state + local

""We've got a steep hill to climb" on bonding, restoration of the state Capitol and a new stadium, Sviggum said." Well, at least he's got the priorities in the right order and did not come out swinging against the governor. The GOP is lucky to have Sviggum back.

Why a stadium is anything but a side show is beyond me. Restoring the state capital is a similar symbolic effort. Why don't we just put Dayton and Sviggum to work carving statues of themselves on the capital lawn. If they don't have a vision for real improvements to make in our public services, I have no use for them.

Just what is a healthplan windfall anyway?

I didn't read the article, but are the three suggestions spend, spend, and spend? Go get em' Dayton. You the man! Loved how you wasted money and resources trying to force private business to Unionize. It's just a shame that you didn't realize that that was illegal....something a governor probably should have known. Oh well, back to the grind.

The contract for state employees expired last June and it is nowhere near being close to being renegotiated, why isn't that a priority? Oh wait, Dayton is being paid by Ziggy to get a new playground. Even though Dayton can be bought, the state unions really don't have any pull with him.

Nightmare revisited. Just as Sviggum was a disaster as a House Speaker, he is turning out be a wimp as a Senate spokesman. He should have stayed at the U or gone home where he belongs. The stadium is a priority? To whom? Just like the ballpark, only to the Governor for whom it's an ego boost and the outstate people who won't be paying for it. All Sviggum is going to do is have this turn into the same debacle we had 6 years ago. Do a small bonding bill, maybe, see about the capitol restoration, and that's about it. Time for adjournment, hopefully by the end of next week.

So two of Dayton's three objectives involve spending money that we don't have and the third is reversing budgets cuts.... Where did we find this clown?

Dayton offers three legislative priorities: 1) Spend more money, 2) Tax the "rich", 3) Spend more money??? Or is it, 1)Tax the "rich", 2) Spend that money supporting public unions, 3) Tax the "rich" some more???