The American Legislative Exchange Council or ALEC, the conservative corporate legislation factory that tries to get around lobbyist regulations by pretending not to be a lobbying group, has its gold-plated tentacles in every state legislature in the country. To see what a typical ALEC zombie does, let’s study the case of one Steve Drazkowski, who we have met before in these pages.
Drazkowski is one of organ grinder ALEC’s most dependable trained monkeys in the Minnesota state legislature. He’s currently the point man for their “Reform 2.0″ project, called “Deform 2.0″ by those who distrust the group’s penchant for hiding from the public gaze except in venues and formats they tightly control. Deform 2.0 is essentially ALEC’s plan to do to Minnesota what Prop 13 did to California: destroy the schools, programs and other infrastructure of the state, all in the holy name of tax cuts. Of course, that’s not how Draz discusses the plan in his carefully-scripted traveling medicine shows crisscrossing the North Star State.
Here’s what one Minnesotan who attended a recent Draz medicine show had to say:
In What are Rep. Drazkowski’s priorities?, the Kellogg MN man shares the answer with readers of the Winona Daily News:
I asked Drazkowski if it was true he voted against legislation that would have raised revenue by closing tax loopholes for corporations making money in Minnesota but sheltering it in tax havens overseas. (The Minnesota Department of Revenue estimates the amount to be $90 million per year.) He said he opposed this legislation because it would have meant “raising taxes” on those corporations and he was opposed to raising taxes of any kind. I think most Minnesotans would not consider this “raising taxes,” but as requiring those corporations to pay their fair share.
It’s been said the most radical idea in America is a long memory. McMillan demonstrates why when he reminds readers of priorities Draz claimed before the last session:
Before the session began, Drazkowski stated in a guest editorial: “Personally, my top priorities are our kids, our elderly and vulnerable adults, our roads and bridges and public safety.”
Perhaps when he proposed chopping down black walnut trees in state parks, he was only thinking of the children.
Braaaaaainnnnsss…. he wants your braaaaaainsssss… and your walnut treeeeees…




29 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
PW!
When a conservative says “my top priorities are our kids, our elderly and vulnerable adults,” it is time to hide the kids and granny and load your rifle.
….braaaaaaaainnnssss…
Erm, hello!
DrDick!
Oh, they are his top priorities — for victimizing.
When they say “priorities,” they mean targets.
Yupper!
All the language distortion just drives me batty. Recent lie: bail rather than flat out ransom for the three who wandered into Iran. “We don’t pay ransom.” Yeah, right….we get someone else to pay ransom for us but we call it ‘bail.’ Companies who hide their revenue overseas would see a “tax increase” if they paid their taxes. Yep, more right.
George Orwell’s shade is shaking its head in despair.
American (?) corporations pay taxes? Really. I paid more than GE last year, and I did not earn even close to $1 billion. They made more. (I got no kickbacks, neither!)
Well, obviously, Mikey, you just aren’t doing it Right.
And, yep, we are totally screwed.
I think each of us paid more than half of the Forbes 400 companies combined.
I think there is a golden-tipped Trident missile somewhere with my name (as a patriotic American taxpayer) engraved on it.
pw!
Suz!
Like how it’s no longer the War Department but the Department of Defense.
Soon perhaps to be known as the Department of World Universalism. Poor fools don’t even know that our empire is fading fast. Sorry they are taking us down with them.
I got another Obama mailer today. A “Dear Diane” letter that annoyed the heck out of me. Hope I wasn’t too rude when I wrote, “Dear Barack, Fuck off. Sincerely, Diane.”
Dr. D… As an Anthropologist, would you say that ‘mankind’ has prospered more under Matriarchies, than under Patriarchies, en toto…?
Plus, we got Homeland Security. I feel better; don’t you? And those airport scanners…I usually charge for the money shot.
No way to know as there has never been a matriarchy (or at least not that we know of).
Ah, yes. That was Joe Lieberman’s brilliant idea, which the Republicans originally opposed because a nominal Democrat dreamed it up — until Karl Rove realized it could be used as a stalking horse to attack the Federal unions. (Notice that once TSA was a done deal, Republicans loved it right up until a Federal court ruled its employees could unionize?)
Not a true, empirical Matriarchy, but, how about quasi ones, in say, Katherine I, Victoria, Elizabeth I, Lucretia Borgia, etc…?
Those were women rulers in strongly patriarchal societies (their family status trumped their gender status) and all notably blood thirsty. You could add the Dowager Empress of China to your list.
There are a number of societies around the world (or there were in the recent past) where there is a balance of power between men and women, each having their own sphere of influence and power and neither dominating the other. There is no clear pattern among these societies, which include some very warlike groups (i.e., the Iroquois) and others (the Musuo for instance) who are generally peaceable.
There’s the Akwesasne (or Mohawk) nation, which while its warriors are men, is run by women — and which fought both the British and US forces to standstills in the lands bordering the Saint Lawrence River. As a result, they got a much better deal from the US and the British (and later Canadians) than other tribes got.
Hey, I must go beddy-bye. Be excellent to each other and to Suz, ok?
Sorry, but that characterization of women’s power is simply wrong. All of the leadership of the Iroquois (of whom the Mohawk are part) were male. Female clan elders held considerable influence and nominated men from their clans to replace deceased chiefs, as well as having the power to depose chiefs they disliked. It was the male chiefs, however, who decided whether to accept these candidates and made all decisions affecting the group as a whole. The clan clan mothers advised the chiefs in council, but could not speak there. The women also controlled all the food and used that control to influence policy as well. There are even instances when they stopped a war, after the chiefs had decided on it, by refusing to provide food to the war parties.
Those were women rulers in strongly patriarchal societies (their family status trumped their gender status) and all notably blood thirsty. You could add the Dowager Empress of China to your list.
There’s been several Dowager Empress’ over the 5 Millennia or so…! One thing I would state about all those women, the Arts had thrived under them…! ;-)
Night, time for me to toddle off as well. Take care all.
Pleasant dreams, Dr. D and PW…!
*cough* … not a good night to be fans of the Sox & Braves …
I didn’t want to watch the final Death throes of my Cardiac Sox…! 8-(