« Worthington Globe tells MNGOP legislative mall rats: big cities and small, we're one state | Main | Roch Tea Party Patriots' demands for taxation without representation move to conference fight »

Apr 05, 2011

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Josh

Wouldn't this eliminate government funding for Legal Aid? Private for-profit entities do provide those legal services; Legal Aid just does it for those people who can't afford a lawyer. A significant portion of Legal Aid's funding comes in the form of gov't grants and other gov't assistance. A basic reading of this clause suggests that it would forbid the state from issuing the grants that support many attorneys who serve the poor.

One more example of a GOP attempt to screw the poorest and neediest in the state, or just another clueless legislator with no idea of the implications of their proposals?

Spit

Don't read too much into this. He just doesn't have any investment in the "Little Sisters of the Poor". Can't make money at it, not worth doing.

On the other hand, I might support this. Would this restrict school vouchers for private schools?

Susan Rego

Does that mean Girl Scouts troops won't get to use school property for free because they compete with Nabisco?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Become a Fan

My Photo

My Other Accounts

Delicious Digg Facebook Flickr FriendFeed Google Plus Other... Twitter Twitter YouTube

Important Information

  • All of the statements, opinions, and views expressed on this site by Sally Jo Sorensen are solely her own, save when she attributes them to other sources.

    The opinions, statements, and views of contributing writers are their own.

    Sorensen, editor and proprietor of Bluestem Prairie, serves clients in the business and nonprofit sectors. While progressive in outlook, she does not caucus with any political party.

Bluestem Tweets

    follow me on Twitter
    Blog powered by Typepad