It is difficult to disagree with the Alliance for Better Minnesota (ABM) and their aims, when they state them as they do, but how many of us really recognize the issues when described this way? For those not familiar with how the English language can be twisted for propaganda purposes, I offer a translation and comment.
"Continue Minnesota’s push to create clean energy jobs and protecting our natural resources from extreme Republican legislation." This means government should continue to favor energy that costs 3 times more than conventional sources, "creating" jobs at $250,000 each while eliminating two other jobs, while doing almost zero (less than one part in 100 million reduction in CO2, if that even matters) for the environment. That "extreme Republican" stuff is just boilerplate for when Republicans are right on an issue. You see it a lot.
"Fight back against Republican efforts to make it hard for legal voters to vote." What this really means is that the DFL favors making it easy for ILLEGAL voters to vote, thereby corrupting the integrity of Minnesota elections. From what I know about our current Secretary of State, I would be amazed if any election was fair. The only reason for hope is Hugh Hewitt's book title "If It Ain't Close They Can't Cheat."
"Holding corporations using profits to buy elections accountable to their customers." That means we want to completely excuse unions and other liberal special interests from using FORCED dues and forced taxpayer dollars to buy elections. I know when I saw Target stand up to these liberal bullies, I doubled my shopping there. Too bad I can't choose to withhold the "profits" of the teachers union.
"Preventing Republicans from stripping rights away from LGBT Minnesotans, and helping advance anti-bullying legislation." This would first require that LBGT Minnesotans be granted some new special rights and privileges that they have never had, which is what ABM wants. "Anti-bullying legislation" is just a way of forcing everyone, starting with children, to accept that which they do not want to accept. It's bullying.
"Preventing the most vulnerable from being cut from health insurance coverage, driving up costs for everyone." The flaw in this formulation is that cuts to government health insurance-- if there are ever true cuts-- always start, as perhaps they should, with those LEAST vulnerable-- those who could afford some form of coverage if government wasn't so quick and willing to provide it. The cost of health coverage could be reduced drastically if government would simply get OUT of the health care business.
"Protecting eduction [sic] funding, keeping class sizes low, and paying our teachers what they're worth." We can't spell education, but the underqualified (based on results)and overpaid union teachers need more money to be less effective with fewer students. Education funding is, after all, DFL funding.
"Push to fund a jobs bill before tax cuts for big business." We believe that the legislature should repeal the laws of economics, whereby business income and expansion creates jobs. Being 47th best of the 50 states in business climate isn't enough; we need to be 49th, next to last.
"Restore tax fairness to Minnesota." We should further punish success and reward failure in the economy. Being the 4th highest taxing state in the nation isn't good enough; we want to be number 1!
"Stop Republican attempts to gerrymander new districts to their advantage." Unlike the other items, it is difficult to see how this particular language is going to appeal to the general public. It would not be any more palatable if they said they would stop DFL attempts to gerrymander new districts. Including this as their last point simply lets slip the truth that all of these items are on the DFL's hyper-partisan wish list, not some unbiased listing of desirable public policy.
The political left and their media allies have long used language to elude rather than to elucidate. When they traduce, we must translate.