Sen. Paul Gazelka, R-Brainerd, disagrees with those who labeled the recently concluded legislative session as a ‘do-nothing Legislature.” He would term it a “we got a lot done Legislature.”
Backing him up in that assertion at a Monday news conference at the Brainerd Public Library was Senate Majority Leader David Senjem, who pointed out that in the last biennium the state went from projections of a $6.2 billion deficit to a $1.2 billion surplus.
“Minnesota is a better place today than it was two years ago (under DFL majorities),” Senjem said.
The Rochester Republican, who flew to Brainerd on Monday, said progress has been made with regulatory reform, alternative licensing for teachers and new jobs have been established during that time. He said these were all indications Minnesota was heading in the right direction.
“Lastly, we did this all without tax increases,” Senjem said.
He termed Gov. Mark Dayton’s 27 vetoes as a painful part of the session, particularly the tax bill which would have set a standard formula for Local Government Aid, tax-incremental financing for a project at the Mall of America and low-interest loans for homes.
Gazelka pointed to two bills he authored as accomplishments. One provided for fishing licenses to continue to be sold in the event of another government shutdown and the other establishing a wolf hunting season.
“We’re asking government to ... live within their means,” he said. “We want to be business-friendly.”
Gazelka said the Legislature has been trying to find a solution that would result in a new stadium for 10 years and while he favored a user-fee solution, in the end the goal was accomplished. The first-term senator said that in less than a year the Legislature has paid more than $300 million back to schools from a previous budget shift which saw the state delay payments. The shifting in funds, Gazelka said, cost the Brainerd School District $50,000 but an increase in the per-pupil funding netted the district an additional $400,000. Gazelka said the first shift of school funds took place in 1983 under Democratic majorities and it took them 15 years to pay it back.
Senjem said he liked the looks of the new redistricting lines and he expected Republicans maintain their majority in the Senate if they work hard this campaign season.
“We’re in pretty good shape,” he said.
Charlie Makidon of Pine River attended the news conference and expressed his concern that money for the completion of a veterans home addition in Minneapolis was taken out of the bonding bill at the last minute.
Senjem said the funding was in the initial Senate bonding bill and that he expected the money would be approved next year.
Former Sen. Carrie Ruud of Breezy Point, who is the Republican Party’s endorsed candidate for Senate District 10, also attended the news conference.
MIKE O’ROURKE, associate editor, may be reached at 855-5860 or mike.orourke@brainerddispatch.com. He may be followed on Twitter at www.twitter.com/MikeORourkenews.
Comments (58)
Add commentpsst. fellas
You failed to mention that anti-gay marriage amendment that is on the ballot for November. Aren't you proud of that, too?
The Rochester Republican, who flew to Brainerd on Monday...
How was this paid for?
Since Lakelander brought it up...
Some items to note...
* Marriage amendment - Civil Rights Issue - Applies to all citizens regardless of religious affiliation
* Thomas Jefferson - Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_happiness
* 1967 Landmark civil rights case - The current court dockets are now assessing the ruling in 2012 era - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
I already know there are many states with a State Constitutional amendment approved item forbidding same sex marriage. However, this is a Civil Rights issue likely decided by the U.S. Supreme Court and applies to all citizens of the United States Uniformly and respected by each state.
The 1967 ruling is precedent.
In general, opinion and voting tendencies are by age category.
Younger voters are more accepting.
Older voters are less accepting.
That's how the process works...
It does not mean a religious organization has to perform a marriage ceremony...
It does mean in a legal sense, the marriage (union) of 2 individuals is recognized by all States in the United States.
Marriage licenses are granted by State Authority and not by a Religious entity. The Religious entity performs the ceremony with the license approved by the State. A uniform ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court would provide a uniform standard.
Why equality is being accepted:
Attitudes are being changed by families, friends, and acquaintances of same sex couples.
Current practice issues:
If you want a poster child of marriage in the recent terminology, look no further than Rush Limbaugh.
He's on spouse number 4...Super great example...
Dialogue and discussion encouraged...
Dutchman,
they used less fuel than is accidentally spilled fueling Obama's jet in a year. that second comment is just liberal gibberish cut and pasted.
Note Gazelka's take on his two accomplishments
First, a provision to keep selling licenses during a state government shutdown. How is that progress? Wouldn't you think someone responsible for such a costly debaucle would want to stay as far away from the chance of that happening again as possible? It just reminds everyone of the decline of legislators in this state. Willing to put people and the health of the state in jeopardy for party gain.
Then the wolf bill--a season was going to happen regardless. Democrat or republican control, that was a slam dunk. The republicans real offering in that bill was a mandate on the start date of the hunt, to coincide with the start of deer hunting so the army of deer hunters would all get a crack at wolves. Problem with that became known later--wolf pelts are not prime until later in November, and DNR had argued that the season be delayed until then so that animals killed could be fully utilized.
And lets not forget Gazelka's bill that would have established a 2nd deer season for hunters who couldn't kill one during the first season.
Then there's his leadership in the GL Marriage amendment. No matter your view on that issue, such a marriage was NOT LEGAL in MN anyway.
And his leadership in the tax bill from the Republicans. There were some good provisions in that bill, not doubt about it. Dayton would even tell you that. The problem--the insistence of the poison pill--completely absolving any business of paying property tax. With no accompanying plan to raise revenue that would replace that loss. They knew from the start that wouldn't pass muster with the governor. That was OK with them, as the purpose of that bill wasn't to enact useful change for real Minnesotan benefit---it was to gain politically. Getting a veto that they then could use in lockstep when talking with constituents as ammo against the governor's party was the goal. Governing for the party, not the people!
The irony is that it has been Dayton who has helped the recovery in the state as much as anyone, through his vetoes and resistance to agree to the flavor of the month politically motivated revenue decline proposal, with no corresponding revenue increase to balance those out. Dayton is no fiscal conservative, but we can all be thankful that he is listening to his state financial advisors whose job it is to recommend actions that benefit the state's bottom line. Without that the state would be in much worse shape!
Funny...
...when same-sex marriage laws are passed, they apply to all people regardless of religion, too. In other words, all people, regardless of religion, must recognize same-sex marriage as equal to traditional marriage.
Nothing in the marriage amendment requires religions to not perform same-sex marriages. It simply defines marriage for legal purposes. Now I ask you, who is pushing whose beliefs on whom?
And here's a homework assignment for you Dutchman. Please provide an alternate definition of marriage that is both concise and nondiscriminatory. I can't wait to see what you come up with!
RINO...
...the activist courts have made such amendments necessary. We can't afford to have a few dudes in robes making such important decisions for the people of this state. It should be decided by the people, not the courts.
Lets not forget the GOPs crowning accomplishment Voter ID
Big Lake -R- Mary K. picked up the national cause to control the ballot box. For a group who spews :The Bill of Rights, Freedom ,Liberty,Waves the flag ,Distains government intervention into personal rights,Claims conservatives shall inherit the earth , and anything else they can thats NOT factually based. Some are tiring of GOP solutions looking for a problem. Voter ID ,if passed in Nov. will restrict some eligible voters from being heard. I object to the GOP party trying to infringe on my rights or anyones, with more government intervention. You have to wonder what the League of Women Voters who run most polling stations think about this BAD IDEA. How come Dave & Paul didnt mention this huge accomplishment ? I guess tax cuts for some are more popular.
yes, captron,
These two GOP senators seem to be avoiding their historic attempt to take away Minnesotans' civil rights. Did they think we would all forget? I am already seeing bumper stickers to VOTE NO!
They can run, but they can't hide!
How does showing ID
...infringe on your rights? We need an ID to drive, to buy liquor, to go to college, to cash a check. But something as important as voting we're going to just say, "Nah, don't bother with an ID, we believe ya!" I read a recent article that Florida Secretary of State is going to purge 53,000 dead people from their voting records...finally. Do you realize how much potential there is for voting fraud when dead people are left on the registers? And this is happening everywhere. Have you seen the video where a guy goes into a polling place, asks for Eric Holder's ballot, tries to show his ID and is told "No, we don't need it" and is handed Eric Holder's ballot?
The finger inking process in Iraq provides more integrity to the electoral process than ours does.
the amendments
AS for the proposed marriage amendment -- I look at it to go the same way as the good old ERA amendment of the 70s ... it got us talking about matters (womens' rights, back then, gay now) ... the ERA has not passed. What it did do was create touch of a new language use for us ... ever since, the term "Ms." has become standard, whether one likes it or not. It appears on practically every form out there ... it has become accepted. Let's keep the word "marriage" for the union between a man and a woman, and find a new word for gay couples - "pairage".
Voter ID - this is just a sham. I checked into voting fraud (http://ceimn.org.) In short, in the election of 2008, there were 2 million voters in Minnesota. There were just over a thousand investigations of voter fraud, of which 117 went to trial. A voter ID amendment strikes me as a tourniquet for a bandaid problem. It would make as much sense to make an amendment that all must drive on the right side of the road as there is for a voter ID amendment.
Former Sec. of State Mary Kiffmeyer, in speaking for the Voter ID amendment, said that it would be a shame if even one illegal voter got by. I would like to point out that it would be even worse if someone who should be allowed to vote is not allowed to because of this proposed amendment.
Again, I ask...
...if a photo ID is required for so many commonplace transactions, why is it an impediment to voting? Are you worried that there are a handful of people who can't afford an ID? Then provide one to them free of charge! Or are you worried that some people are too incompetent to do something basic like apply for a free ID? Because if the latter is the case, I question whether such a person is mentally competent to be voting in the first place.
when new voters register
They show proof of residence, mostly drivers' licenses. It is already being monitored effectively when they vote by signing the register and being recognized by their precinct workers. If a worker notes that someone else has already voted under a certain name, then they deal with it immediately. They don't get a ballot. (Thus perhaps denying the correct person from voting.) So maybe cameras are needed also. And maybe fingerprints, because a lot of people look alike.
Show me an actual case of the type of voter fraud this would have prevented in Crow Wing County. Show me one case where an illegal voted in Crow Wing County.
Because fake ids are not unheard of and are easy to make with electronic equipment, this solves nothing.
And currently the id is not free at the Brainerd License Bureau. Do we even have an estimate of the cost to provide these?
I know that lack of voter id laws is perceived as a threat to our civil liberties, but what if just the opposite is true?
Muelbau
Ahh....but it is not your right to determine who is and who is not mentally competent to be voting, is it?
Someone may vote what you would consider "stupidly". But that doesn't make them wrong. I'm sure some people would love to stop you from voting because they feel you vote "stupidly" too. But it isn't our job to judge.
So yes, there may be someone out there that can't get an ID, but that doesn't mean they don't have the right to vote.
And yes, an ID is needed for many things. But there are many many people out there who don't partake in those particular things so they don't have an ID. Example. 95 year old Grandma in the nursing home...her entire life, she was a housewife. Her husband worked, drove, and made all purchases. She never needed an ID. Now she still has political views and might be very sharp mentally, but for her to go out and get an ID at this stage of life is an insurmountable scary obstacle. Does that mean she shouldn't be able to vote?
I agree with the above. As much as even 1 fraudulent vote getting through is terrible, it is far worse to deny even one person their right to vote because they can't get a piece of plastic.
Call it a Civil Union...problem solved
Solve the gay marriage dilemma by calling it a Civil Union.
Get married in a church or by clergy, it is a marriage. Have a ceremony without a religious component and it is a civil union (regardless of whether the couple is same sex or not). So all marriages would also be a civil union to be legally binding, but not all civil unions would have to be marriages. Problem solved.
Gay couples would be able to have all the legal benefits that married couples have in terms of insurance, ICU rights, end of life decisions, joint tax filing etc. BUT...those who are religiously opposed to gay people would not have to say they were "married".
Definitions: Marriage=2 consenting adults + God. Civil Union=2 consenting adults (no religious component).
so let me get this straight OkeyDokey
One person cant vote because they cant get an ID it is a tragedy, but it is ok for 1% of over 2 million be fraudulent vote over one person not being able to vote?
Just so I am clear, you would rather have 20,000 illegal votes and one person that cant vote because they cant get an id compared to a fair non-fraudulant vote?
So you would rather have crime over one person not being able to vote?
Sounds like a lefty to me.
Hey, I'm not hung up on the mode of ID...
...if the electronic polling book with picture ID is a better way of making sure who a person is, I'm willing to consider it. Maybe they could run facial recognition software on the database to identify those guilty of voter fraud. Then the next time that person comes in, you slap the cuffs on them!
But to claim that the people at the polling place recognize everyone from that precinct who is eligible to vote is hogwash. And the grandma story is a real tear-jerker, but if grandma can't get out to get her picture taken (something that only should have to be done once, generally), how does she get out to vote in election after election? I cry bogus, on that one.
I am all for people voting as long as they are eligible. But 113 convictions for voter fraud means the actual problem is much larger, since convictions are always a small percentage of the number of crimes committed.
Your definition...
Marriage=2 consenting adults + God
So could two sisters consent to marriage? How about two brothers? How about a mother and her adult son? How about a man and his adult sheep? Your definition doesn't work. There is no limiting principle.
Because Grandma has been
Because Grandma has been voting all her adult life. However she has never been to the DMV. One is familiar, one is scary. You really don't know how old people think, do you? And, perhaps the nursing home arranges for a field trip to the polls, but does NOT offer private transportation for any one person to the license office. And, voting is free, but obtaining an ID is not. Some elderly in nursing homes are only permitted to have $80 a month to purchase any personals (and they are charged $20.00 every other week when the lady comes to wash and set their hair....and yes, they are taken down even if they claim to have their own beautician and don't want to go.)
And, I dis dems, I don't believe I quantified the travesty. But since you seem to like to, tell me this...how many of the fraudulent votes you claim would be eliminated by showing of ID? Hmmm??? It seems to me that some votes are felons voting. Felons can still have ID. Felons would still vote fraudulently. Fake ID's can be obtained. Fake ID's would still get a ballot. Fake ID's would = fraudulent votes.
What really needs to change to solve the problem is the voter records that are dispersed to the precincts. If that book was correct, it would eliminate felons voting or dead people voting. It would stop illegals from voting. All that would be left are legitimate voters, and really, honestly, how likely is it that someone wanting to commit fraud would just "happen" to guess the name, address and age of another legal voter?
Oh Muel.... Sheep are not
Oh Muel....
Sheep are not considered "adults" and animals don't have the ability to "consent".
And 2 sisters, 2 brothers, Mom and son? Well, I assume Mom is already married to dad, which would make the civil union between 3 consenting adults which nullifies that. But otherwise, sure...I don't care. As long as they are 2 consenting adults. It certainly doesn't change my choices or affect my marriage one bit if someone wants a civil union with their sibling. Why would it? Geez. Get your mind out of the gutter. There are many asexual relationships out there even between heterosexual couples. Relationships take many forms. I've chosen marriage, but face it, some sons live with their moms and have a relationship that is exactly like that of a married couple except for in the bedroom. I don't have the right to tell them how to live. And honestly, I don't think the government belongs in anyone's bedroom.
And realistically, how many heterosexual couples already have a civil union instead of a marriage? How many gay couples would take advantage of a civil union? How many pairs of siblings would even think to apply? Are you really against gay civil union simply because somewhere a pair of siblings might apply? Or is there another reason....like being anti-gay? Or perhaps you are feeling threatened by gay relationships?
But with civil union would also come the element of divorce. Should the civil union wish to be dissolved, they would have to seek a legal divorce. Which may even make that favorable to some people. You do realize that some religions do not recognize divorce, right? If you are Catholic and you get married, you can legally divorce your spouse, but in the eyes of the church you are still married unless you are granted an anullment which I understand is very hard to get. Therefore, you can't get "married" in the church again because you are already married.
What we need to do is separate "marriage" from "civil union" and let all pairs of consenting adults have equal access to the legal benefits of a committed relationship.
Your assumption is wrong...
...mom is not married. So you are okay with incestuous couplings between consenting adults? Good to know. At least you are being consistent with your beliefs (as disturbing as they are to most of us).
And sorry, but definitions do matter when it comes to marriage. If you define marriage as a relationship between two adults who love each other, then when the love is gone, it is no longer a marriage. If you define marriage as a contract to be broken at will, then marriage doesn't provide the stability to children that is the ONLY reason society should care about marriage in the first place. I don't care so much what other people do in their private lives, but I do care about language and meaning. And let's face it, those who oppose defining marriage as being a union between a man and a woman are people who simply want to undefine marriage. Marriage is simply too important an institution for society for us to allow that to happen. Traditional marriage existed before the state existed, and if the state crumbles (and it is looking like that is a distinct possibility) it will exist after.
Yeah, the DMV is scary...
...but that's only because of all the registered Democrats that work there. But as I said, I'm mainly concerned with getting official picture IDs for voting purposes, they wouldn't have to be provided by the DMV. Electronic voter facebooks might work. I just want to be sure they are protected against hackers.
Why do anti-gay marriage folks
Always have their minds on people marrying animals or incest or some such nonsense? Is that a talking point planned by the far right to encourage some type of unity among their fellow non-supporters?
Lakelander...
...in case you can't connect the dots, the reason pro-traditional marriage bring these things up is because there are people who do these things who would like the right to marry. Please tell me on what grounds you stop them once you diverge from the understanding of marriage being an exclusive relationship between a man and a woman. To not allow them to marry is just as discriminatory as not allowing two men or two women to marry.
I get a little sad every time
I get a little sad every time I have to agree with a liberal, but the government should have no say in who marries who. That is not limited to gays, but straight also. that is the whole principle of small government ... stay out of my life! (and no, I am not pro-incest)
I give you credit
for persistence, meuhl. You have it down pat.
There is a reason many countries have seen the rise in popularity of civil unions for gays and straights. The Scandinavian countries and Great Britain to name a few, have seen the decline in church weddings and marriage itself.
Civil Unions would be a good start for all.
What a waste of time!!
We have an economy that is still in shambles, a President that doesn't have the slightest clue of what he's doing, the government basically lying about the true unemployment picture in the country, etc. etc. etc. However the issue of whether or not less than 2% of the country's population can wed or not is the big pressing issue, unbelievable!!!
Right LLR
That is the libby's way of trying to keep our attention off the real problems this State/Country are in.
First 3 posts started the pot brewing.
activist judges?!
funny how they are "activist" when they come to a decision you don't like.
So on a national level, if the Supreme Court rules that "Obamacare" is unconstitutional, I suppose the court is being "activist"?
Or, if the court single handily changes the way campaign finace is facilitated (Citizens United case), is that activist, too?
Or, if the Supreme Court were to selec the President of the United States, isn't that also activist? (the people be damned).
Just curious where this official line of "judicial activism" comes in.
1 percent/ check your math, I_disagree_with_dems
1 percent of 2 million - calculate it out ... ten percent is 200,000, and 1 percent is 20,000. A tenth of a percent is 2,000. A hundredth of a percent is 200 .... and I pointed out that there were just over 100 cases brought to trial. Such an amendment is overkill. Amending our constitution should be used in the case of dynamic, epidemic need. This does not qualify.
As for the argument that we use IDs for everything already.... that is true, we do. No argument there at all...but like was pointed out above, that's ALREADY being done.... and as I will point out in different words, the numbers show an epidemic of the problems. The voter ID proposed amendment is unnecessary.