Kresha didn’t represent us

To the Editor:

When we elect people to serve us in St. Paul and Washington, D.C., we expect them to work for our families. We have the expectation that our representatives will use their knowledge of government to help strengthen our communities and protect our quality of life.

Unfortunately for Distist 9B, Rep. Ron Kresha is not a legislator we can count on.

Beginning in September, all students will receive free, all-day kindergarten. Not only will this give kids the strong start at school they need, it will save families thousands of dollars a year. Rep. Kresha voted “no” on this education bill.

A recent non-partisan House Research report shows property taxes will drop by $49 million in 2014. It is the first decrease in property taxes since 2002. Yet when it came time to give 1 million Minnesotans property tax relief, Rep. Kresha voted “no.”

While Rep. Kresha talked a good game about providing a raise for people who care for people with disabilities and the elderly in our communities, when it came time for talk to turn to action, Rep. Kresha voted “no.”

If Rep. Kresha isn’t voting for our kids, property taxpayers and hard-working caregivers, who is he representing? — Roman Witucki, Little Falls

  • josh

    The knowledge of government to help strengthen the community and quality of life? Are you serious! Please tell me you don’t believe that we would be much better off with a bigger government telling you what to learn, what to eat, what insurance you can or cant have. The entitlement mentality is growing.

    • newpolitiq7

      “Democracy is the worst form of gov’t., except for all the others.” (Churchill) While I can be cynical about gov’t with the best of ‘em, in the end, I still want my representative in St Paul (or D.C.) to try to make a positive difference in the lives of their ordinary constituents. Of course we’re going to have different ideas about what “strengthening our communities and protecting our quality of life” means. Our rep’s are in St. Paul to juggle those various interests and hopefully serve the most folks the in the best possible way (not just their deep-pocketed “constituents” who often have an out-sized voice in the process). I don’t want my representative to go to St. Paul or D.C. as a poster child for ideological purity and legislative deadlock. If that’s what floats their boat, please don’t run for office; stay home and bury yourself in the basement with Fox or MSNBC on in the background, and work on your ideological treatise. I want negotiator/problem-solvers in gov’t. — adults who, at the end of the day, take the job seriously, and realize that many Americans are struggling, and need them to get to work.

    • josh

      New politiq–I think that is what everyone wants is adults in office and frankly right now there are fewer and fewer adults in politics. There are very few who stand up for any Godly morals anymore. There are few who want financial stability it is just tax tax tax. There are few anymore who truly want us to be free. We as citizens should be feared by government and not the other way around. Look at past history and you will find that the biggest murderers of citizens is an over reaching government (Democide) look it up. So no I don’t want a big government not out of fear but out of logic. The constitution in this country lays out the groundwork and limits on governmental powers and quite frankly I don’t believe that our current federal government gives a crap about it as they have been the biggest kids in the room playing with our money and liberties. You can go ahead and watch the network news for your news source they are bought and paid for. I got rid of cable television a few years ago.

      • newpolitiq7

        Josh – Thanks for sharing some of your thoughts. I followed your suggestion and looked up “democide”. Interesting distinctions Rummel makes, differentiating democide from genocide. Many, indeed, have been killed. Power and greed are corrupting forces that make humans do despicable things to one another. Thanks for pointing out that term.

        In your post, you mention a desire for “freedom”, and I sensed a certain frustration in maybe not being able to somehow realize this freedom. Hope I’m “hearing” that concern as you intended. Freedom is such a ubiquitous, almost amorphous concept, especially as it’s bandied about in politics these days. If asked what they think about “freedom”, as a concept, most people would say “sure, I’m for it!!”, right? But one person’s perceived “freedom” might begin a ripple of events that impinge upon the precious freedoms of another. If David Koch or George Soros want to run an enterprise with total “freedom” to do what the limits of their money and power allow, that might be good for them, but less good for you and me. Most would argue that freedom must be balanced by responsibility to others. Looking at the concept as a Christian, for instance, I have free will to act according to the precepts of my faith (and this “obedience” may impinge on my other more self-serving “freedoms”/desires), or I can pursue a more selfish “freedom” of sorts, that protects me and mine and totally neglects Christian responsibility to “the least of these” (as mandated in Matthew 25: 31-46). If I’m true to my responsibility to serve “the least of all of God’s children” (no borders), my so-called “freedoms” might be construed as limited. And so be it. For me, an interest in politics in an outflow of what I believe to be a responsibility to make gov’t. as fair and accountable as possible to “the least of these”. I agree with the theologians who adamantly insist that State and Federal budgets are moral documents, and need to, as much as possible, provide a just framework for lifting up and promoting the equality and welfare of every citizen (not just the rich ones who know how to manipulate the system and have the money to do so).

        I agree with you, Josh, that traditional network news is a poor source of information, especially if it’s one’s only source. We’re fortunate (or maybe cursed?!?) to have SO many available sources of information these days. The plethora of especially online resources, however, makes it critical to be discerning — cross-checking so-called facts of many ideological sources of political information. Our very own KLTF’s UpFront political program is one of the worst local offenders! Admittedly, I can only very occasionally tune in, but every time I’ve had an opportunity and actually taken the time to cross-check their “facts” and information, I’ve been disappointed to find so much misinformation. “Trust but verify” should be the mantra for all sources of information, especially the ones on both the “right” and the “left” that seem too outrageous! Thanks, again, for sharing your views, Josh.

        • robin hensel

          You are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT newpolitiq7….KTLF never identifies their source even tho i have asked them NUMEROUS TIMES to do so!! My faith calls me to same obligation to look out for the “least of these.” Something sorely lacking in this area. Please somebody point out the local church that advocates FOR PEACE AND SOCIAL JUSTICE. I know of NONE.

          • central mn

            Robin, I can’t believe that we both gave a thumbs up on the comments above…maybe we have a little common ground after all????

          • newpolitiq7

            Robin, I don’t belong to a local church, and really don’t know which ones are most attentive to serving the poor and working for social justice, but I’m sure they are there. Admittedly, some pastors find it easier to limit their purview to “personal piety”, and some even espouse tidy theologies which absolve them and their parishioners from the responsibility of working for more just laws/government. (Or, they only become “activists” on social issues with which they agree politically, like abortion, gay marriage, …) You can “google” Christian Reconstructionism and Christian Dominionism to learn more, if you’re so inclined.

            The recent popularity of what’s been coined the “prosperity gospel” (you can see many of these wealthy preachers on t.v., broadcasting from huge stadiums, and find their books in “Christian” bookstores and Walmart) makes some folks a bit more comfortable with their claimed “blessings”/wealth, and sometimes even feeling less obligated to associate with Christ’s poor. Some even form their political worldview first, and then seek out a church that will validate their politics (rather than vice versa). To each their own. The notion that Jesus’ piercing words and actions “comfort the afflicted, and afflict the comfortable” resonates more with my understanding of the Gospel.

            This article, The Piketty Pontiff: How Pope Francis is Bringing Catholicism Back to It’s Anti-poverty Roots, sounds a hopeful note for me. Maybe you’ll appreciate it as well, Robin: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sean-mcelwee/the-piketty-pontiff-how-p_b_5469131.html I wish you well in pursuit of a church home in which like-minded Christians come together to walk the talk of the Gospel. They’re out there, and very actively trying to live out the Gospel in their daily walk with Christ.

          • josh

            I also stay away from the so called “prosperity pastors” as it is not biblical. I also would love to see more churches stand up against issues regardless if they lose there tax exemptions. For example if the church doesn’t want to marry homosexual couples that is there right and it is not discrimination as it goes against what they believe as laid out in God’s word. If they get threatened to get tax exemption taken away I say they should stand firm on God’s word and say fine.
            As far as freedoms go I understand your point that different views may see freedoms as different than my own. I stand on the ground that there needs to be a fear of the people by the government and our rights to worship, own firearms, free speech, and enterprise must be kept intact with only necessary regulations. For instance many want to ban guns because people use them to kill others. So they want to take away our freedom to own them not out of logic but out of fear, and that is a bad way to make decisions. For instance people murder other more with box cutters and hammers than rifles. And people murder babies way more per year than they use handguns. But why do we want to ban guns?
            As far as fairness of taxes go I had a discussion with a very liberal college teacher at clc. He posted the 5 tiers of classes, class warfare I guess you could call it. I found him the statistics that the top 25% of the rich pay 75% of taxes in this country while it drops down to about 25% of the rest of tax payers paying the rest. So in reality about 51% of the people pay taxes while 49% don’t pay in any income taxes. I asked him since he believed in fairness why didn’t each bracket pay 20%? That would be fair right? He didn’t have much to say as he was used to his students following his lead. But what I am saying is that the tax system is unfair as it targets the biggest earners. Now I agree that the more you make the higher your percentage should be but is it fair that almost half of the population be getting of tax free? Even if you taxed the richest at 100% it would only be a drop in the bucket of how much debt we have gotten. I believe we are not by any means are under taxed we just have politicians that overspend. And the saying that once the people find out they can vote themselves money we are screwed (I am paraphrasing).
            I am all for helping out others as I do what I can when I can. My philosophy is if I can’t help myself in a certain area I by no means should try helping another if my act is not together. If we as a nation say we can financially help those coming across the border from any side we are lying to ourselves as it only will lead us into more debt. Lets first get back on our feet financially and socially so we can better help when needed. Bringing more people into this country which right now we are a financially sinking ship is just bringing more people in for the slow trip down to the bottom.

up arrow