Find out more about Minnesota's government at congress.org State legislature page State Constitution Secretary of State website

Deb Wells [Message]

Join us on Facebook!

60 DAYS IS UP, ARE WE OUT OF LIBYA? Posted by DefineYourTerms

Posted 05/20/11

The War Powers Resolution has now been violated twice. 

First, attacking a sovereign nation that posed no immediate threat to the United States of America.

And, engaging in these hostilities for longer than 60 days without a Declaration of War from Congress or a statutory authorization from Congress.

Obama, already in violation of the Constitution has now undoubtedly, indisputedly, unequivocally violated the War Powers Resolution.

What's Congress doing? Nothing.  A bunch of skulking cowards with no backbone.

Like I have said before: A BULLY WILL BULLY UNTIL YOU PUNCH HIM IN THE MOUTH.

We the People, must storm the White House this weekend and drag this tyrant by his pencil-neck and boot his butt into the Potomac.

Long live liberty.

Events this Week: Tax Rally on Saturday; Debate Watching Party Thursday Posted by mstebbins

Posted 05/03/11

Minnesota Campaign for Liberty wants you to join us at the Minnesota Tax Rally at the State Capitol this Saturday, May 7, from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m.

Dust off your favorite signs or make new ones (End the Fed, anyone?), and come out to mingle with 5,000 or more of Minnesota's most engaged taxpayers. Stop by the C4L table and help for an hour, if you are so inclined.

We'd love to see a large -- overwhelming, even -- presence to impress the politicians, news cameras, future caucus attendees and delegates, and fellow taxpayers. We think we're going to make a splash!

More information is available on the Event's website or via the Campaign for Liberty calendar.

And please join us Thursday (tomorrow) night, May 5, for Buzzword Bingo as we watch the SC Presidential Debate together at The 707 in Minneapolis. Get directions and RSVP to that event here: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/calendar.php?rsvp=12192

Looking forward to seeing you this week!

In liberty,
Marianne Stebbins
State Coordinator, Campaign for Liberty
and
Nik Ludwig
President, Minnesota Campaign for Liberty

A Letter from Rep Mark Buesgens Posted by mstebbins

Posted 04/17/11

Disillusioned With the Legislative Caucus System

It is no secret that over the past few years I have become more and more disillusioned with the legislative caucus system as it exists in St. Paul. (This is the process where Democrats meet in one room and Republicans in another to discuss upcoming legislation.) Out of sincere respect to my colleagues and constituents I feel obligated to share my three primary concerns. While my experiences are derived from participation in the GOP caucus, discussions with trusted friends from the party opposite convinces me that, while the names change, the processes remain the same.

1) Loss of individuality of a legislator (caucus member):
While I am not learned in the dialogue surrounding the primary purpose for the change to party affiliation as initiated in Minnesota in the late 1960's, early 70's, it is clear to me that it has morphed into a tool primarily used to subjugate the will of the individual legislator to a small group of people termed "caucus leadership" using the consent (implied or actual) of the group.

On big issues, a legislative caucus more often than not uses the powerful tool of peer pressure over intellectual debate to force its will on members. Through guilt or obligation, it often gets them to vote in ways that the individual's reason tells them they should not. Words like "team" and "family" are paramount to words such as "principles" and "values." This is a very dangerous tool to put into the hands of a few select folks who brandish the title "leadership."

In his farewell speech in 1796, President George Washington had the following to say about political parties. My experience tells me that it is even more relevant to caucuses of elected officials:

"They [political parties] serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests. "

2) Unhealthy divisiveness that corrupts the collective conscience of society:
President Washington went on to say the following:

"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism."

In my nine years of being in the majority party, I can't count the number of times I've heard the phrase, "We have to stick together or the other side will be in control." Believe it or not, there have been many occasions when I wanted the other side to be in control. It might be heresy for me to say this, but the GOP does not have an absolute monopoly on every good idea, nor does the DFL have an absolute monopoly on all the bad ideas. In fact, some really bad ideas from my perspective, have originated with Republicans. Ideas such as cigarette taxes, national ID cards and the latest education funding shifts have their roots in my party. However, current adherence to the caucus system means "we" must win and "they" must lose. If "they" have a good idea, "we" must take it for our own.

The people of this state (and this nation) decry the partisanship that goes on in politics these days. They are vocally expressing their displeasure. Many times this past summer and fall I heard from newly engaged people that they didn't want to hear whether I was a republican or a democrat, they simply wanted to know what I stood for and how I would work to espouse those values. The caucus system exacerbates, not alleviates, partisanism.

3) Deference to polls and popularity often usurps fidelity to principles:
Both logic and experience convinces me that the paramount goal of those in leadership, either elected members or hired staff, is to work to ensure a majority after the next election. I do not say this in a negative way. By itself, this is a good thing, however, it is my opinion that the path taken to get there ultimately determines success or failure.

Today a caucus looks to the latest survey and/or opinion poll to guide its direction. Armed with a collection of statistics, charts and graphs, leadership develops policies and strategies that cater to the perceived will of the majority in an effort to show that we are receptive to their bidding. The strongly held belief is that this is a "tried-and-true" method of ensuring a majority. And if the latest survey clashes with principles on a given issue, either the issue is buried or a caucus uses spurious logic to make the issue somehow fit espoused values.

Governing in this manner has created what our founders feared most; a system where mobocracy (rule by the most vocal mob of people) is the norm. Statesmanship has become passé! Intellect, logic and reason no longer matter. Honest dialogue, cooperation and synergy is no longer possible. Maintenance of power is the over-riding concern.

Can the problems inherent with the caucus system be fixed? I do not know the answer. However, I do know that I will act and vote in ways that are true to my nature as I promised those that voted for me. I will not automatically support a bill simply because it is carried by a member of one party, nor oppose it if it is carried by a member of the other party. Less spending, less government and greater liberty will be my benchmarks when analyzing any and all legislation. If that means that I don't get a leadership title within my caucus, then so be it.

Mark Buesgens
State Representative, 35B
Room 381, State Office Building
(651) 296-5185

Call your Congressman TODAY! Posted by mstebbins

Posted 02/10/11

Dear Friend of Liberty,

You could hear the arms breaking all the way from Capitol Hill to here in Minnesota as victory slipped out of the statists' grasp.

Tuesday, the U.S. House DEFEATED legislation to extend three of the so-called "PATRIOT" Act's controversial provisions including roving wiretaps, onerous business regulations, and data grabs.

Because the bill was put on the "Suspension Calendar," it needed 290 votes to pass. Thanks to the quick action of true Patriots, however, the vote failed 277-148.

Remember that the legislation was expected to easily pass. Don't let anyone ever tell you it's hopeless to fight for your freedoms.

A second vote on this bill could come as early as TODAY (Thursday, February 10). The Speaker has made it impossible to put in any reasonable protections against more abuses by the Obama administration.

Here are the Minnesota U.S. Representatives who voted the wrong way:

Voted the wrong way (for extension)

(2) John Kline (202) 225-2271 (Click here to email)
(3) Erik Paulsen (202) 225-2871 (Click here to email)
(6) Michele Bachmann (202) 225-2331 (Click here to email)
(7) Collin Peterson 202-225-2165 (Click here to email)
(8) Chip Cravaack (202) 225-6211 (Click here to email)

Contact your rep and let them know what you think about them voting for the Bill of Rights-shredding PATRIOT Act.

Contact your rep using the information above and remind them of their oath to uphold the Constitution. Urge them to put the American People's rights before the surveillance state's power by rejecting the "PATRIOT" Act on every vote.

Thanks for all your hard work to ensure victory. I look forward to many more triumphs to come as C4L continues its mission to reclaim the Republic and restore the Constitution.

For Liberty,

Nik and Marianne

Nik Ludwig
President
Minnesota Campaign for Liberty

Marianne Stebbins
State Coordinator

Stealth economic stimulus uncovered? Posted by Steve Rogers

Posted 12/08/10

The IRS has dramatically lowered the federal withholding rates for 2010, supposedly to align with the "making work pay" tax credit; however that credit is capped at 6.2% or $400 for individuals or $800 for married couples. The reduction in withholding for most is much more than this, and will cause most people to have an unexpected tax burden come filing time.

One possibility worth exploring is that the administration needs the people to believe they are doing better financially by increasing their take home pay in the hopes that they will feel everything must be better, and would then go forth and spend. This may well work in the short term; however the piper must be paid. To understand the damage that this will cause, realize that aside from the 6.2% credit, the deductions and exemptions have not changed. So if they are taking much less from your paycheck and you have the same tax burden, come tax time in early 2011 most people will wind up with a rather unpleasant surprise (just after the elections, oddly enough). Some will owe hundreds, some thousands, and some even more. Not everyone has the ability to come up with these sums on demand which would then lead to what may be prong number two in this attack, penalties and interest.

Then there is what is called the "safe harbor" rule, which is based on how much you paid in versus how much you owe. If you owe the same or less than last year and paid in the same amount, and owe the IRS money at the end of the year, you could wind up with penalties. If you owe more, and paid in the same or 10% more in withholding, then you are much less likely to have trouble. This change will likely cause many people to wind up on the wrong side of this penalty, which is subjective on the part of the IRS leaving room for abuse.

I would also like to point out that as an employer NO mention of this has been made to me, which would have allowed me to inform my employees to adjust their withholding to a level that is appropriate to their anticipated tax burden. I have spoken with a long time friend of mine who is a CEO, and he has heard rumors to this same effect and also believes that it is stealth stimulus. As soon as he confirmed what I had found, he immediately walked to the payroll department to issue a memo to all employees to examine their withholding and make necessary adjustments. My accountant advised me to use the 2009 tables for consenting employees to allow me to withhold for them at what would be the normal rate for them to avoid any issues come tax time.

The change is closer to, but predominantly still more than the 6.2% credit in the higher income brackets, but for people with lower incomes, or those with several jobs, and therefore lower income per withholding event the changes are quite significant.

Here are a few examples:

At the mean (average) income of $41,732 (last available data from the census bureau) a married person with zero exemptions, paid $802 weekly has 13% less federal withholding, more than double the "making work pay" tax credit, and with 2 exemptions the change is 18%, almost triple the credit. Keep in mind 1 exemption is for you, 2 is yourself and a non working spouse or single with one dependent.

For someone paid $500 every two weeks (a lower paying job, or a part-time job) the rates dropped much more: Single with zero exemptions 28%, 1 exemption 48%, and 2 exemptions zero withholding, and all married persons in this bracket are now at zero withholding. These people are the most likely to have problems, and in this economy a lot of folks have lower paying or several part time jobs.

This unconscionable manipulation, cloaked in a tax credit, is in my opinion, going to cause trouble in the lives of citizens who have a right to know that they are being used as unwitting pawns in an economic shell game. Any administration willing to do something like this to prop itself up with an artificially created ‘recovery' at the expense of the people should be investigated by Congress and corrected immediately.

The 2010 tables are found in Publication 15, circular ‘E'

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p15.pdf

The 2009 Publication 15 (for comparison) is no longer available from the IRS, archived by the author at:
http://www.rstevenrogers.com/reference/p15_2009.pdf

Mean income data from: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032009/perinc/new10_001.htm

© 2010 R. Steven Rogers