I read Charlie Weaver's Star Trib commentary this morning and was nodding my head. 

The top 10 percent already account for more than half of state income taxes. And they pay more in overall state and local taxes than 70 percent of taxpayers combined. That seems pretty fair.

Minnesota can't afford to engage in this kind of class warfare. The global recession has focused everyone's attention on the importance of a strong economy, the jobs it provides and the tax dollars it generates. "Tax the Rich" might be a good campaign slogan, but the future of our state depends on tax and spending policies that encourage business investment, job creation and economic growth.

I couldn't agree more.  Charlie Weaver is the Executive Director of the Minnesota Business Partnership and the  Coalition of Minnesota Businesses is their 501(c)(3) public-policy arm.  Last week Politics in Minnesota interviewed Weaver in "Some advocacy groups eyeing legislative races"

Weaver said this kind of advocacy is “critical. Pieces like that are meant to educate as much as anything. Often what we find in education reform you need to start at the grassroots. If parents don’t care, legislators don’t care.”

Weaver said the Coalition is both criticizing DFLers who voted against alternative licensure and supporting DFLers like Sens. Terri Bonoff and Kathy Saltzman who voted for it.

“Specifically, on that vote, there were some courageous Democrats and we will support them,” Weaver said.

The Coalition will continue to target voters on education issues. The group’s method of communicating will include newspaper ads, lawn signs, and, in some areas, television.

Why did the Coalition of Minnesota Businesses-- knowing that Senator Bonoff is a bold, proud tax-increaser--support her campaign with independent expenditures extolling her virtue on an alternative licensure for teachers vote?  Because this is the number one concern of Minnesota businesses?  No.  Because they think she'll win, so they place their chips.

Oh, but Bonoff was just quoted in the Strib standing strong against "taxing the rich" you say?    Per Bonoff, from the Star Tribune May 11, 2010.

"It was not a tough vote for me," said Sen. Terri Bonoff, of her vote Monday against raising income taxes by $435 million. That's not to say Bonoff's Minnetonka constituents want fewer services. She says most high-wage earners in her district might stomach higher taxes -- just not higher income taxes."

"I'm not tax-averse, but it has to make sense," she said.

I'l say she isn't adverse...she voted on a tax hike on top wage earners only 12 months earlier when she voted "YAY" on May 8, 2009 to increase the top tier.  Per H.F. 885 Conference Committee which read:

Section 1

Individual income tax rates.  Adds a new 9 percent rate at $250,000 of taxable income for married joint filers, with the threshold adjusted for other filing statuses ($125,000 for married separate filers, $141,250 for single filers, and $212,500 for head of household filers).  Sunsets the 9 percent rate after tax year 2013 if the February 2013 forecast shows an unrestricted general fund balance of $500 million or more. Effective date:  tax year 2009

So, was that a tough vote for her?  Nah.  It's not tough to vote for what you really want:  higher taxes on those who are already taxed enough.  But, it's really not tough to not vote for the things you want when it's an election year favoring your opponent's party.  Such is the way of an ambitious flip-flopping politician.

Can I ask why the political reporter at the Star Tribune, Rachel Stassen-Berger, has such a bad memory and doesn't ask the obvious question:  Senator Bonoff, if your constituents don't want higher income taxes, why did you vote last year to raise their income taxes?  Do these reporters even casually follow critical votes and have any memory or do any research?

Don't get me wrong.  I like business.  I like big business.  I like small business.  I like anybody who produces jobs and creates prosperity.  What I don't like is their "advocacy" groups helping an already well-funded DFL candidate who has clearly voted to raise taxes on the same people who create jobs.  These groups like to "educate" the public.  Perhaps their members need to be educated too.

• Bonoff voted for a $1 Billion tax increase one year ago that would have signficantly raised income taxes in Minnesota. (which Gov. Pawlenty vetoed)
• Bonoff bragged about leading the charge to override Pawlenty's veto of the $6 Billion tax increase two years ago.

Maybe the business executives who give money to this group like Billions of dollars in new taxes that the DFL and moderate Republicans have brought us.  Who knows, maybe they really liked Bonoff's attempt to completely ban cell phone use while driving in Minnesota a few months ago.  I mean, if that isn't business-friendly legislation, what is?

The recent Supreme Court ruling, which allows corporations to play on a level playing field with the Unions in the game of political ads, is a good thing.  But don't make the mistake of thinking it will lead to more conservative leadership at the state or federal level.  It will only lead to where it always leads....giving large special interest groups an easy way to place their bets on the winners so that they earn a spot at the table.

Americans are waking up to the game.  We understand what's going on and we don't like it. 

If you don't like the game, donate to Norann Dillon today.