Stadium deal very likely

Any Republican that votes for the stadium deal will not get my "party loyalty". Any Republican that votes to circumvent any citizen vote will have me supporting any opponent of theirs.

That include the moderate known as Tim Pawlenty.

Why? Because the stadium vote (Twins, Vikings and even to a large degree the Gophers) is support of many bad things.

One, it is support of big government spending.
Two, it is support of a very bad intervention of government into the private sector.
Three, it is practice of very bad fiscal management.
Four, it is the embracing of one form of social spending without a clear, honest and exact articulation of why other forms of social spending should not be engaged in. What is the "bright line" difference?

I thought the Republicans were supposed to be about smaller government. I thought they were supposed to be for a division between government and private business. Remember, by government favoring the Twins in any manner the government is choosing to be against other private businesses. Perhaps the state, using some of the same lines of thinking by pro-stadium people, should bail out Northwest. The state should have built the Mall of America and should help build their expansion.

Worse than all of that is the route they are considering...circumventing the voters.

Pawlenty on Tuesday reiterated a position he staked out previously: He would prefer Hennepin County voters get the opportunity to accept or reject a ballpark sales tax in a referendum, but he will not insist on it.

"It's not a deal-breaker if the Legislature puts the bill on my desk without it," he said of a ballot issue.
...
The referendum is undeniably the sticking point for passage of the bill. The Twins and the Hennepin County Board — the team's partner in the $508-million project — seek to skirt a ballot issue on the 0.15 percent county sales tax (3 cents on a $20 purchase) that would pay for three-quarters of the stadium in the Warehouse District of Minneapolis.

State law calls for a referendum on new local sales, but it allows exclusions, which have been obtained in the past by St. Paul and Minneapolis for city projects. Ballpark supporters want the exclusion because they contend a ballot issue would create delays and greater expense, while opponents say supporters' real fear is that residents would vote it down.

There is a requirement to allow the people to decide whether their taxes should go up or not. The Republicans always champion the rhetoric of letting the people decide on their own tax hikes...and here is the chance for them to put their money where their mouth is.

See, principles are not worth anything if you do not stick to them when it is against you. It is easy to stand for (or against) something when it does not impact something you love. Those positions are not principles. They are principles when the impact is against you...THEN you are standing with your principles.

There is no question that I am against PUBLIC financing of any stadium (including the Gophers...they chose to tear down a good stadium, let their alumni pay to rebuild a campus stadium). And, yes, the position would adversely affect me. I love baseball. It is my favorite sport. But my philosophical positions should not be compromised because the positions could deprive me of being able to watch live Major League Baseball. That is the spineless position.

Now you may ask why I am focusing this venom only toward the GOP. Because the DFL positions typically are anti-business, anti-private property, pro-government hand in everything, pro-big government, pro-social spending and fiscal irresponsibile. This vote falls in line with most of their beliefs (though does promote 'corporate welfare' which then should cause a slight schism).

I expected better of the MN-GOP and have become increasingly disappointed. I really am finding less reason to support 95% of the incumbants of any party.

Congratulations Minnesota GOP, you have pushed me towards a modified term limits point of view!