Quick Links to Posts By Category

,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, December 16, 2007

Representative Kate Knuth - A Clueless Advocate for Higher Taxes and Bigger Government

Representative Kate Knuth's latest piece in the New Brighton Bulletin ViewPoints section (you know, the space always available to liberal politicians whenever they request it) dutifully incorporates the latest DFL talking points. This latest drivel informs the good people of her district that Knuth and her DFL cronies intend to raise taxes while insulting our intelligence by maintaining it is for our own good.

I've dealt with some of Knuth's previous DFL public relations efforts (this latest bravo sierra by Knuth is more of the same) by reproducing the entire piece and going through a paragraph-by-paragraph debunking. Although this is not a difficult task as the substance of Knuth's arguments is so weak (and, in spite of the quantity of education she has had, she isn't a very accomplished writer) it is becoming old and tedious. If you haven't yet read Knuth's latest bilge and want to get up to speed you can check it out here. I'll proceed with a summary about what it reveals about Representative Knuth and why this legislative session needs to be her last one for the good of the people she so poorly represents.

The main theme of Knuth's piece is that Minnesota has slipped from being a leader to being just average with respect to our "quality of life". She contends that the alleged slippage has occurred as a result of Governor Pawlenty's "no new taxes" policies and some of modest income tax cuts for the state's "wealthiest citizens". Her claim is that the state has "significantly decreased" its "investments" in the things that have made things so good in the past. The proposed DFL cure is, of course, the tired old class envy-based claim that taxes must be raised, but only on "the rich". All of this is, of course, utter nonsense and shows that Ms. Knuth is not fit to represent the people of her district. We on this blog warned you about her meager qualifications and many disqualifications for the job long before she was elected (do a quick search on "Kate Knuth" and this blog).

Apparently Kate the Clueless has not yet grasped a basic fundamental truth that was hammered home by Ronald Reagan: a society cannot tax and spend itself into prosperity and any attempt to do so invariably fails and erodes liberty and freedom in the process. This is why poverty cannot be eradicated by enacting a $100 an hour minimum wage. Over the last decade or so state spending (what Knuth euphemistically calls "investment") has increased much more than any taxes have been cut and government has become the largest employer in the state. A lot of government jobs exist only to support and propagate the bureaucracy and, while economically beneficial to the person receiving the wages, are a net drain on economic output and productivity. Government does not invest--it spends in astronomical amounts. Why is this so hard for liberals/socialists/redistributionists like Knuth to grasp?

Knuth has the nerve to whine about the projected state budget deficit even though she advocated spending the surplus that was in place when she took office as a prelude to even more spending (welfare spending alone got a 20% bump by the liberals in charge). Excessive spending, by both the current and past legislatures, is the cause of any projected deficit because the amount of money coming into the state has steadily increased due to the increased economic activity that occurred in part due to tax cuts at the federal and state level. To borrow from a campaign slogan coined by James Carville in the 1990's: it's the spending, stupid! It's obvious Representative Knuth needs to read Dr. Walter Williams's economics tutorials mentioned in the previous post, as well as putting in some time holding down a real private sector job. It would be a real eye-opener for her to fill out (and write the check for) a tax return that did not qualify for a form 1040-EZ.

Knuth's opinion piece is just the latest in a long line of evidence that she is not fit to represent the people of her district. Being raised in a liberal activist household, spending many years immersed in the institutional liberalism of post-secondary academia, living and studying in socialist countries, and not having any real-world work experience outside of government and academia have taken a toll on her thought and reasoning process. She obviously believes that societal and individual good flows from government and government programs and does not appear to have even a modest grasp of fundamental economic principles. Her advocacy of command-and-control, do everything for everybody, right all wrongs, provide all needs for all people government is downright dangerous when it come to our rights and freedoms. The primary function of government is to protect life, liberty, and property and to provide for public safety. It is not to redistribute wealth, manage the economy, or to socially engineer.

Kate Knuth has shown that she is not capable of grasping these basic concepts and is therefore unfit for her position (this does not even take into account her goofy ideas on the environment, property rights, and transportation). We're unfortunately stuck with her for one more legislative session, but next fall we can correct this mistake from the last election and elect someone qualified to represent us. Until then let's hold Knuth's feet to the fire and try to minimize the damage she and her DFL cronies do in the upcoming session.

Labels:

9 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nice blog! But don't blame me as I sure did not vote for her.

Knuth says "Ironically, as we've slashed taxes in the name of attracting businesses, investments in the very things that historically brought businesses to Minnesota have significantly decreased."

As a small business owner I wish she would let me know what taxes of mine have been "slashed" because I sure haven't seen it. If she and the DFL'ers really wanted to attract businesses how about drastically cutting or eliminating the corporate income tax and/or capital gains taxes? Or even personal income taxes. I don't think businesses are leaving or not coming because we don't have an A-1 lite rail system. And I can assure her that businesses like mine aren't flocking to Sioux Falls because of the balmy climate.

"Clueless" seems kind of harsh but I can't argue with the accuracy. She seems like a nice kid, but totally unaware of how the real world works.

12/17/2007 11:57 AM  
Blogger Force50 said...

I agree completely with "Anonymous." Knuth's talking points seem to run amok. A real business owner says that his/her taxes have not been slashed so Knuth really doesn't know what she's talking about. I suspect the kid does not write her own editorials. Someone from DFL Central does that and Knuth does not bother to check facts.

12/18/2007 10:02 AM  
Anonymous Centerfield said...

I would also like to know which business taxes have been slashed - we just went through an audit at work where the State Dept of Revenue hung out for a few days, auditing our books (and other companies in my industry) searching for irregularities in collection of taxes from our clients. The tax code has not changed, just the interpretation of it - i.e. 'let's go find more money out there'.

As for Knuth, apparently the money spent on her higher education was for naught. Her piece is chock full of vagaries and "just about everyone" could use some solid solutions to the problems around which she dances.

I, for one, do not see a $375M deficit as modest and manageable. Bottom line Kate, "just about everyone", especially us middle to lower income folk think its a big bunch of money. It's a whole lor of nickels. But what do I know, I just another cog in a workforce that is "not well-educated".

Kate, I will take your advice....I'm calling my broker today to invest in "public good" - seems like a good cause, I'll take 100 shares please. Or should I wait for the after-Holiday sales?

In short, the piece left me underwhelmed yet again and I agree that the qualifications of Kate seem to be less than stellar...."maybe" she is emerging as nothing less than a "canary" in the legislative coal mine / slagheap. If this is the best we can do for leadership, I fear we will all be gasping for air shortly....

12/18/2007 1:22 PM  
Blogger Force50 said...

Right Hook's mention of the surplus got me to thinking. Correct me if I'm wrong but this year's surplus was something like $2 billion. About $500 Million was held back for a rainy day. The rest could have been sent back to the taxpayers but was spent instead. Advocates for the poor -- Archbishop Flynn among them -- were first in line to pitch their charity needs (I'm not saying he shouldn't but when government is involved, it really isn't charity is it). From a budgeting standpoint $1.5 million was added to the overall approved budget, creating an overall new and higher starting point for the next budget. So not only do we not get our money back, if nothing is cut we must then be forced to fund the surplus in the future. I actually hope I'm wrong about this. Does someone have the figures on how the surplus was spent?

12/19/2007 1:20 PM  
Blogger Daria said...

Liberal causes were not hurt in the least last session even with the Governor's judicious use of his veto pen. He really should have vetoed a lot more, especially in the area of energy mandates, but he has shown himself to be a green RINO.

A short but good summary of the shameful session can be found at http://www.faegre.com/articles/article_2205.aspx

- D

12/20/2007 7:42 AM  
Blogger Force50 said...

This is a self-correcting blog site. In a comment elsewhere regarding Kate Knuth I said she gave herself a 50% per diem pay raise. Not quite true. Apparently the state house pay raise went from $66 to $77, an increase of nearly 17%. It was the state senate that voted themselves an increase from $66 to $96 per day, more than 45%. Still it angers me that politicians can be so brazen when the typical productive worker must be content with 3% or less for an annual pay increase.

12/20/2007 1:09 PM  
Blogger Force50 said...

I did check the Faegre article as Daria directed. Looks like a billion dollars of the surplus was spent on one-time only projects. The other billion was "projected to recur in future budgets." I interpret that as taxpayers having to shoulder a burden of an additional billion dollars every year simply because the first billion was not returned to the citizens. Sounds like a permanent penalty to me. I don't know what is more outrageous. That ... or the Governor allowing overall spending to increase 10%. That appears to be the very definition of unsustainable.

12/20/2007 1:28 PM  
Blogger Mark said...

Kate comes off as a very nice person, I'm sure. I knew dozens of women just like her during my college days. Generally you would see them clomping around campus in their Birkenstocks and once in a while they might be sitting a card table for the "Off the Patriarchy Bake Sale" or some such.

Luckily, most of those women decided not to go into politics. The thing is, usually one or two do.

But here's the rub: Kate's father is Dan Knuth, a longtime DFLer and lobbyist in St. Paul: details are here.

http://www.cfboard.state.mn.us/lobby/lbdetail/lb3631.html

Kate is simply going into the family business.

Best,

Mr. D

12/26/2007 6:06 PM  
Blogger Thrifty Scot said...

Regarding the "slashing of taxes" for business:

The Tax Foundation's 2008 State Business Tax Climate Index ranks Minnesota as having one of the ten worst business tax climates in the nation, putting us at #42 (though that is an improvement from #46 in 2003!).

Minnesota's corporate income tax rate is ranked #44.

Kate Knuth is either a know nothing fool or a sock puppet for dishonest minders.

http://www.taxfoundation.org

1/02/2008 11:02 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

 

MOB Logo

Powered by Blogger