Some weeks the politics of the Republican platform can't catch a break. It's one of those weeks: a lushly catered presser for a casino on Block E (enabled by Republicans Doug Magnus and John Kriesel) and a hearing about Racino. No expansion of gambling as a Republican party platform plank? Meh.
And then there was the editorial in the Journal, nestled in the cathedral city of New Ulm.
In Beware of casting political ideas in stone, the editorial board says:
We are seeing a rash of proposed amendments to the state constitution this legislative session. Republicans who have been in the minority for so long seem to be trying to make up for lost time by proposing amendments that would bypass the governor's veto pen and go directly to voters.
There is a danger, however, of casting today's popular political idea in stone. If, perchance, the idea proves impractical and unpopular in future years, it is much more difficult to change the constitution than to repeal some statute. They want an amendment limiting state spending to 98 percent of the projected revenue, and they want to require a 60 percent majority to pass a tax increase. . . .
. . . Forever after, Republicans would not have to argue with the DFL to limit spending. It would be in the state constitution. Political debate would be squashed. And with a supermajority required for tax increases, it would be even more impossible than it is now to pass a tax increase.
But if the system became too limiting, if Minnesota started to slide inexorably into mediocrity because of its inability to support needed services, it would be hard for the electorate to change its mind by merely electing new representatives. As the nation was stuck with Prohibition, which stayed in effect long after it proved to be disastrous for the nation, we would be stuck with these spending and taxing hobbles until someone gathered the votes to undo them with another constitutional amendment.
As we said earlier, constitutional amendments are serious business that should be used rarely. It shouldn't be used to squash the political process and institutionalize one party's political ideas.
Go over to the Journal and comment. The Republican Party as Prohibition's Zombies? Jeepers.
Photo: The Andrew Volstead House in Granite Falls. Are the amendments the vector for latent Republican Prohibition tendencies?
And the New Ulm Journal is not exactly a liberal newspaper.
Posted by: Jeremy Powers | May 06, 2011 at 12:05 PM