Monday, October 27, 2014

MN Politics: DFL Cause and Effect

Sorry for the slow rate of posts, however it is a BEAUTIFUL Fall and being on a PC seems somewhat like a waste of a blessing.  Though the lake water is very very cold...  We pulled the toys off the lake yesterday. (brrrr)

So the commenters at MinnPost are once again praising the marvelous economy and employment that the DFL and Dayton have given us.
MinnPost Big Business

Of course this puzzles me, so I left my usual response.  To which none of them apparently have a response.
""Now you do realize that the Democrats in MN did not do anything in MN until ~16 months ago, and many of the laws / taxes did not take hold until later.

My point that no one knows what the DFL changes will mean for MN. Our current success is still a result of fiscal restraint that occurred before..."

Since large companies take a long time to do anything, I assume the changes motivated by the DFL controlled Governor and Legislature are just coming to or soon will come to light.

My guess the GOP is responsible for the changes until this Spring, and the DFL motivated changes will begin soon. For better or worse.

I mean we have not even seen the impact of the minimum wage change, which is only partly implemented." G2A
 Thoughts?

CBS Dayton Hockey Ad Reality Check

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

Now you do realize that the Democrats in MN did not do anything in MN until ~16 months ago, and many of the laws / taxes did not take hold until later.

Apart from the override of Governor Pawlenty's veto of the transportation bill, I think that's true. For any kind of DFL agenda, such as we saw in the last session of the legislature, to be enacted, we need to elect a governor and have majorities in both houses of the legislature. If, as looks likely now, Republicans gain control of the house, pretty much everything will stop on the legislative level for at least two years.

--Hiram

Laurie said...

about "Our current success is still a result of fiscal restraint that occurred before.."

maybe our current success is in spite of GOP fiscal restraint. Maybe it is do to dfl policy many years ago of supporting strong schools that result in well qualified work force.

Anonymous said...

Actually, our fiscal restraint has been a drag on the economy.

--Hiram

John said...

Laurie,
You could be correct. Maybe... How could one tell?

Hiram,
"our fiscal restraint has been a drag on the economy"

What is your source for this opinion?

jerrye92002 said...

Every dollar spent by government on what a few legislators think is important is one less dollar that the citizenry, businesses and the productive economy in general does NOT decide how to spent most beneficially. It's simply a matter of who knows best-- 5 million individual Minnesotans, or 100-odd (and some VERY odd) DFLers in St. Paul?

John said...

Jerry,
Though I agree with you to some extent. Hiram may have a point regarding restraint being a drag on the MN economy, at least in the short term.

I mean those individual citizens may have chosen to invest or spend outside the state. Where as MN government spending ensures most of the money is spent here.

And don't forget the big bonding exercises, $1+ BILLION bonding, the Vikings stadium, light rail, etc.

Now the big question is which of these create long term wealth and on going returns, and which are just building monuments that create jobs for a little while and then will require addition maintenance and expense. (ie money pits)

Anonymous said...


What is your source for this opinion?

The jobless recovery. Actually, it's pretty obvious. McFadden is running a commercial arguing that Franken doesn't know how to create jobs. But at the same time, Republicans oppose the building of the senate office building. Holy cognitive dissonance, Batman. Jobs are what we know how to create. It's the Republicans who don't want us to create them for a variety of other reasons.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

Every dollar spent by government on what a few legislators think is important is one less dollar that the citizenry,

Actually, no. Money is on the sidelines. For my favorite video on this subject, see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tw688Kbjy4

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

Hiram, that's an excellent video. Government, unfortunately, doesn't have to spend money to disrupt the economy. But almost everything they do spend (whether they raise taxes to cover it or not) tends to go to less-productive uses than does private spending.

It's almost as if the DFL believed their own rhetoric, and that government money was an infinite resource that could be spent without any effect on the economy except the desirable ones they intend.

jerrye92002 said...

They're all monuments to government stupidity. If light rail was a good idea, private investment would have built it. If the Vikings wanted a stadium, they could have built it with the savings they would get from not renting the Metrodome. If the Senate needed office space, it could be rented downtown temporarily, rather than being Taj Mahal West. These folks (DFLers) think that nothing gets done unless government does it. And then they seem to have little clue as to what really needs doing.

Anonymous said...

But almost everything they do spend (whether they raise taxes to cover it or not) tends to go to less-productive uses than does private spending.

And that's the problem. Since we have a government, the economy is inherently disrupted. Leaving aside all the times when the economy has thrived despite the fact that a government was in place.

The folks in that business are not expanding because they have an recessionary mindset. They are fearful of the future. What's more, they can afford that, because they also sense that their competitors are thinking along similar lines, which means they won't expand to take that company's market share.

Note how the concerns the boss lists are not limited to this particular period in history. Taxes, regulation, health care, these problems are always with us, in both good times and bad. It's just that when times are good, they are used as excuses for a failure to expand or invest.

==Hiram

Anonymous said...

If light rail was a good idea, private investment would have built it

Really? If interstate highways were a good idea, why didn't the private sector build them? If a health insurance market place was a good idea, why didn't the private sector create one? If a military force is a good thing to have, why wasn't it formed by GE?

--Hiram

Sean said...

Our current success really has more to do with overall national trends than any particular state policy.

John said...

Money on Sidelines

John said...

Sean,
Don't be telling those folks who are bashing Walker/Wisc/GOP and praising Dayton/MN/DFL that. They might put you on a stake and have a barbecue.

Sean said...

Over the long run, state policies can make a noticeable difference. I think one could fairly argue that Minnesota's "high investment" strategy over the last 40 years has paid dividends and led to generally better than national average performance.

In the short term, though, it's almost impossible to parcel out credit or blame for specific state policies versus national trends.

The question, of course, is whether or not the strategy of the last 40 years is the right strategy going forward.