Minnesota Network for Progressive Action


 
Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites

Listed on BlogShares

 
site search

Site Meter
 
  Progressive Political Blog

Progressive Politics in Minnesota, the Nation, and the World

In 37B, Kurt Bills - A "Tenther" Version of Judy Lindsay

Category: GOP Politics
Posted: 06/24/10 19:28, Edited: 06/25/10 12:58

by Dave Mindeman

Kurt Bills, the Republican candidate for the State House in District 37B, got an endorsement in April... I just ran across it....

?With the Republican Liberty Caucus endorsement my campaign continues to reach out to the broader electorate and unify like-minded, fiscally conservative voters,? continued Bills. ?I genuinely appreciate all of the support I?ve received so far and am looking forward to visiting with as many residents of the district as I can.?

As you might expect, the Minnesota version of the RLC is loosely affiliated with the Tea Party. But out of curiousity, I checked the "Statement of Principles" for the group, which I assume Kurt Bills has espoused.

It's an interesting mix.

The Tenth Amendment properly reserves all other powers to the states or to the people. We support these limits on government powers and a phase out of all programs and departments that violate these principles, including:

Department of Education
Departments of Commerce and Agriculture
Department of Health and Human Services
Department of Housing and Urban Development
National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities


Unless Kurt Bills wants to repudiate that, I would classify him as a "Tenther". Also, if I were Bills, I'm not sure I would classify the MN RLC as part of the "broader electorate". They may be technically part of it....if you include the outer fringe.

But the principles continue:

We favor the privatization of all government assets and a transition to free market management and services for all programs that exceed the enumerated powers of the Constitution.

I have heard Bills claim that he is sensitive to environmental concerns. But to sign onto a privatization of all government assets? Open up Federal lands to oil companies? What about ANWR? What say you, Mr. Bills?

Still more:

We support the adoption of the ?Liberty Amendment? to the Constitution, requiring respect for enumerated powers and repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment.

The 16th Amendment was the Constitutional change that allowed taxation of income. Repeal is often talked about but would be a radical change in how the government operates. But the Liberty Amendment is the true Tenther provision.

I especially like Section 3.

Section 3. The activities of the United States Government which violate the intent and purpose of this amendment shall, within a period of three years from the date of the ratification of this amendment, be liquidated and the properties and facilities affected shall be sold.

I am not sure I can envision what that would mean.

Kurt Bills doesn't get very specific about his views, so I guess we have to look at what he accepts as endorsements. Since he seems very comfortable with the Liberty Caucus part of the "broader electorate", then I guess we classify Bills with them.

Another 37B candidate in the great tradition of Judy Lindsay.


comments (3) permalink
07/15/10 17:22
Privatization of all federal assets doesn't necessarily mean opening federal land to oil companies. I'd be perfectly happy with the feds selling ANWR to say, the Sierra Club, no strings attached, at a bargain price. Then let the oil companies negotiate with the Sierra Club for drilling rights. Let the Sierra Club weigh the dangers of drilling in ANWR against the environmental good they could do with millions of dollars in annual royalties. Their ideological devotion to all things environmental certainly makes them better qualified than government bureaucrats and politically motivated legislators to make that evaluation.

My bet is there'd be drilling in ANWR in a nanosecond -- well-monitored and regulated by terms of a private contract enforced by the legitimate government provision of a civil court system.

The point is private ownership of land is more likely to put the land to its best use than is public ownership. Private owners are more apt to create reasonable regulation of activities on their properties (to make them more attractive to lessors). They are also more apt to monitor and enforce regulations because it is to their benefit to do so.

So yes, divesting the federal government of asset ownership not compatible with its constitutionally defined functions is a good idea.
 
07/06/10 10:38
Kevin-

You're off your rocker, dude.

Any candidate that thinks every part of the Constitution is important is clearly outside the mainstream. Here's a quick primer on the first ten to help you be more mainstream:

#1- Free speech is o.k. as long as you say the right things and don't try to influence the election of smart people who know better than you.

A free press is o.k. as long as it's not hateful right-wing stuff.

Religion is o.k. as long as you keep you mouth shut, unless your religion is about hugging trees or smoking marijuana, then we're all for it.

Free assembly and the right to petition your government is a patriotic duty, unless your assembling and petitioning is questioning those smart people who know better than you who you wrongfully tried to keep from being elected.

#2 We're pretty sure this whole amendment was just a typographical error.

#3 Soldiers. This one might have been an error as well. The constitution is a very fallible living, breathing document.

#s 4-8. These amendments are the core to our justice system, as long as they aren't applied to right wing wingnuts, tea partiers, and corporations. Terrorists, yes. Wingnuts, suits, and teaspooners, no.

#s 9 & 10. Some people think these are meant to limit the power of the Federal government. We all know how silly that idea is. Any group of people that broke away from an overreaching government thousands of miles away would have wanted to create for their people and overreaching government hundreds-to-thousands of miles away....isn't it obvious?

In fact in Federalist #61 Aaron Burr wrote: "Bwaaahhh, haaaa, haaaa. The fools think a bill of rights with a limitation of government expressed explicitly will prevent the Federal government from doing whatever the heck it wants. We all know that the interstate commerce clause will be interpreted to mean "The smart people who know better can just do whatever the hell they feel like so there's no bother in reading any further in the constitution."
 
07/03/10 05:20
Ohhh another guilt by association argument....cause those are valid.

"what he accepts as endorsements"....so someone has to ask his permission to endorse him?? I don't think you understand how this all works.

Not to mention you're basically criticizing him for being liked by a group that's a big fan of the Constitution. Why is that bad again??

By your guilt by association argument I can therefore conclude that Kelliher, Entenza, Dayton, Powers, Madore, Sterner and Lindstrom all hate the Constitution. Thanks for enlightening me.
 

Calendar

« September 2019 »
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30


Latest posts


Archive

(one year)

Categories


Comments



Links


RSS Feeds

RSS 0.91
RSS 2.0

 
 
 
Powered by
Powered by SBlog
 
Copyright © Minnesota Network for Progressive Action. All rights reserved. Legal. Privacy Policy. Sitemap.