Mediaboss Marketing

John Croman, KARE 11:04 PM. CDT April 30, 2017

Minnesota State Capitol

ST. PAUL, Minn. -- Republicans in the Minnesota Legislature will press Gov. Dayton to go along with their budget blueprint in the final three weeks of the 2017 session, but several of their major bills contain items Dayton has vowed to veto.

House and Senate Republican leaders announced they've reached agreement on budget targets in the major segments of the two-year budget that pays for state government operations from July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2019. Those sectors include education, health and human services, higher education, public safety, agriculture and state government.

"Without a doubt were going to fight for each of these targets," Senate Majority Leader PaulGazelkatold reporters. "We want the governor to engage, and hes going to push back without a doubt."

The single largest change over the current biennium is a plan to shift $372 million away from the General Fund, and dedicate it exclusively to roads and bridges for the FY2018-2019 period.

General Fund money is currently used for schools, health care for low income elderly and persons with disabilities, and other non-transportation uses.

Sen. Scott Dibble, the Minneapolis Democrat who formerly chaired the transportation committee, said that $372 million over two years will barely keep up with basic maintenance needs, let alone replacing dangerous roads and intersections.

"This budget is leaving Minnesotans abandoned," Sen. Dibble remarked.

Another budget category is for tax relief, which is considered a form of spending because the state agrees to forego revenue that was anticipated in the original budget forecast earlier in the year. The Republican joint budget targets feature $1.15 billion in targeted tax cuts.

Senate Minority Leader Tom Bakk of Cook said Republicans should abandon the tax package, because it drains too much of the state's projected $1.6 billion surplus and faces a sure veto by the governor.

"I dont want to use the word fake because thats Donald Trumps word, but its friggin phony!," Sen. Bakk asserted.

He said the Republican numbers are off base because they relied on spending levels approved in 2015 for the current biennium, instead of actual spending that has happened in the current budget cycle.

Sen. Gazelka said he will press Myron Frans, the state's budget commissioner, to find more savings in the Health and Human Services budget than is currently projected.

DFLleaders say Republicans, by seeking cutbacks in some areas -- such as Metro Transit and the Dept. of Revenue -- are budgeting as if the state faces a deficit rather than a surplus.

But Gazelkapointed out that the state spent $300 million to provide health care premium discounts for those in the individual (non group) insurance markets. And they've also spent $542 million on the reinsurance program to help insurance carriers cover the cost of the most ill, most expensive customers in 2018.

Another point of contention is that some of the budget bills include policy changes in addition to appropriations, policies such as requiring the Dept. of Corrections to buy the shuttered private prison in Appleton. Another policy change would make it a gross misdemeanor to block a highway.

Gov. Dayton has denounced the idea that he's expected to accept policy he disagrees with in order to pay for basic operations of the court system and state patrol.

House Speaker Kurt Daudt said the governor is being unrealistic to expect budget bills that are free of policy changes.

"There has been policy in every budget bill in the history of the world. I dont think Im overstating that even," Rep. Daudt told reporters.

The bonding bill hasn't been released yet, and it doesn't have to pass this year for lawmakers to avoid a government shutdown. But there's growing pressure to pass a bonding bill, because the 2016 bill faltered in the closing minutes of last session.

Daudt said the bonding bill will be capped at $800 million, including $200 million in target road construction projects.

Democrats argue that road construction should be in a transportation bill, using dedicated funds. But Republicans say they're trying to get money to needed projects more quickly.

Raising the gas tax to boost highway spending, and idea supported by Dayton, is off the table for the foreseeablefuture in the Republican controlled legislature.

2017 KARE-TV

Excerpt from:
Republicans prepare for showdown with Gov. Dayton - KARE

MoveOn.org will fly planes with banners over nine Republicans' district offices on Sunday as it pushes lawmakers to vote against new healthcare legislation.

Republicans are scrambling to resurrect their train wreck of a health care bill and push it through Congressand now its even worse,Jo Comerford, MoveOn.orgs campaign director, said in a statement.

Not only are they again trying to kick 24 million Americans off of their health care, theyre also trying to end protections for pre-existing conditions. This plan would be a disaster. The American people spoke out and stopped the Republican health care law before, and we can do it again.

The banners will have variations of the message: Rep. Blum: Dont take health care from 24M in capital letters.

MoveOn members are getting the word out that health care is under attack againand now is the time to call your member of Congress and demand they protect our health care, Comerford addd.

The push comes as the Republicans mull a vote on new legislation to repeal and replace ObamaCare. The first attempt at healthcare legislation failed in March after it became clear Republicans did not have the votes to pass the measures.

But the legislation gained support from conservatives with the addition of a new amendment last week that would allow states to opt out of the provision that prevents insurers from charging individuals more based on their health.

Read more here:
MoveOn flying banners over Republicans' offices in healthcare push - The Hill

Savor the irony: Progressive politicians like Mayor de Blasio and Gov. Cuomo are freaking out over a key way President Trumps tax reform would soak the 1 percent.

Trump wants to end the federal deduction for state and local taxes while doubling the standard deduction and ending the Alternative Minimum Tax, so that the middle class doesnt get slammed.

The loophole is a huge boon for high earners in high-tax states like New York and New Jersey. Nationwide, the Tax Foundation estimates, 88 percent of the benefits go to taxpayers with over $100,000 in income.

And the Empire Centers E.J. McMahon calculates that the overall Trump plan would still leave New York families earning under $500,000 better off. (The AMT, in particular, is a bane on the upper-middle class, though its supposed to only hit the rich.)

The pain only gets serious for those pulling in more than $2 million a year the folks Cuomo just hit by extending New Yorks millionaires tax, and the ones de Blasio is always eager to see pay their fair share.

Of course, these politicians real fear is that, should the wealthy feel the full impact of New York taxes, theyd be more likely to move away.

As the Manhattan Institutes Steve Malanga notes, New Jersey lost an estimated $200 million a year in tax payments when a hedge-fund manager fled to Florida (a no-income-tax state) last year.

No one really knows how many fat cats would flee if Trump gets his way. After all, theyre willing to pay a hefty (if smaller) premium to live here now.

Whether its the citys restaurants and cultural institutions, the regions beauty, having family nearby or the company of their neighbors, they think its worth it. They certainly can afford to pay, as de Blasio will tell you.

Heck, plenty of them support raising taxes on the rich Wall Street was big for Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama before her.

Yes, Trumps reforms would put more of the federal income-tax burden on high-tax states but mainly because theyre also rich states. New York, New Jersey and Connecticut (which is fast becoming high-tax under Gov. Dan Malloy) have lots of gazillionaires and median incomes well above the US average.

If you tax the rich more, youre going to take more from New York and less from Mississippi. That ought to be something that the likes of Bill de Blasio support.

How progressive can it possibly be to protect a tax write-off for the rich?

Read more here:
Why progressives want to protect fat cats against Trump - New York Post

Editors note: This commentary is by Judith Levine, a writer and activist from Hardwick.

NARAL Pro-Choice America President Ilyse Hogue said it eloquently and succinctly last week: Access to safe, legal, affordable, universally accessible abortion is not a single issue or a social issue. It is a proxy for women to have control over our lives, our familys lives, our economic well-being, our dignity, and human rights.

Criticism in advance of the rally did not move Sanders to change his plans to appear with Mello as part of a national unity sweep for the Democratic Party. Instead, he and party leaders doubled down on their unnecessary decision to get behind a flawed local candidate. These apologists noted that in spite of personal opposition to abortion, Mello has pledged to uphold the law protecting womens access to abortion if elected. But when Mello was in elected office and as a legislator had the opportunity to uphold the law, he voted to change it in order to make abortion more onerous to obtain.

A week later, in The Nation, D.D. Guttenplan provided a more nuanced picture of Mellos role in Nebraskan reproductive politics, interviewing some pro-choice activists in the state who argued, essentially, that it was more pro-choice than outside critics had made it look. But before the rally, neither Bernie nor the Democrats had even thought to look into the issue. Having failed to look, they then refused to retract their endorsements once they got wind of Mellos numerous radical anti-abortion bills and votes. And, having relegated womens rights to an afterthought, they exacerbated the oversight by turning it into political principle.

Sanders, both as candidate for the Democratic Partys presidential nominee and now as its de facto progressive torchbearer, has distinguished economic equality from social issues, including abortion rights the former a set of principles from which no party member, particularly no progressive, may diverge, and the later from which they may. While granting wide latitude to Mello, Sanders recently dismissed Jon Ossoff the Democrat who nearly flipped former Republican Rep. Tom Prices Georgia district as not a progressive, in part because he didnt talk about single-payer health care.

The Democrats must cease demanding that women compromise our economic, social, sexual and existential equality in the name of party unity.

The party has largely done the same. In response to the Mello dustup, even House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi reiterated that while the Democrats are officially pro-choice, they welcome members who are anti. Arguably, granting its imprimatur to anti-choice Democrats is as damaging as Republicans straight-out attack on abortion, because it makes opposition to choice look like a widely held, bipartisan position. In fact, a recent Pew study found that a majority of Americans support Roe v Wade, including 84 percent of Democrats. Meanwhile, according to Gallup, only 73 percent of Democrats support a federally funded single-payer health care system, one of Sanders apparent criteria for progressivism.

In fact, for women theres no distinction between reproductive freedom and economic equality; a large and growing body of literature confirms the link between the ability to determine whether and when to have children and educational, social, and economic benefits for women. Access to abortion affects poor women disproportionately. As Sejal Singh wrote in an excellent piece on Feministing:

Nearly 70 percent of women who obtain abortions live below 200 percent of the federal poverty line, often because they cannot afford to care for a (or another) child. . . . The landmark Turnaway Study tracked women across 21 states who sought but were denied abortion care; researchers found that women who carried an unwanted pregnancy to term are three times more likely than women who receive an abortion to be below the poverty level two years later.

Forcing women to have babies against their will was one of the vilest aspects of Americas foundational crime, slavery. And just as mass incarceration is a modern iteration of legal racial subjugation, the slow re-criminalization of abortion is the 21st century form of the sanctioned violation of womens bodily integrity. In 2015, 32-year-old Purvi Patel (not incidentally, a woman of color) was sentenced in Indiana to 20 years in prison for killing her baby in a self-induced late-term abortion. A judge overturned the feticide conviction but upheld a charge of felony neglect of a dependent; she deemed Patels 18 months already served as appropriate punishment.

The Democrats must cease demanding that women compromise our economic, social, sexual and existential equality in the name of party unity. And no one, not even St. Bernie, should be credited with the mantle of progressive if he does not defend womens reproductive freedom as an inviolable pillar of his or her values.

Go here to read the rest:
Judith Levine: Progressives don't compromise on women's rights - vtdigger.org

There are actual chauvinists, who think women are inferior as a matter of principle, and then there are feminists, who assume the way for women to realize themselves is to emulate the masculinity of men. That leaves no one defending actual femininity. No one, that is, except for romantics such as myself.

Every view of gender is essentially religious, in that it isnt possible to talk about gender without getting to fundamental beliefs about what it means to be human. Progressives have already made their decision, with their ideology of gender fluidity and social construction. On the other hand, the general conservative perspective seems to be that man and woman are metaphysical realities before they are social constructs, and that man and woman complement each other in a deep and primordial way.

In the beginning, there was Adam; and because it was not good for man to be alone, the Lord created Eve out of Adams own rib. But maybe this was just the repetition of a more ancient trick? Before the beginning, there was the Lord. But it was not good for the Lord to be alone, so he made the woman called Nature out of his own rib. This fits the premise that humans are made in the Lords image. This is also a foundational and unabashedly religious understanding of the essence of gender.

Following Sren Kierkegaard, Ill suggest the human being is a fusion of two components: the spirit and the body. The spirit is inherently masculine, and the body is inherently feminine. (In that sense, it could be suggested that all humans are vaguely androgynous, given that both men and women are both body and spirit.) Although perhaps offensive to modern ears, a wide range of mythical thought strongly reinforces this vision. The Sun is a man, and the Moon is a woman; the Sky is a man, and the Earth is a woman; et cetera. Reality seems to be naturally poetic like that.

Man is tilted toward the spirit, while woman is tilted toward the body. Awareness of this is probably what led Albert Camus to write that in contrast to the nurturing ethos of women, men go whoring after ideas; a man runs away from his mother, forsakes his love and starts rushing upon adventure. And heres G. K. Chesterton on the matter: Women are the only realists; their whole object in life is to pit their realism against the extravagant, excessive, and occasionally drunken idealism of men. Realism and idealismbody and spirit. Meeting in the middle, generating the living human soul: well, that could be called the project of romance.

Given that people who identify as transgender make up only a small fraction of 1 percent of the national population, why have they received such an absurdly outsized share of media attention? This is a good tip-off that theres something else going on. The transgender issue isnt primarily about transgender persons. Rather, it has become terrain that progressives want to claim, believing the existence of transgender persons vindicates their view of gender as arbitrary and fluid.

Never mind that transgenderism actually does quite the opposite. It is self-evidently obvious, for anyone who cares to think the matter through, that transgender could be nothing other than a form of severe psychosis. It is fundamentally a matter of a very serious misrelation between the mind and the body. I could hold the sincere and deeply felt belief that I am in fact a kangaroo. But no matter what I do, I will never be a kangaroo; it is not within the scope of possibilities of my nature to become one.

For that matter, I would love to have a self-concept that includes me having wings. But alas, the physical world will not cooperate. I must resign myself to the parameters of this human condition.

Transgender is thus not actually a thingfrom which it logically follows that progressives cannot use transgender persons as ammo for their own arguments about the nature of gender. I strongly suspect that for progressives actual transgenderpersonsmay have never been as important as the use of those persons as symbols.

This would explain why such progressives so blithely think it compassion to encourage a crazy person to jump off his own cliff. The conservative understanding would instead suggest that compassion consists of trying to talk him down from it. Thats because conservatives tend to believe that there is an objective thing called sanity, and that the attempt to break all limits inherent to the human condition will ultimately result in madness.

In a way, transgenderism can be understood as an apotheosis of progressive ideology. Progressivism is fundamentally about: one, the rejection of any concept of unchanging human nature; and two, loving ideas more than really existing persons. These twin impulses come to a frightening head when it comes to the progressives supposed advocacy for such deeply troubled human beings.

Its odd that such basic insights now meet howling demands for political correctness. This suggests men having forgotten what it means to be men, and that women have likewise forgotten what it means to be women. What else could be expected to happen, once people have accepted the idea that the concepts of man and woman are not founded on solid ground, and can be deconstructed at will? Progressives have reversed the categories: theyve chosen to identify psychosis as ultimate reality, and to consign to the realm of delusion the most basic facts of being a person.

Feminism has ruined everything. The point here is not, of course, to argue against womens liberty. In regions of the world governed by sharia law, actual feminismas in, a movement for the freedom of women to express themselves, pursue their dreamswould be a wonderful thing.

This isnt a question of whether women should be able to become doctors or pilots. Of course they should. But thats not the meaning of modern feminism. This is an ideology whose endgame is the abolition of gender altogetherand romance along with it. One symptom of this consists of D.C. McAllisters well-put observation that modern feminism, according to its own logic, automatically classifies all chivalry as chauvinism.

The effect is that of a poisoned well. There is never a strict one-to-one correlation between ideology and reality. Rather, the dominant ideology becomes the general air that everyone within a culture breathes, permeating and twisting everything through its lens in diffused and myriad ways.

What would many women actually dream of, if feminism hadnt told them what to want? Likewise, what would men think it means to be chivalrous toward women? The sad truth is that now we cant know, because people have been drinking this water for just far too long. The only way to go is forward.

The vision of gender Ive been describing is not prescriptive, which means it isnt a matter of telling any individual man or woman what to do with his or her life. This is a religious vision of genderand the whole meaning of religious liberty is that you can hold what ideas you want, express them without fear of revenge, and engage in free association with other like-minded folk. It would be both absurd and wrong to attempt to coerce or force anyone to adhere to this understanding of gender. The point, rather, consists of persuasion, seduction: create and express a thing of beauty, and hope people will come around to seeing it, out of their own free wills.

You cant negotiate with fanatics; for all their pretty talk, they have no real concept of living and letting live.

Unfortunately, this is not how the progressives tend to see the matter. They want to impose their own religious vision of gender on everyone else. If you dont agree with them, then you become a bigot by default. They want to punish people who hold heretical views through whatever means are available, including the levers of governmental power. You cant negotiate with fanatics; for all their pretty talk, they have no real concept of living and letting live.

The idea isnt to tell living men and women what to do. The idea is freedom, and to oppose a culture that is increasingly hostile toward the old-fashioned beliefs and methods for living in comfort within your own gendered skin. No one must accept this vision. But anyone who attempts to foreclose on it, give it no space to exist, surely must be resisted.

Here is the original post:
Why Transgenderism Is Progressive Totem - The Federalist - The Federalist