what a surprise. another assassination attempt in the country that reveres guns almost as much as it reveres jesus.
according to the article it wasn't an assassination attempt.
silly me to trust both mt and a nypost url
the headline is not surprisingly misleading. The FBI and Secret Service don't consider it an assassination attempt. The local sheriff is patting himself on the back for thwarting a supposed assassination attempt that no one else believes happened.
Gloria Romero speaks at a press conference and rally in Los Angeles, March 6, 2017. PHOTO: CARLOS DELGADO/ASSOCIATED PRESS
Famous for its eclectic music festival, Coachella, Calif., seems an unlikely place for Donald Trump to hold a rally. The Golden State hasn’t voted for a Republican presidential candidate since 1988, and Democrats dominate statewide. But Mr. Trump is a showman, and his production Saturday evening shined a spotlight on how left-wing policies have turned the California dream into a nightmare. Warming up for him was an unexpected local star: Gloria Romero, a former Democrat who was state Senate majority leader, 2005-08.
“The Democratic Party has taken all of us—and especially we Latinos and Latinas—for granted,” Ms. Romero said on stage. “Inflation, lawlessness, and an open border, highest unemployment rate—second in the nation—groceries, gas, you name it. And as a Latina, they will never take away my gas stove because you cannot toast a tortilla on an electric range.”
Understanding how Ms. Romero, a self-described former progressive, become an ardent Trump supporter helps explain why Democrats have lost ground among Latino voters.
One of six children, Ms. Romero grew up in the working-class city of Barstow, best known as a stop between Los Angeles and Las Vegas. She was among the few students in her high school to attend college and later earned a doctorate in psychology. Her interest in civil rights drove her to run for office in 1998.
During her 12 years in California’s Legislature, she built a reputation as a labor and community advocate. In 2010 she spearheaded California’s “parent trigger law,” which allows parents to take over failing public schools and implement reforms, such as converting them into charters.
I met her in 2012 when she was organizing minority parents to do exactly that, as well as launching a charter network of her own, Scholarship Prep. At around the same time, Attorney General Kamala Harris was opposing such efforts.
Ms. Romero reminds me that Ms. Harris appealed a state court decision in 2014 that struck down California’s teacher tenure and seniority policies. The judge found the harm to minority kids “shocks the conscience.” Ms. Harris prevailed in an appellate court. In 2019 Sen. Harris supported a Los Angeles teachers union strike to block the expansion of charters. Still, Ms. Romero considered herself a Democrat.
Her dismay with the Biden-Harris administration started with the “horrendous withdrawal from Afghanistan,” which left 13 Americans dead, and deepened with the prosecutions of Mr. Trump.
“I was on the board of the Southern California ACLU. I fundamentally believe in a fair process, even if I don’t like the person committing the crime. The first time I donated to the Trump campaign was after the first indictment,” she says in an interview. “It was sort of my way of saying, I don’t agree with this.”
Her exasperation grew as the administration waved masses of migrants across the border, whom she says have especially burdened the communities of second- and third-generation Latino families. “Latinos are a very patriotic people,” she says. “We believe that this is the greatest nation on earth. And citizenship matters.”
Many Latinos, including Ms. Romero, have also been put off by the Democratic Party’s woke turn. “This whole thing about how a man can get pregnant is just so wacko,” she says. She notes that she used to teach a class called “Sex and Gender” at California State University, Los Angeles: “There is a distinction between sex, biology, genetics, identity, culture, socialization.”
Even more deranged: A new California law that bars schools from requiring parents to be notified if their children want to change their gender identities. Ms. Romero says it fits with Democrats’ belief that parents shouldn’t be allowed to control their kids’ education.
While Ms. Romero calls herself pro-choice, she disagrees with Democrats who oppose all limits on abortion. She also finds the party’s position on abortion at odds with their opposition to school choice: “I’m a pro-choice woman. I do believe in choice when it comes to reproductive rights. And I believe in the right to choose my child’s school.”
The final straw was the undemocratic way in which Democrats deposed Joe Biden from the ticket and anointed Ms. Harris. It reminded her of political coups in Latin America: “The system was already rigged to begin with, but he paraded through the primary and people voted for him.” That drove her to endorse Mr. Trump last month.
Ms. Harris tried to appeal to Latino voters in a Univision town hall last week by calling Mr. Trump a danger to democracy. Many seem unconvinced. Four years ago, Latinos nationwide favored Mr. Biden by 33 points. Recent polls show Ms. Harris’s lead in single digits. Some Republicans want to restrict legal immigration because they think Latinos are destined to become Democratic voters. Don’t be so sure.
Gloria Romero speaks at a press conference and rally in Los Angeles, March 6, 2017. PHOTO: CARLOS DELGADO/ASSOCIATED PRESS
Famous for its eclectic music festival, Coachella, Calif., seems an unlikely place for Donald Trump to hold a rally. The Golden State hasn’t voted for a Republican presidential candidate since 1988, and Democrats dominate statewide. But Mr. Trump is a showman, and his production Saturday evening shined a spotlight on how left-wing policies have turned the California dream into a nightmare. Warming up for him was an unexpected local star: Gloria Romero, a former Democrat who was state Senate majority leader, 2005-08.
“The Democratic Party has taken all of us—and especially we Latinos and Latinas—for granted,” Ms. Romero said on stage. “Inflation, lawlessness, and an open border, highest unemployment rate—second in the nation—groceries, gas, you name it. And as a Latina, they will never take away my gas stove because you cannot toast a tortilla on an electric range.”
Understanding how Ms. Romero, a self-described former progressive, become an ardent Trump supporter helps explain why Democrats have lost ground among Latino voters.
One of six children, Ms. Romero grew up in the working-class city of Barstow, best known as a stop between Los Angeles and Las Vegas. She was among the few students in her high school to attend college and later earned a doctorate in psychology. Her interest in civil rights drove her to run for office in 1998.
During her 12 years in California’s Legislature, she built a reputation as a labor and community advocate. In 2010 she spearheaded California’s “parent trigger law,” which allows parents to take over failing public schools and implement reforms, such as converting them into charters.
I met her in 2012 when she was organizing minority parents to do exactly that, as well as launching a charter network of her own, Scholarship Prep. At around the same time, Attorney General Kamala Harris was opposing such efforts.
Ms. Romero reminds me that Ms. Harris appealed a state court decision in 2014 that struck down California’s teacher tenure and seniority policies. The judge found the harm to minority kids “shocks the conscience.” Ms. Harris prevailed in an appellate court. In 2019 Sen. Harris supported a Los Angeles teachers union strike to block the expansion of charters. Still, Ms. Romero considered herself a Democrat.
Her dismay with the Biden-Harris administration started with the “horrendous withdrawal from Afghanistan,” which left 13 Americans dead, and deepened with the prosecutions of Mr. Trump.
“I was on the board of the Southern California ACLU. I fundamentally believe in a fair process, even if I don’t like the person committing the crime. The first time I donated to the Trump campaign was after the first indictment,” she says in an interview. “It was sort of my way of saying, I don’t agree with this.”
Her exasperation grew as the administration waved masses of migrants across the border, whom she says have especially burdened the communities of second- and third-generation Latino families. “Latinos are a very patriotic people,” she says. “We believe that this is the greatest nation on earth. And citizenship matters.”
Many Latinos, including Ms. Romero, have also been put off by the Democratic Party’s woke turn. “This whole thing about how a man can get pregnant is just so wacko,” she says. She notes that she used to teach a class called “Sex and Gender” at California State University, Los Angeles: “There is a distinction between sex, biology, genetics, identity, culture, socialization.”
Even more deranged: A new California law that bars schools from requiring parents to be notified if their children want to change their gender identities. Ms. Romero says it fits with Democrats’ belief that parents shouldn’t be allowed to control their kids’ education.
While Ms. Romero calls herself pro-choice, she disagrees with Democrats who oppose all limits on abortion. She also finds the party’s position on abortion at odds with their opposition to school choice: “I’m a pro-choice woman. I do believe in choice when it comes to reproductive rights. And I believe in the right to choose my child’s school.”
The final straw was the undemocratic way in which Democrats deposed Joe Biden from the ticket and anointed Ms. Harris. It reminded her of political coups in Latin America: “The system was already rigged to begin with, but he paraded through the primary and people voted for him.” That drove her to endorse Mr. Trump last month.
Ms. Harris tried to appeal to Latino voters in a Univision town hall last week by calling Mr. Trump a danger to democracy. Many seem unconvinced. Four years ago, Latinos nationwide favored Mr. Biden by 33 points. Recent polls show Ms. Harris’s lead in single digits. Some Republicans want to restrict legal immigration because they think Latinos are destined to become Democratic voters. Don’t be so sure.
Another version of coachella - and again Trump lies by saying there were 100k people there, estimates were around 15,000. The guy is so old and clueless and rambles. But he's the new republican brand these days - and obviously mtierney loves his values. Except maybe not the part of him raping women or cheating on his wife with a porn star - or starting a riot at the capital while he sat back and watched for hours. Ugh - quite the list.
Thousands of Donald Trump’s supporters reportedly found themselves stranded Saturday night after the former president’s rally in Coachella, California.
Attendees were bussed roughly five miles from parking to the venue at Calhoun Ranch, where Trump delivered a rambling 80-minute speech in scorching desert heat, during which several attendees required emergency medical attention.
During his speech, Trump made several wild remarks against the state and its residents. He vowed to withhold aid from California if Governor Gavin Newsom didn’t comply with his demands to upend water conservation in the state.
Once the day’s speeches were over, rallygoers found themselves stranded in the dark without enough buses to carry them back to their cars, according to The Independent.
“This isn’t normal,” said one attendee, in a video on X shared by the account BlueDream.
“Apparently the buses are no longer coming, or at least, there used to be like 20 buses when we were being brought here, but now there’s only like three buses operating, and it’s an absolute …” the speaker sighed as he walked past the large crowd waiting by the road. “It’s just chaos. Absolute chaos. All of us are stranded here. Everyone’s stranded here.”
One rally attendee, Wesley Johnson, took to X to detail the chaos and confusion two hours after the rally had concluded, when he and other rallygoers still waited to be assisted.
“Parking lot is a two-hour walk. Countless elderly stranded here and can’t walk anymore. No restroom facilities accessible anymore,” he wrote.
Johnson eventually deleted his X posts about the incident, writing that “I was hoping some help would come from it, but all it did was cause drama.”
He explained that bus drivers told him they had difficulties finding places to refuel in the area and that some had become stranded themselves. “They and the Sheriffs were all just as confused as we were,” Johnson wrote. “My story stands, but the drama got out of hand.”
The Riverside sheriff’s office referred The New Republic’s questions about the logistics of the event, which included the shuttle buses, to Trump’s campaign team.
In a post on Truth Social after the disastrous rally, Trump falsely claimed that “100,000” people attended his rally. The permit for the event revealed that the rally only had a capacity for 15,000.
Before Trump’s rally began, a man was arrested at a security checkpoint outside the venue, carrying a shotgun, a loaded handgun, ammunition, and several fake passports.
Once the day’s speeches were over, rallygoers found themselves stranded in the dark without enough buses to carry them back to their cars, according to The Independent.
“This isn’t normal,” said one attendee, in a video on X shared by the account BlueDream.
“Apparently the buses are no longer coming, or at least, there used to be like 20 buses when we were being brought here, but now there’s only like three buses operating, and it’s an absolute …” the speaker sighed as he walked past the large crowd waiting by the road. “It’s just chaos. Absolute chaos. All of us are stranded here. Everyone’s stranded here.”
A comment I read -
Trump went to Coachella and turned it into the Fyre Festival.
Former President Barack Obama speaks at a campaign event for Kamala Harris in Pittsburgh, Oct. 11.PHOTO: MARC OLLIVIER/ZUMA PRESS
Are you considering a vote for Donald Trump because you’re bad or because you’re stupid?
That’s the question the Democratic Party wants to put to wavering voters in the final few weeks of the campaign, the closing argument they think will convince people to choose Kamala Harris instead.
Are you an immoral, bigoted person—one of those notoriously misogynistic black men who can’t stand uppity women, or a white racist who hates foreigners? Or are you a dupe, easily misled by misinformation? Maybe you’re both. Whatever. You may not be good or wise enough to understand, but you must listen to us, your moral and intellectual superiors, and do as you’re told. You’ll thank us later.
We’ve long been familiar with this high-altitude view from progressives about people who don’t see things their way. They think only ignorance or turpitude could ever explain why others disagree with them, a superiority complex rooted in an epistemic closure to the possibility that there could be mentally sound or morally defensible arguments that challenge their verities.
It was evident in Hillary Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” characterization of Trump voters in 2016, and in Barack Obama’s “bitter clingers” dismissal in 2008 of Americans with traditional values.
What’s different this time is the openness with which the contempt is expressed. On both those earlier occasions, the illuminating insight into what our Democratic leaders really think of most of the country was unintended. Both instances occurred when the candidates were caught on tape, bemoaning privately in events for donors how dreadful so many of their countrymen were.
But it is a sign of the desperation that the Harris campaign must be starting to feel that the contempt, and the moral and intellectual pedagogy it demands, are now very much on public display.
Last week Mr. Obama was back in the fray, delivering a stern lecture to black men who haven’t had their innate bigotry corrected by an Ivy League education.
Deploying the argot of the black street he must have picked up at Columbia or Harvard, he told the “brothers” at a meeting in Pittsburgh: “Part of it makes me think that, well, you aren’t feeling the idea of having a woman as president and you’re coming up with other alternatives and other reasons for that.”
He went on to explain that the reason as many as 20% of black men were considering Mr. Trump, according to opinion polls, must be, as Mr. Obama put it, that the Republican shows himself to be a real man by “putting women down.”
Got that? Black men could support Mr. Trump only because they like putting women down. Can you imagine what Mr. Obama would call a conservative who made such an invidious generalization?
To be fair to the brothers, it’s not only black men whom the Democrats see as morally disordered in their views on women. It’s most men. One of the more peculiar commercials of the campaign appeared last week with a lecture for the rest of us on what being a real man is. Produced by a group that styles itself Creatives for Harris, it features a bunch of actors playing men who, between bench-pressing, perching on tailgates and doing other manly things, take time out to explain to the neanderthals among us that they are all “man enough to support women.” The implication: If you don’t vote for Ms. Harris, you aren’t man enough, however you like your steak or talk to your horse.
Then again, if you aren’t a bigot and you’re still voting for Mr. Trump, then you’re probably just an idiot, an easy mark for “misinformation.”
Mrs. Clinton warned last month of an “October Surprise,” some patently false story about Ms. Harris that voters would fall for. To protect us further from such contamination she thinks, depending on the source, Americans spreading the falsehoods should be “civilly or even in some cases criminally charged.” In this view we are all mere children in the dangerous world of digital media, whose tender minds can be shielded from terrors by government censorship.
I am not here to defend Mr Trump’s vile language or disgusting promotion of falsehoods. The Republican candidate is in many ways a morally repugnant man who should have been impeached and disqualified. But I can understand why—given the alternative—intelligent, decent Americans will vote for him.
Do Democrats really believe that those who are inclined to support him in this contest are morally depraved or cognitively incapable? Is it impossible, for example, that black men may think Mr. Trump would do a better job for the economy than another Democratic administration, or that the Democrats’ denialthat sex is a biological reality is a serious threat to both the nation’s values and science?
Or that Hispanics might want a candidate who has a record and a promise of imposing a tough immigration policy that will keep the country safer than the mess the Biden-Harris administration has created in the last four years?
The Democratic self-ordained mission to make better humans of us all is not only tiresomely elitist; it’s also of dubious political value. If you have such a low opinion of voters, they may end up having a low opinion of you.
When an educated, wealthy Black man talks down to the Black American male voter, I see trouble ahead for Democrats and for the Veep….
It appears you may have skipped over the fact that he was also President of the United States of America for 8 years, but sure, let's just go with educated, wealthy, and black.
Former President Barack Obama speaks at a campaign event for Kamala Harris in Pittsburgh, Oct. 11.PHOTO: MARC OLLIVIER/ZUMA PRESS
Are you considering a vote for Donald Trump because you’re bad or because you’re stupid?
That’s the question the Democratic Party wants to put to wavering voters in the final few weeks of the campaign, the closing argument they think will convince people to choose Kamala Harris instead.
Are you an immoral, bigoted person—one of those notoriously misogynistic black men who can’t stand uppity women, or a white racist who hates foreigners? Or are you a dupe, easily misled by misinformation? Maybe you’re both. Whatever. You may not be good or wise enough to understand, but you must listen to us, your moral and intellectual superiors, and do as you’re told. You’ll thank us later.
We’ve long been familiar with this high-altitude view from progressives about people who don’t see things their way. They think only ignorance or turpitude could ever explain why others disagree with them, a superiority complex rooted in an epistemic closure to the possibility that there could be mentally sound or morally defensible arguments that challenge their verities.
It was evident in Hillary Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” characterization of Trump voters in 2016, and in Barack Obama’s “bitter clingers” dismissal in 2008 of Americans with traditional values.
What’s different this time is the openness with which the contempt is expressed. On both those earlier occasions, the illuminating insight into what our Democratic leaders really think of most of the country was unintended. Both instances occurred when the candidates were caught on tape, bemoaning privately in events for donors how dreadful so many of their countrymen were.
But it is a sign of the desperation that the Harris campaign must be starting to feel that the contempt, and the moral and intellectual pedagogy it demands, are now very much on public display.
Last week Mr. Obama was back in the fray, delivering a stern lecture to black men who haven’t had their innate bigotry corrected by an Ivy League education.
Deploying the argot of the black street he must have picked up at Columbia or Harvard, he told the “brothers” at a meeting in Pittsburgh: “Part of it makes me think that, well, you aren’t feeling the idea of having a woman as president and you’re coming up with other alternatives and other reasons for that.”
He went on to explain that the reason as many as 20% of black men were considering Mr. Trump, according to opinion polls, must be, as Mr. Obama put it, that the Republican shows himself to be a real man by “putting women down.”
Got that? Black men could support Mr. Trump only because they like putting women down. Can you imagine what Mr. Obama would call a conservative who made such an invidious generalization?
To be fair to the brothers, it’s not only black men whom the Democrats see as morally disordered in their views on women. It’s most men. One of the more peculiar commercials of the campaign appeared last week with a lecture for the rest of us on what being a real man is. Produced by a group that styles itself Creatives for Harris, it features a bunch of actors playing men who, between bench-pressing, perching on tailgates and doing other manly things, take time out to explain to the neanderthals among us that they are all “man enough to support women.” The implication: If you don’t vote for Ms. Harris, you aren’t man enough, however you like your steak or talk to your horse.
Then again, if you aren’t a bigot and you’re still voting for Mr. Trump, then you’re probably just an idiot, an easy mark for “misinformation.”
Mrs. Clinton warned last month of an “October Surprise,” some patently false story about Ms. Harris that voters would fall for. To protect us further from such contamination she thinks, depending on the source, Americans spreading the falsehoods should be “civilly or even in some cases criminally charged.” In this view we are all mere children in the dangerous world of digital media, whose tender minds can be shielded from terrors by government censorship.
I am not here to defend Mr Trump’s vile language or disgusting promotion of falsehoods. The Republican candidate is in many ways a morally repugnant man who should have been impeached and disqualified. But I can understand why—given the alternative—intelligent, decent Americans will vote for him.
Do Democrats really believe that those who are inclined to support him in this contest are morally depraved or cognitively incapable? Is it impossible, for example, that black men may think Mr. Trump would do a better job for the economy than another Democratic administration, or that the Democrats’ denialthat sex is a biological reality is a serious threat to both the nation’s values and science?
Or that Hispanics might want a candidate who has a record and a promise of imposing a tough immigration policy that will keep the country safer than the mess the Biden-Harris administration has created in the last four years?
The Democratic self-ordained mission to make better humans of us all is not only tiresomely elitist; it’s also of dubious political value. If you have such a low opinion of voters, they may end up having a low opinion of you.
I wonder what the reaction would have been if Biden stopped taking questions after a town hall was interrupted, and then stood on stage for a half hour just listening to music.
Your candidate started a riot at the capital - raped women - paid off a porn star - has 39 indictments and more trials on the way - can no longer run a charity - is selling bibles - had a fake "school that had to be closed down - took out a full page ad to bring back the death penalty geared at innocent Black kids - hates soldiers (especially ones who were captured) - didn't care about threats to his VP - admires dictators - Said covid was "like the flu" and would go away in week - then wanted to inject bleach - proud of overturning Roe - and that's just the start.
If a presidential candidate were murdered — from either party — this close to Election Day, what procedure would take place? Anyone know?
oh look. the alleged assassin is actually a right wing Trump supporting nutcase
The suspect is Vem Miller, a right-wing broadcaster who I remember from the leadership struggle for America's Frontline Doctors' the nation's premiere covid grifting outfit. https://t.co/PExUmiTA5K
I hope this prediction never comes to pass, but if Trump should win, I guarantee that sometime in 2025 he will declare that he has turned the economy around. Assuming he doesn't screw everything up, all he has to do is use the Biden economy numbers and claim we're number 1 in the world - because we already are.
Gallup finds that a large majority of U.S. adults have little or no trust in the media to report the news fairly and accurately. This week’s coverage of the presidential campaign is probably not going to win over the skeptics—and may even create some new ones.
Considering the huge population of Americans who are already skeptics, Megan Brenan reports for Gallup:
Americans continue to register record-low trust in the mass media, with 31% expressing a “great deal” or “fair amount” of confidence in the media to report the news “fully, accurately and fairly,” similar to last year’s 32%. Americans’ trust in the media — such as newspapers, television and radio — first fell to 32% in 2016 and did so again last year.
For the third consecutive year, more U.S. adults have no trust at all in the media (36%) than trust it a great deal or fair amount. Another 33% of Americans express “not very much” confidence.
Media organizations sometimes publish “fact checks” in which they claim that true statements by non-leftists are false because they allegedly lack appropriate context. But as often happens with such “fact checks,” even adding the historical context doesn’t make the press look any better. Gallup notes that it’s been asking this question of trust in the media for decades. The downward trend in public esteem for news outlets is striking. In 1976 a full 72% of respondents expressed a “great deal” or “fair amount” of confidence in the media to report fully, fairly and accurately.
Today’s embarrassing trust level of 31% seems reason enough for editors and executives to stop wondering at endless symposia why their business models don’t work. The Gallup report brings a fairly strong message from consumers:
The news media is the least trusted group among 10 U.S. civic and political institutions involved in the democratic process.
Now let’s move along to this week’s campaign coverage. “Conservative Activist Seizes on Passages From Harris Book,” says a New York Timesheadline this week. “A report by Christopher Rufo says the Democratic presidential nominee copied five short passages for her 2009 book on crime. A plagiarism expert said the lapses were not serious,” according to the subheading.
Stephanie Saul, Vimal Patel and Dylan Freedman report for the Times and make the following appeal to authority:
Jonathan Bailey, a plagiarism consultant in New Orleans and the publisher of Plagiarism Today, said on Monday that his initial reaction to Mr. Rufo’s claims was that the errors were not serious, given the size of the document.
“This amount of plagiarism amounts to an error and not an intent to defraud,” he said, adding that Mr. Rufo had taken relatively minor citation mistakes in a large amount of text and tried to “make a big deal of it.”
Some news consumers may wonder who elected Mr. Bailey to decide the acceptable amount of plagiarism in a book written by a presidential candidate. Consumers are also free to question the preliminary judgment rendered by the Times-anointed expert. It seems that Mr. Bailey does too, as he writes this week on X:
For those coming here from the NY Times Article. I want to be clear that I have NOT performed a full analysis of the book. My quotes were based on information provided to me by the reporters and spoke only about those passages.
In a subsequent post Mr. Bailey notes that he’s been out of the office “and have not been able to follow the coverage. When I’ve had more time, I’ll likely have more thoughts. I’d expect something [Tuesday] or Wednesday on the site depending on client work.”
Kudos to Mr. Bailey for his refreshing transparency. What a contrast he represents to the arrogant and unjustified certitude that pervades so much of the media establishment.
Whether a more thorough review has him coming down on the side of the Vice President or not, Mr. Bailey is certainly entitled to his opinion. He seems to have a fair amount of experience addressing such questions. But this is not a highly technical issue and it’s really a question for all voters to decide—not just Mr. Bailey and the Times reporters who ran with his initial judgment.
The Times account includes a response from the vice president’s political team:
The Harris campaign in a statement rejected the accusations as a right-wing attack to try to derail her growing support.
“This is a book that’s been out for 15 years, and the vice president clearly cited sources and statistics in footnotes and endnotes throughout,” said James Singer, a campaign spokesman.
If Mr. Bailey does end up siding with Vice President Harris, then he won’t necessarily make the President happy. Joe Biden would likely argue that when he quit the campaign for the 1988 Democratic presidential nomination amid his own plagiarism scandal, most of the words he used on the trail were his own.
In Other News
Federal Taxpayer Preview?
The Cato Institute is out with its latest state fiscal policy report card. In this season of Halloween one especially frightening finding is that one of just six governors to receive a failing grade is current vice presidential candidate Gov. Tim Walz (D., Minn.). Here’s Cato’s sad and scary story from the Land of 10,000 Exactions:
Minnesota’s general fund budget increased from $51.9 billion in the 2022–2023 biennium to $70.5 billion in the 2024–2025 biennium, a 36 percent increase…
In 2023, Democrats took control of the legislature and Walz pushed ahead with permanent tax hikes on businesses and high earners, while handing out low-income credits and one-time rebates totaling about $1 billion. In signing HF 1938, Walz raised taxes on businesses with foreign income, reduced the standard deduction for high earners, and imposed a new tax on the investment income.
Walz hit the middle class with HF 2887, which raised taxes and fees on vehicles and transportation. The increases included indexing the gas tax for inflation, increasing vehicle registration taxes, raising fees on deliveries, and raising sales taxes in the Twin Cities area.
The governor hit the middle class again in 2023 with a massive tax hike to pay for a new mandatory paid family leave program. The legislation imposed a 0.7 percent tax on wages beginning in 2026 to fund the program benefits, but then new legislation in 2024 increased the tax rate to 0.88 percent of wages. An accounting analysis of the plan found that the tax will raise $1.2 billion in the first year of operation and rising amounts after that.
Mt observation — there is no such thing as a free lunch! And, would you really believe any proposal from Walz believable, or even rational?
Mt observation — there is no such thing as a free lunch! And, would you really believe any proposal from Walz believable, or even rational?
just an FYI, Cato's description of the "massive" tax hike in MN to pay for paid family leave (something good for parents, btw) would amount to $888 on $100K of taxable income. Or about $17 a week. Only at Cato would that be considered "massive."
If an org like Cato goes into an analysis grading states mainly on whether they cut or raised taxes, but not grading them on whether or not spending enhanced the well-being of citizens, it's not a complete picture. Arkansas got an A from Cato for example, because of tax cuts.
Sarah Huckabee Sanders of Arkansas has pursued major tax reforms since her election in 2022. In a series of bills, she cut the top individual income tax rate from 4.9 percent to 3.9 percent and the corporate rate from 5.3 percent to 4.3 percent. Sanders says she is “committed to responsibly phasing out our state income tax rate and letting everyone keep more of their hard-earned money.”3 She has kept the lid on spending increases and Arkansas has one of the largest rainy day funds in the nation. Sanders also approved major school choice reforms in 2023 based on ESAs and universal eligibility.
But Arkansas also ranks 48th in health, and 47th in education. So there's that.
But FWIW, the citizens of MN seem pretty happy with what they're getting for their tax money. They reelected Walz in 2022 by a wide margin.
silly me to trust both mt and a nypost url