Vote, America.

"...because he won't raise my taxes..."

It's time to Vote, America. And you may be hearing a lot of people making the above statement, as in, "I am voting for [fill in the blank] because he/she won't raise my taxes."

This has never occurred to me as I make my choices at the polling place. I don't get all worked up about my taxes or about my having to pay taxes (though I may get worked up about fairness). In my mind, they are the price we pay for living in a civilized society, with a stable government, a cared-for population, and a working, solid infrastructure. Now, we may not always be getting what we pay for, and we can't all have our way. We don't get to send in our tax forms with a check box, stating that we want our share of the federal pot to pay for schools, health care, public transit, and aid to families. Nope, us bleeding hearts get to pay for wars and pricey government contracts to Halliburton, plus tax breaks for wealthier citizens and corporations as well as our little pet projects.

So what do I vote for, and why do I vote as I do?

First and foremost, I am looking for a person who is reasonable and rational, and who seems to have the capacity for thoughtful consideration of not only solutions, but of the problems and their causes. This is not always easy to discern in our heated political climate of overblown rhetoric, grandstanding, and fear-mongering, but I can look for certain things, such as whether or not a candidate "believes in" anthropogenic global warming and/or evolution. If he or she does not, I am going to hold all their opinions suspect. If he or she is not behaving in a fact-based manner about these issues, then he or she is either ignorant of or anti- science or is pandering to a segment of the population that is fundamentalist and denialist. How can I trust that person's ideas on how to tackle public problems, if they lack the cognitive sophistication to understand scientific evidence at its most basic? Are they intelligent enough to tackle complicated economic issues?

In Minnesota, our departing governor (who is coming for the GOP nomination in 2012; indeed, we rarely see him here. If you find him, you can keep him.), refused to "raise taxes" even as the economy tanked. He denied a tool in the public policy box, unable or unwilling to recognize that we needed revenue, using accounting shifts and cuts to human services to "balance" the budget, and we are now facing a 5.8 billion dollar deficit. His refusal to raise taxes resulted in some higher fees as well as higher property taxes and various referenda and assessments levied by counties and cities to raise necessary revenue.

It is ridiculous to remove a tool from your policy toolbox. No family, sitting around the kitchen table, would say, "Well, we won't look for ways to increase our revenue. We can only look for ways to reduce our expenses."

If you are running for governor in this state, and you are saying that you will not only not raise taxes, but will lower them in some instances, and you will balance the budget, then you are, quite frankly, either lying or you are deluded. The idea here is that you keep the revenue the same (or you even cut it somewhat), and all the difference is made up in cuts to government. Then businesses and rich people will create jobs and buy more stuff. It makes some average voters scream and cheer, but the reality is that cutting government is cutting people. Cutting jobs, cutting income, cutting into purchasing power of not only individuals but government itself, which pays many private industries through contracts ranging from construction to professional development to consulting.

Everything is connected, and someone always has to pay. Cut over here, and you will lose over there.

And people who lose their jobs often wind up on public assistance of some sort, be it unemployment or Aid to Families with Dependent Children. Because what often happens is that the people who can least afford to lose their jobs are the people who are cut first, straight from the bottom. With fewer resources to begin with and less of a voice in the public sphere, they disappear into statistics, but they show up in the budget.

It is not reasonable or rational to look at any problem and put away some of your tools without even considering them and their relevance to the job at hand. What I am looking for is evidence of thoughtful consideration and the ability to apply that consideration to a variety of problems, using a variety of tools. I am looking for someone who can recognize facts, process them, and disseminate them to the general public without obfuscation.

Unfortunately, with a few exceptions, that person does not usually get elected in America.

Target & Best Buy: Make it Right?

A lot of people and organizations are calling on Target to "make it right" by giving an equal amount to an off-setting recipient.

Sorry. There's no way to off-set this. Giving money to an LGBTA cause won't take back the publicity and air-time that Tom Emmer is getting from Minnesota Forward. It also won't help out science education, immigrants, choice, the environment, or facts. The opposite recipient would be a PAC that is running ads for Margaret Anderson-Kelliher, who is the Democratic Farmer-Laborer (DFL) endorsed candidate for Minnesota governor, and clearly, that would be a ridiculous thing to do.

This is still a hot topic here in Minnesota, and it's getting national play, too, from the Human Rights Campaign and Moveon.org.

Something that's missing from the debate, as I have been hearing it, is that it's not just about gay marriage and equal rights for LGBT individuals. It's much broader, and it concerns other issues that are equally important. Tom Emmer does not believe in evolution or anthropogenic global warming. Tom Emmer is anti-choice. Tom Emmer wants to continue the same economic policies of Tim Pawlenty, who is leaving us with a 5-6 billion dollar budget deficit problem.

Not to mention the insinuation that the other candidates for governor are pro-business, the false dichotomy that one cannot be pro-labor and pro-business, which is tied to the mistaken idea that jobs do not, somehow, equal people.

My boycott of Target continues, and it took me to Goodwill on Friday, where I got some cute clothes, including a shirt that originally came from Target. It's reminding me that when I go to Target, so do millions of other people, and we wind up with the same stuff. Also, when I only go to Target, I keep seeing the same brands, over and over again. It's nice to branch out. I am feeling liberated because I am not stopping at one place; I think it will re-open my city, at least in the material sense.

Target's Form Letter Response

It's nothing I didn't already know and address in my letter to them. They support both sides, candidates who they think will help their retail business, blah blah blah. It's not going to change my mind, and I still don't believe that "republican economic policies" are really better for the economy as a whole, including businesses. It seems that, after eight years of  "no new taxes" and cutting spending under a republican governor here in Minnesota, we have a 5 billion dollar deficit. Sure, it's part of a broader nation-wide recession, which seems to have been brought about by the same economic policies, deregulation, spurious mortgage practices, and interesting securities trading.

Target has its say (bold-faced choices are mine):

guest.relations@target.com
Fri, Jul 30, 2010
at 8:35 AM

Dear Karen McCauley,

Target has long believed that engaging in civic activities is an important and necessary element of operating a national retail business. What's more important than any one candidate's stance on a particular issue is how we nurture thoughtful, long-term growth in the state of Minnesota.

Our support of causes and candidates is based strictly on issues that affect our retail and business objectives.* To continue to grow and create jobs and opportunity in our home state, we believe it is imperative to be engaged in public policy and the political process. That is why we are members of organizations like the Minnesota Business Partnership, the Chamber of Commerce and many others. And that is why we decided to contribute to MN Forward.

MN Forward's objective is to elect candidates from both parties who will make job creation and economic growth a top priority. We operate best when working collaboratively with legislators on both sides of the aisle.  In fact, if you look at our Federal PAC contributions year to date, you will see that they are very balanced between Republicans and Democrats.** For more information please visit www.target.com/company, and view the Civic Activity page.

Target has a large stake in Minnesota's future, which is why it is so important to be able to provide jobs, serve guests, support communities and deliver on our commitment to shareholders.*** As an international business that is proud to call Minnesota home, it is critical that we have a business environment that allows us to be competitive. Our guests, team members, communities and shareholders depend on Target to remain competitive.

Thanks for taking the time to share your feedback.

Sincerely,

Jennifer Hanson
Target Executive Offices
[THREAD ID:1-7HS3H5]

*That's nice. As I have said, you can't just elect the business policies, and I continue to questions whether those business policies are really better for the economy and for business.


**Thanks for playing. I said you would say that, and that's why I included it in my letter to you.

***You are not delivering on all those commitments by supporting a candidate like Tom Emmer.

Best Buy, Too

Electronics retailer Best Buy can be expecting a similar break-up letter from me, as soon as I have a moment to do some research.

Dear Target,

What's $2183.70 to a big company like you, beloved by millions of shoppers throughout the land, with sales of $63.4 billion during 2009? Not much, but it's what my little family of three spent at your stores in 2009 and 2010, up to now. I know you don't need me anymore. After all, your 2009 results "reflect the strongest retail segment profit in [your] history".

It's been grand, or, dare I say "Super", but I think it's time we see other people. You see, we don't agree about a few fundamental things, and it's standing in the way of this relationship going any further.

You think it's OK to deny women the right to choose their reproductive and sexual destiny, even as you partner with the Minnesota League of Women Voters.

You think it's just dandy to keep certain people from marrying the ones they love, even though you say you are trying to "foster an inclusive culture."

You believe it's a good idea to fund private schools at the expense of public schools, and furthermore, that the federal government should have no say in public education, even as you work to improve school libraries.

You think it should be harder for Americans to vote, even as you advocate voter education, and you believe Arizona's new immigration law is a good idea, even though you say "diversity is a core value throughout every area of [your] company."

You are proud of your NRA endorsement, even as you work with police officers "as trusted partners... to strengthen public safety."

You don't believe in global warming, even though though you say you "know what's good for the environment is good for everyone."

You don't believe in evolution, even though you "play an active role in supporting education."

Or, at least, that's what you are saying to me when you give $150,000 to an organization that is supporting Tom Emmer in the race for Minnesota governor. The above are deeply contradictory statements, and I can't reconcile the politician's beliefs with your company's stated goals, activities, and policies.

Clearly, these are things we can't overcome, "dealbreakers", I think they call them, so I'll be taking my money elsewhere from now on.

I know what you'll say. You'll say that you are non-partisan, you are just looking out for number one, and you will support anyone who you think supports you. You will say that you have given $80,000 to Democrats and $103,500 to Republicans in 2010, so it's pretty much equal.

You say you want to support Minnesotans, and that you love being here. You say you do a lot of good for the country in communities & schools.

But you never loved me. You never cared. And without me and countless other lefties, liberals, and progressives who support you, you are nothing. You can go ahead and support candidates who you say support business, but when those candidates are supporting business over supporting people, those people have less disposable income to spend in your stores.

When those candidates have beliefs that fly in the face of human rights, science, facts, and the common good, I have to draw the line.

Your 2007 Marketing Plan says that 93% of your shoppers are women, their median age is 41, their median household income is $63 thousand, 45% have children at home, and 48% have completed college. In that plan, it was advised that you branch out and find new markets, so I release you. May you be happy in the life that you have chosen.

I can get my tee shirts and baby bubble bath elsewhere.

Love,

kitty

p.s. Best Buy, you can be expecting a similar notice.

Note: Target CEO tries to explain. Oh, ok, then...

Open Secrets: Target Corp PAC expenditures
Open Secrets: Target Corp PAC Summary
Open Secrets: Center for Responsive Politics
American Public Media PAC*Men
Target: Our Company

Minnesota's Next Governor?

“You cannot be a Democrat and a Freedom loving American.”

-Rep. Tom Emmer, at a campaign event in Marshall, MN on September 25, 2009

Oh, hell no.

We thought Tim Pawlenty was bad, and then the Minnesota GOP coughs up this detritus from the depths of teabagger lunacy. Everyone needs to get over their fear of strong, intelligent women and get behind Margaret Anderson Kelliher.