Responding to the Opposition

Grant's opponent (DFL State Representative Joe Mullery) sent out a survey recently to his district's voters. Here is the official response from yours truly.

As always, enjoy or do not.

Best,

- Soapster

_______________________________________________________

1. Should the state pay for a portion of a new Vikings stadium?

The answer to this question is of course no. However, bear in mind that the “state” pays for nothing. In order for the state to pay, provide or fund anything, it must first take money from individuals to whom it belongs in an effort to do so. So long as that which the state pays, funds or provides equally benefits all of the individuals for whom the service is meant to provide for, an argument can be made that such an act by government is just (though let us keep in mind that such service falls within the confines of Constitutional permission). But, because not all of those paying for a Twins stadium or Vikings stadium are sports fans, it is then virtually impossible to make a sound or logical argument that said individuals are beneficiaries of such an endeavor. What is more, in so much as it is unjust that the state would pay for a portion of a new Vikings stadium; it too is equally unjust that the state would provide funding for any one of a myriad of theatres, or any other such subsidy, which benefits one citizen at the expense of another whatever its intention. If I rob a bank but give all of the money to an orphanage, I am a thief. That government ought to have a legal monopoly by the same premise does not the practice make just.

2. Should income taxes on the top one percent be increased so they pay at least 12 percent of their income in state and local taxes like the rest of us?

The purpose of getting ahead in life is predicated on the notion that as your income rises, that which you spend towards necessities (i.e., food, clothing, housing, healthcare, etc.) falls. When one purchases a loaf of bread, an automobile, etc. the cost of said item is not determined based upon the purchaser’s income. The cost of a loaf of bread or a brand new Mercedes is the same for an individual who makes $40,000 a year as it is for an individual who makes $400,000 a year. Why is it the cost of government ought to be any different? It is for no other reason than the fact that government has gotten itself into the business of charity. But, be it known, there is nothing “charitable” about spending someone else’s money. If I rob a bank but then give that money to an orphanage or purchase clothing for homeless persons, despite my good intentions I am a thief. And yet, government does this very thing every single day. Whether or not to give charitably is a decision left to the individual. Government’s only role with respect to charitable giving is to protect the property (i.e., wealth) of said individual from theft so that they may give charitably if they so choose.

What is more, those in government and those whom adopt and advocate the notion that “the wealthy should pay their fair share” ignore a fundamental economic truth. While it is indeed true that the state’s top earners do pay a lower percentage or their income in taxes, this illogical argument dismisses the fact that in real dollars, 9% on $350,000 in annual income is much more than is 12% on say $40,000.

It is for this very reason that when it comes to the real burden of state taxation, the top one percent of the state’s earners, those whose incomes exceed $354,758 carry 24 percent of the state’s total tax burden (this according the MN Department of Revenue’s Tax Incidence Study of 2004 data). The study goes on to find, that after crediting the $33.5 billion afforded to the state’s bottom 20 percent of earners through refunds, their income tax contribution amounts to zero. Moreover, the same study finds that the top 10 percent, those raking in an apparently exorbitant $105,450 (a figure which might include a married couple filing jointly), contributed $3.2 billion of the state’s total $5.8 billion income tax collection (forget the calculator it’s 55%) in 2004.

The argument that the “wealthy” should pay more or should pay their “fair” share is an argument without any honest credibility. Dare we inquire if it is fair that individuals or couples earning over $105,000 a year should shoulder 55% of the state’s tax burden? Or, ought we inquire if it is fair that the “uber rich”, those earning $355,000 a year, should shoulder 24% of the state’s tax burden?

When challenged with these facts, proponents who advocate further raising taxes on the “rich”, change the course of the argument by then asserting that the wealthy should pay more because they use more in government services. As they make this claim, it is then worth noting that they have first admitted that the well to do are in fact paying more but secondly, they again ignore factual evidence from a number of studies which have found that higher income earners actually receive less in government services.

A separate special report released by nonpartisan tax research group the Tax Foundation, which coincided with the Minnesota Department of Revenue’s Tax Incidence Study and which fully supported the findings of the Minnesota tax incidence’s statistics, found that “America’s lowest-earning one-fifth of households received roughly $8.21 in government spending for each dollar of taxes paid in 2004. Households with middle-incomes received $1.30 per tax dollar (nearly breaking even), while America’s highest-earning households received a mere $.41 in government spending to their tax dollar.” The report further found that “government spending targeted at the lowest-earning 60% of U.S. households is larger than what they paid in federal, state, and local taxes.” Case in point, the wealthy are subsidizing the poor and, as the report indicates, to an estimated tune of between $1.03 and $1.53 trillion dollars which was redistributed from the two highest income quintiles to the three lowest.

As Conservatives, we are not without compassion. Our greatest hope is that each and every individual can and will help their fellow man at a point when they are able to do so for the sake of a more prosperous environment. However, we hold that, as part of living in a free society, such aid and comfort that any individual provides should not be done through force. At present, government has an exclusive monopoly on this force thereby making individuals do something they otherwise may or may not do.

3. Should the state assure that families making $80,000 (for a family of four) or less pay no more than six percent of their income on health care?

In short, No. It is not the role, duty, or obligation of the state to dictate what an individual wishes to spend on their healthcare or any other such needs. As the state is wont to do, it has already gone to great lengths to set up a myriad of programs intended to aid citizens; programs which have led to significant red tape, bureaucracy, and overall mismanagement. More importantly, it is worth inquiring as to precisely how the state expects to accomplish this feat. Surely, if a family’s healthcare needs exceed the six percent threshold, the difference will need to be met. One might conclude that this would be done in one of two ways. First, as is currently the case with respect to a number of Medicare payments, reimbursement to the provider would not be paid in full. This practice of not reimbursing the provider for the total market cost of services rendered, instead reimbursing for a cost the government deems appropriate, will lead to a decline in providers willing to provide these services. Secondly, as goes back to our previous response, one might also conclude by Mr. Mullery’s pursuit to keep said families health care costs from exceeding the six percent mandate, any amount over that would be paid for, not by the state as Mr. Mullery contends but rather, by the Minnesota taxpayer. Again, we do not hold it the role, duty, or obligation of the state to levy taxes upon any Minnesotan for the purpose of transferring that money to another individual that Mr. Mullery or the state deems in need of. This transfer of wealth from those who have it to those who need it through state authority is nothing short of Marxism: “From each according his ability to each according to his need.”


4. Should a police or probation officer have the right to pat someone down for a gun if they know the person served time in prison for a violent drug offense involving a gun, and is currently sentenced to supervised release for the purpose of rehabilitation, yet is seen in an area where drug dealers and gangs hang out?

First and foremost, it is worth pointing out here that Mr. Mullery’s opposition to the inalienable right to Life and the subsequent right to “keep and bear arms” is well known. This a Representative who, as chair of the Pubic Safety and Civil Justice Committee, is against expansion of the Castle Doctrine having held it hostage in Committee. This action was a direct trampling upon the right of a person to use deadly force against a violent attacker in and outside of his or her home and vehicle and remove the duty to retreat when outside of the home.

With respect to the question herein, it is necessary before making an assessment on the matter to consider what the provisions of the “supervised release” were. If under the provisions of the release the individual is precluded from being in an area “where drug dealers and gangs hang out” then they have clearly violated the terms of their release. As such, a pat down would likely be justified. However, provided that the terms of the release do not preclude the offender from being in such an area, merely being seen in such an area isn’t a criminal act. For an officer to stop an individual based on that premise and then pat that individual down is nothing short of guilt by mere association. Such an act flies in the face of innocent until proven guilty.