to Cuba. With all the important issues facing our state including deficits, loss of jobs, educational woes and healthcare issues, symbolic resolutions on issues we have no control over are a waste of the taxpayers' time.
Lest you think he jests check out page 9477 of the daily Journal of the House where SF 599 was put on the calendar for the day. This is a bill that was introduced last year in the House and the Senate (with bi-partisan support I would add) but it languised in committee and never saw the light of day until Feb. 19. It was passed out of the House Commerce and Labor Committee on Feb. 19 and sat until March 31.
It just seems to be a little strange that this bill is even being considered when you look at waht this state is facing. Why in heavens name would our legislature stick it's collective noses into Federal business when we have businesses fleeing the state due to a deteriorating business climate. Forbes Magazine lists out the best and worst metro areas to do business and when it comes to the cost of doing business (based on costs of labor, taxes, energy and office space) in the Minneapolis/St Paul metro, we come in at 172 out of 200! Our overall ranking is 103 out of 200, based on the high education ranking (percentage of population with a bachelors degree or higher), but when you look at just the cost of doing business and the job growth ranking (which does not include this current job downturn) this state is in world of hurt. Why is our legislature spending money that they don't have on projects that are not "essential" to the survival of the state?
That is, I think, the question we must ask ALL of our legislators. Why are we discussing Federal trade restrictions with Cuba when we have a rising unemployment rate and faltering economy of our OWN to worry about?
Labels: MN Legislature
posted by The Lady Logician at
5:23 PM
7 Comments:
Why? Because the DFL must stand in solidarity with its Commnunist brethren around the world. Where else can we get the ideas for new legislation? Why else?
J. Ewing
By
Anonymous, at 7:07 PM
Perhaps if the following analysis is true should free trade with Cuba flourishes it may be worth Representative Buesgens' time:
"Minnesota farmers could enjoy at least $45 million in new exports annually; the state's total economic benefit would be nearly $92 million, including 900 new jobs."
By
Anonymous, at 7:21 AM
That very well may be my anonymous friend, but the question he (and I) both asked is "don't we have more important things to be dealing with?" I seem to vaguely recall something about a bridge falling not too long ago....why hasn't the MN Legislature shaken that money loose yet? They tell us that road repairs are a priority and yet more and more of our transportation money is diverted to light rail and other non-roads projects? Even now we have another bridge closure. Should our legislature be more concerned about fixing THAT?
I could go on....would you like me to?
LL
By
The Lady Logician, at 7:49 AM
I agree that safety of our citizens is a priority of our legislators, however, allow me to submit that you are one heck of a "Republican" to suggest that bringing jobs, even just 900 of them, in a recessionary time to our great state is not worthy of a legislature's time investment seems ilLOGICAL (maybe that is why there was bi-partisan authorship: Kahn; Sviggum; Jaros; Kelliher; Atkins; Morrow; Dominguez; Juhnke; Clark; Demmer; Heidgerken; DeLaForest; Welti; Tschumper; Hilty; Hansen; Beard - see a familiar Senate District 35 name? how about a former Republican Speaker? ). It is not that the legislature can only do one thing at a time. Like you, the legislature can multi-task.
And if you must, please go on.
By
Anonymous, at 12:22 PM
"I agree that safety of our citizens is a priority of our legislators, however..."
First off Anon there is no "but" here. The governments, state and federal, MAIN JOB is to provide for certain things like ROADS. Not jobs...roads!
Second off, I am a CONSERVATIVE/LIBERTARIAN....not a Republican. I currently am siding with the Republican Party because of the two options they are closer in line to my CORE BELIEFS than the Dems. I understand that this is a challenging concept for you "party uber alles" hacks but that is a fact of life. Government's job is not to "provide jobs" it is to provide national security, roads and (maybe) education (I get into lots of arguments with my Libertarian friends over this one). JOBS ARE NOT ON THE LIST. That is the job of business - government's job is to get the h*ll out of the way of business.
Now back to the original post and the original premise....trade with Cuba is a FEDERAL DEAL....the state legislature can not do a blessed thing about it other than to elect to FEDERAL OFFICES people who agree with their beliefs on this issue.
LL
By
The Lady Logician, at 8:35 AM
Please help me understand who you are. You posted the following just last month on your Blog: "THIS GOP operative is not white, nor male and balding..."
Now you say: "I am a CONSERVATIVE/LIBERTARIAN....not a Republican."
By
Anonymous, at 6:51 AM
So you are stating the Minnesota State Legislature cannot “petition” the federal government to pursue a policy that would provide a better place for its citizens to live and work because it is not worth the time and resources to share important state concerns with our federal government? Do you believe that there has never been in your lifetime a “petition” to the federal government from the Minnesota Legislature that has what reasonable people would acknowledge resulted in more jobs for Minnesotans? I will concede that you obviously have a far greater education, knowledge and experience with business, government and politics than me. Certainly you prodigious pontificating far outweighs any in my short lifetime.
Interestingly, and I will save you sharing with the readers: the first Minnesota Constitutional Amendment was to allow borrowing to the railroad companies. Are you confident that this had nothing to do with Minnesotans and jobs. As a “CONSERVATIVE/LIBERTARIAN” don’t you believe that roads could have been built by the private sector more efficiently than the government? Sure the Minnesota State Trunk Highway System and other roadways enhancing commerce are now a part of the Minnesota Constitution, but the government did not do rural electrictrification? Nor did the state build railroads, only subsidized them. Nor operated farming operations (except for correctional facilities) except to subsidize them. And the Minnesota Constitution “public education” only requires the legislature to create a “system.” What about “government rationing”? Job impact is a component in the consideration of doling out precious resources. Lest we forget the U.S. Constitution Commerce Clause did create a “level” playing field for job creators.
By
Anonymous, at 9:32 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home