Bipartisanship at the Minnesota Legislature? Believe it

  • Article by: Tom Berg
  • Updated: May 22, 2013 - 9:24 PM

After several years in absentia, bipartisanship returned to the Minnesota Legislature in 2013, in varying degrees. As a result, the common good was served. It wasn’t always pretty, but in the end it happened.

  • 36
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
nogophersMay. 22, 1310:20 PM

No compromises were made. What is this writer talking about? The DFL majority steamrolled their radical ideas through this session with no input from the minority party.

lami0102May. 22, 1310:27 PM

This was one party pillaging the minority, not compromise.

clownbasketMay. 22, 1310:44 PM

This is a joke...right?

childabuseMay. 23, 13 6:39 AM

I stand an applaud the bipartisanship support and passage of the 'Minnesota Child Victims Act.' The courthouse doors are now open to victims of childhood sexual abuse while child of today and those yet to be born are better protected from sexual abuse. Well done!!! Bob Schwiderski

my4centsMay. 23, 13 7:33 AM

Bipartisanship must be the theme the DFL is going for to try and win elections in 2014. There was absolutely nothing bipartisan about this legislature - and of course the DFL had no real need or reason to do so. They must feel that it is advantageous to call it that though. Either they will want to share the blame - or they are redefining another word. Bipartisan must now mean anything in agreement with DFL wishes.

mgtwinsfan1987May. 23, 13 7:40 AM

You will understand in time that this was a good legislative session. Finally, after a decade, the logjam was broken and some significant, needed actions were taken. Nobody likes to pay more taxes, but they were necessary. Nobody likes to increase spending, but things needed to be tended to. Nobody likes deficits, so taxing had to be raised more to make sure this could all be paid for. Gloom and doomers today will look back on this ten years from now and thank the two parties for ironing out differences for once.

EleanoreMay. 23, 13 8:28 AM

I believe it, when I see the two parties come together to subsidize corporatism, underfund and over spend on our education and transportation systems, and generally disrespect in almost every way the people of the state, I am a believer. How much more of this bipartisanship we will stand I don’t know. I have the same respect for them they do for me and my state.

jphaunMay. 23, 1310:20 AM

If babysitter unions and some of the highest taxes in the nation are the results of bipartisanship, I long for the return of partisan politics.

mkmurphyMay. 23, 1310:24 AM

Only in DFL Minnesota does a DFL Senate/Governor proposal of $1.8 Billion in permanent, new taxes and a DFL House proposal of $1.4 Billion lead to a "compromise" of $2.4 Billion in total, permanent taxes. Good grief.

my4centsMay. 23, 1310:58 AM

"Nobody likes to pay more taxes, but they were necessary." --------- If the DFL leaders and their supporters really believed this, then they would have raised taxes that were obviously going to hit everybody. Instead, they were obvious in their new taxes only on minorities (smokers and the rich), while giving property tax relief to the majority. Most supporters of these changes believed that higher taxes were necessary for SOMEONE ELSE.


Comment on this story   |  


  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters