Earlier this week, the Republican majority in the Legislature refused to approve most bonding requests from Minneapolis and Saint Paul, the two cities that are Minnesota’s most reliable Democratic political strongholds. Longtime observers of the Legislature characterized this year’s bonding bill as the most partisan in Minnesota history. But Republican leaders maintain that further pressure is needed to break the core cities’ will.
“Killing their dream of a sub-minor league baseball field was a start, but more government reform is needed,” said Senate Capital Investment Chairman Ronnie Wright (R-Bunker Hills). “So we’re going to blockade the metrosexual candy asses.”
In anticipation of the blockade, Republican legislators were reported to be hording legislators’ favorite urban delicacies before they become unavailable during a blockade, such as Fabulous Fern’s ‘Fern Burgers,’ mini soap bars from the Kelly Inn Best Western, and tassles from Augie’s Cabaret.
“Hey Jack Kennedy smuggled 1,000 cigars out of Cuba, so you can’t expect us go cold turkey,” said Rep. Richard Dick (R-Sticks). “And I’m just telling you, they don’t call it the ‘Best Western’ for nothin.”
The blockade leaders rejected charges that they had lost their promised focus on producing “jobs, jobs, jobs” during a sluggish economic recovery.
“Those in the liberal media who charge that this is just about a raw political power grab are dead wrong,” said Rep. Wy Kayer (R- Stillwhiter). “It’s simply about raining the Creator’s righteous wrath down upon those in Sodom and Gomorrah who insist on voting for unconstitutional sinning, that’s all.”
But legislators acknowledge that even a full commercial, economic and financial embargo may not be sufficient to keep their Tea Party supporters sufficiently aroused.
“If the blockade doesn’t work, we are not ruling out a full Bay of Pig’s Eye invasion,” said Kayer.
The Same Rowdy Crowd 
That’s right – deprive liberalism of its oxygen (other people’s money).
Liberals don’t pay taxes? My rate is considerably higher than Mitt Romeney’s and it’s not because I made more than $21 million.
I notice the legislative gops are not averse to pork going into their own barrels.
I bet its not. I bet the effective rate of his federal taxes paid was higher than yours.
Lay it on us John. What was the dollar amount you paid to the federals and what was your gross.
What I know is that H.&R. Block has a window which says your tax rate is, and what came up was 25%. It is true that since I’m married I got a deduction, then so is Mitt, and beyond that we got a deduction for being over 65 that Mitt didn’t get; on the other hand, in that tax form of his the size of Manhattan phone directory there are no doubt tax breaks that I couldn’t even imagine let alone take advantage of. So on the available record, my rate was 25% and Mitt’s I believe ended up being calculated at 13.9%.
John, I say, knowing very little about you, that you don’t pay anywhere near a 25% effective rate. You’re likely confusing this with your statutory top marginal income tax rate. After calculating your AGI and taking various credits and deductions, your federal effective rate is, I’d bet, in the 10% neighborhood.
Mitt’s cited effective rate is 13.9% on which the bulk of federal taxes are assessed at 15% on capital gains.
This is the “Warren Buffet’s secretary” canard, and it’s complete baloney.
Well, Buffett’s secretary probably makes about $200,000/yr– which is not uncommon for a top notch executive assistant to a CEO. She probably doesn’t get a lot of stock options or other forms of income that are taxed at a 15% rate, and i doubt that she has a lot of capital loss offsets or stuff like that. I don’t think that it is at all unlikely that she pays a higher effective rate than Buffet, so i don;\t think that is at all misleading.
What i do think is misleading is the idea that Buffett’s secretary would be a low income person, or that a low income person might be paying a higher effective tax rate than Buffett. That is pretty unlikely. But is is not at all surprising that the very wealthy would be paying a lower effective tax rate than those who are just wealthy.