First Jesse Ventura, now Al Franken! God help us. Is it any wonder the state bird is the loon ?

It's taken eight months of waiting, but we all know now that Al Franken's next comedy gig will be in Washington, D.C. He'd better be prepared, because he's going to have a lot of competition there

Minnesota has delivered exactly what the Democrats in the Senate want: A guaranteed, automatic, no-questions-asked yes vote on every Democratic whim the Senate comes up with. I report, U decide.

Under a flat income tax there would be one rate--Mr. Forbes recommends 17%, with a personal exemption of $13,000 per adult and $4,000 per child or dependant, along with a $1,000 per child tax credit. Thus a family of four would pay no federal income tax on its first $46,000 of income. There would be no double taxation of dividends, no capital gains taxes, death taxes, or taxes on Social Security benefits. The tax return would be simpler and easier to fill out: From your wages and salary subtract your personal and dependent exemptions and multiply the result by 17%. It would almost be a tax on a postcard, a huge improvement over the massive complexity of the Internal Revenue Code. (Corporate profits would be taxed at a flat 17% too.)

So what would the impact of such a system be on Federal tax receipts? Very positive, because income tax rate reductions tend to raise income tax receipts. The Kennedy income tax cuts of the 1960s reduced top rates from 91% to 71% and boosted revenues by one-third, raising the four-year average annual tax revenue growth from 2.1% to 8.6%. The Reagan tax rate reductions of the 1980s saw tax revenue increase 56% over eight years.
The reason for such increases in tax receipts is economic growth--lower tax rates mean higher economic growth, more investments, more jobs, greater incentive for people to work harder to earn more money, and thus the economy expands, which in turn means more government tax revenue. I report, U decide.

Celebrating independence and individual liberties

I was very glad to see the column about staying in the Minnesota Republican Party, because I also believe that it’s worth working with the party to restore our republic (“Why we’re staying with the Minnesota GOP,” June 26).

While it’s true the party has drifted in recent years from its core principles of fiscal responsibility and indi­vidual and property rights, I am encouraged to see so many members renewing their interest in and commit­ment to constitutionally limited government.

I am home-schooling my children this summer on the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. The first lesson teaches the balance between internal government by conscience and external government by force. More of one means less of the other. The larger and more intrusive that government becomes in our lives, the less freedom we have as individuals.

From the federal takeover of automotive companies to the state sales tax to fund arts and trails, the Democrats are making entire segments of commerce and society dependent on government.

When we celebrate our independence as a nation, it’s a good time to remind ourselves that this country was founded to protect the inalienable rights of the individ­ual, and I will work with the Minnesota GOP to fight for the liberties and privileges established for us 233 years ago.

Norann Dillon, Plymouth

The writer is secretary for the Republican Liberty Caucus of Minnesota.

The purpose of the McCaine=Feingold Act is to control and limit contributions and advertising for federal political candidates up for election.

The bill would require labor unions to notify non-union employees that if they file an objection, they are entitled to have their agency fees reduced by an amount equal to the portion of fees used for political purposes.

Labels like “conservative” and “liberal” are, of course, imperfect. Political scientists often say judges are liberal to the extent they tend to vote in favor of, say, criminal defendants, environmental groups, people suing over injuries and plaintiffs claiming discrimination.