Topic: Local Lawmakers: Wine
started by: iowegian
Posted by iowegian on Jan. 23 2004,2:25 pm
Proposal would allow grocers to sell wine Jan 24 Trib....The organization also cites a survey conducted by St. Cloud State University that states "59 percent of Minnesotans favor wine sales in grocery stores."
Rep. Dan Dorman, R-Albert Lea, and Sen. Dan Sparks, R-Austin, did not support it during previous legislative sessions, and they are still hesitant.
"Typically, I have not supported it," Dorman said, citing a lack of local interest.
"I don't hear the outcry," he said. "I think the number of people that have asked, 'Hey would you pass this?' is one."
Sparks agreed.
"I opposed it last year," he said, He was concerned about municipal liquor stores.
Its a nice convenience to pick up some wine with food at Northwood's Fallgatter's Grocery. Iowa seems to have more common sense.
We get by just fine with our fire dept, (all volunteer no tax dollars all donations) our Courthouse and county and city elected officals. Please keep your mess north of the border but keep sending businesses and come visit us when we get our new Casino.
Posted by exxtreme one on Jan. 23 2004,2:30 pm
Already got out foot in the door, thanks. ---The Bishops
Posted by Nose for News on Jan. 28 2004,10:57 am
How will Dorman and Sparks Vote this time ?Some like wine legislation; others don't
By Benjamin Dipman, Tribune staff writer
Opinions about a piece of legislation that would put wine on the shelves of grocery stores are not divided down party lines. Instead, they're divided along business lines.
Grocery store owners seem in favor of it, while liquor store owners appear opposed.
The proposed legislation, called Wine With Dinner, promises guarantees from grocery stores in exchange for permission to sell wine. Using liquor license money, grocery stores would train employees, card all sales and maintain or create theft prevention devices.
The idea, according to its sponsor, the Minnesota Grocers Association, is that wine is normally consumed with food, and customers desire the convenience of purchasing wine with food products.
If passed, the new law would affect grocery stores that are greater than 10,000 square feet. In Albert Lea that includes HyVee, Wal-Mart and Nelson's County Market.
Jay Nelson, owner of Nelson's County Market, though he has not heard of the legislation, said he would support it.
But he added, "I don't think the chances of it passing are very good. There are so many independent liquor stores out there and it would take away from their business."
Wal-Mart Manager Alan Suitts would also support it. He is not concerned with liquor stores because he sees wine sold in a grocery stores as an "add-on item."
"If (customers) are looking for a particular wine, they will go to a liquor store. Grocery stores will never be a destination for wine."
Liquor store operators disagree.
Kevin Beseman, owner of Southtown Liquors said if wine were available in grocery stores, it would "definitely" hurt his business.
Saying grocery stores are able to sell wine "at cost," customers might buy from a grocery store instead of a liquor store.
Beseman was also worried about future legislation should Wine With Dinner pass.
"They're trying to use this at a doorstep to get beer in the stores," he said.
Fountain Warehouse Liquor owner Ron Freeman is also against the proposal for two reasons.
First, he thinks it would be difficult for grocery store managers to deter staff from selling to minors, because of the large number of employees in the stores. Regardless of the MGA's promises of enforcement, Freeman said his experience shows it's hard enough to supervise a small group of employees.
The second reason for his opposition is the effect on his business.
"It hurts small retailers," he said. "It takes the little guy out of the business."
Posted by Vicki on Jan. 28 2004,11:13 am
I would hope that Rep. Dorman and Senator Sparks will continue to fight for the small business operator. Selling wine in the grocery store will make it easier for kids to get ahold of alcohol. At night that is all I usually see working in a grocery store. The big guys will sell at cost till everyone else is gone. Then lookout.
Posted by hoosier on Jan. 28 2004,11:13 am
This is one of many things that Minnesota is way behind the times on. It is allowed in 36 other states with no problem. The guy at Warehouse liq. is worried about it taking away from his business? You bet he is, its called competition. Who does competition help? The consumer, me and you. You know you already pay inflated prices for beer and liq. anyway. There is no competition in the wholesale business either. Local liq. stores and bars cannot shop around the state for the best price, the wholesalers have a monopoly on the business in their area. Its not this way in Indiana. I drove truck for a beer distributor, we delivered in all 93 counties of the state. In other words, if that was the way it was here, Southtown Liq. could order its beer from a company in the cities if he could get it cheaper. He gets it cheaper, you get it cheaper. Why are the politicians like Dorman and Sparks against competition like this? Because they are getting donations from this industry to keep things just as they are. Everyone comes out smellin like roses. That is everyone but the consumer.
Posted by Guest on Jan. 28 2004,11:40 am
So now you want cheap booze. Will you sell it to kids too. The social costs are of no concern to you. You are one clueless SOB not to mention a Twit!!! 
Posted by Tiger on Jan. 28 2004,12:14 pm
Everyone wants things cheaper than what they pay for them now. Common sense!! Get a clue Guest.
Posted by iowegian on Jan. 28 2004,12:25 pm
We don't have children staggering though our streets in Northwood every night. Yet we continue to sell wine and beer in our grocery store. Guest's head in the sand thinking is one of the reasons for MN higher taxes .
Keep your strict laws north of the border and keep sending business and businesses, we love it.
Go Vikings (Northwood that is)
Posted by minnow on Jan. 28 2004,12:58 pm
Iowa is exactly right and right on target. It's always...pass bad laws to protect the children...LOL 
Leave the children out of your BS!
"I would hope that Rep. Dorman and Senator Sparks will continue to fight for the small business operator. Selling wine in the grocery store will make it easier for kids to get ahold of alcohol. At night that is all I usually see working in a grocery store. The big guys will sell at cost till everyone else is gone. Then lookout."
----->Don't you see? It's not the function of government to control markets. That's the function of consumers.
In Europe alcohol isn't abused like here because they aren't so anal...figure it out...
Posted by Guest on Jan. 28 2004,1:06 pm
Like your economy is booming in Northwood. You want a casino to strip the last of the few remaining dollars in your town. You have no kids. They graduate and leave for the Twin Cities not Des Moines. I am sure a majority of the posters here do not own businesses and are regular Wal-Mart customers. That's OK not everyone is a Rockefeller but most are clueless how our economy and government work.
Posted by Bob on Jan. 28 2004,1:11 pm
Minnow,Explain to me why government controls the sale of drugs. Shouldn't the consumer dictate the sale of drugs???
Posted by minnow on Jan. 28 2004,1:15 pm
I'm not wasting my time after this post resonding to dumb dumb thinking so.. You cannot understand or differentiate between simple and dumb statements like "dictate the sale" and determining who in business benefits. forget it...you're toast...I won't be back to this thread bub.
Posted by hoosier on Jan. 28 2004,1:20 pm
Kids arent going in the stores themselves to get the liq. anyway, maybe only the stupid ones. If you are under age and you want liq., what do you do? You have a friend that is old enough go in and get it. Besides, think of a kid going into Nelsons and having to walk clear through the store with his liq. if he is underage. How many other adults would see this? It works fine in 36 other states but not here in Minnesota? The liq. store owners should be mad that they cant purchase their product for the cheapest price they can, and in turn pass that savings on to customers. Competition is good, might not be for some local business men that cant hack it if they have any competition, but its good for everyone else. In closing, it works in other states that do it, it will work here also. The only thing stopping it is politics, has nothing to do with common sense.
Posted by Frustrated on Jan. 28 2004,1:27 pm
I would be in favor of selling any kind of liquor in grocery stores available 24 hours a day. This results in lower prices as grocery stores do better volumes on everything. Nevada does it and they don't seem to have problems. Liquor store owners don't like it, but hey - they could sell groceries....
Posted by hoosier on Jan. 28 2004,1:39 pm
Frustrated, I think you are on to something here. Why dont liq. stores just sell liq.? When they sell other things in their store for customers conveniance(spelling?) arent they taking that business away from someone else? When liq. stores stop selling everything but liq., then maybe they would have a leg to stand on, otherwise dont they do the samething they accuse the grocery stores of doing?
Posted by Local guy on Jan. 28 2004,1:42 pm
Let me throw this out. Five years ago I bought a liquor store. I read all the Minnesota Liquor Laws. Purchased all required licenses. Purchased state mandated insurance. Pay my sales and property taxes on time. Borrowed money from my local banker to do this. Now how do I compete with a few multi-billion dollar companies that have millions of dollar to spend at the state legislature to change the rules of the game five years after I get in it. I checked and found out that those 36 states have had wine in grocery since the states came out of prohibition. Minnesota at that time choose not to. Let the grocery store build a liquor store like mine. I'll compete with that. Just as I compete with HyVee's Regal liquor. Just don't change the rules on me.
Posted by Local guy on Jan. 28 2004,1:46 pm
Liquor stores in Minnesota are only allowed to sell wine, beer, spirits and items directly associated such as; cork screws, straws, and soda pop. No chips, nuts or any other grocery item. You cannot legally sell a shirt or jacket with your business name or logo on it. This is Minnesota State Law.
Posted by hoosier on Jan. 28 2004,1:55 pm
A lot of those states let the stores sell beer also, at least I know Indiana does. Local guy, where did you get the info about all 36 states having wine since prohibition? Not disputing your facts, just would like to see it myself. I dont believe that was the case in Indiana, but I may be wrong. I understand your concern, if I were you I would be against this also, but I am not, I am a consumer who would benifit from this competition. No money would be lost overall in town, the sales would still be there, might just not be at your store. Who should the politicians worry about making happy? Thousands of liq. stores, or millions of Minnesotans? Local guy, also, do you sell other things in your store that are non liq. items that are sold in other stores? If so, why? My bet is for the same reason the grocery stores want to sell wine. To make their costomers happy and to make money, right?
Posted by iowegian on Jan. 28 2004,1:58 pm
Guest's personal attacks against posters show the North of the border mentality in running government up there.Its unfortunate debating an issue has to turn so personal . Just show us your facts how this is not good guest.
The Casino will not take our remaining dollars as guest stated . We'll get a lot of the bingo, pull tab, money from your service clubs in Albert Lea. The losers will be the good things that those clubs support with gambling money.
Don't put down Northwood guest just because we are more creative than elected officials north of the border.(Not just Freeborn County but all the way to St. Paul.)
If guest were to run for elected office down here he wouldn't win in but for Albert Lea city council a shoe in and fit just fine.
Local guy: Great point I can understand your frustration.
Posted by jester on Jan. 28 2004,2:05 pm
We don't need gaming. Miss Bishop and Sparkey are gonna turn it all around! LOL 
Posted by Local guy on Jan. 28 2004,2:09 pm
A wealth of information at www.minnesotasmart.com.
Posted by Tiger on Jan. 28 2004,2:18 pm
iowegian, I have to disagree that you would get "lots" of the bingo money and pull tab money from our local clubs in town. The people going to the "Clubs" spending that money on a regular basis are "older" people. Most of these "older" people won't drive 15 miles to spend money in Northwood. They like their local "Elks" club bingo night. It's a social thing for them. I do agree some of the money will come to Northwood but not "lots" like you stated.
Posted by hoosier on Jan. 28 2004,2:58 pm
Thanks local guy, I will check it out. Who sponsors the site? Is it unbiased? Or does it have a political objective?
Posted by hoosier on Jan. 28 2004,3:04 pm
Sorry Local guy, just went to the site you mentioned. That is anything but unbiased opinion. The site is there only to lobby against this law, I wouldnt believe anything I read there. Unless I owned a liq. store. Cooking wine maybe was in the stores for a long time, but nothing like what you said. With all due respect, you will have to pick a different source of info If I am to believe it. That site is like watching the O"Rielly Factor to get fair and balanced news, it aint gonna happen.
Posted by MADDOG on Jan. 28 2004,4:25 pm
I have to agree with hoosier at least to some degree. I know a couple local liquor store owners (the ones in the paper today), but I don't think just wine would hurt their business as much as they think. Still, it would hurt some. Kevin at Southtown has a hard enough time being profitable. Hoosier, Kevin has to drive school bus just for his family to survive.Growing up in a different state myself, grocery stores sold wine and beer. Any convenience store sold beer and wine coolers, and any bar sold carry out beer. The big difference I see here, is that nearly all liquor stores in my hometown state were state owned and independently/privately operated, and liquor stores were the only place you could buy hard liquor, but you couldn't buy wine or beer there.
Posted by Frustrated on Jan. 28 2004,4:57 pm
Local guy - Very good points. If groceries allowed to sell liquor then should be companion legislation allowing liquor stores to sell other things - gas and milk for instance. Competition is good. Customer service at liquor service could improve as well. How about free ice with purchase? AL is the only place I know of that doesn't do that!
Posted by Tiger on Jan. 28 2004,5:01 pm
Southtown Liquor gives you free ice with purchase. Or they used to at least, haven't been down that way in awhile.
Posted by MADDOG on Jan. 28 2004,5:36 pm
Kevin still gives one free bag of ice with purchase. When Eastside Liquor was still in business, Joe told me that they had passed a law, I don't remember when, that liquor stores couldn't sell peanuts, candy bars and so forth anymore. Seems that they were competing with stores that do.
Posted by The Advocate on Jan. 28 2004,5:54 pm
Hey, To a Tee, I could not think of how I could get ahold of you any cheaper, so I miss you and I love you. Have a really great day. We have really enjoyed our trip thus far and we absolutely loved Barbados. Whow! And Chow!
Posted by hoosier on Jan. 28 2004,6:25 pm
Maddog, I consider myself good friends with Kevin, but do we eliminate competition just so people can be guaranteed a living. I would be OK with what Frustrated said, allow the grocery stores to sell wine but allow the carry outs to sell other items that the groceries do. Competition works both ways. I would feel bad for Kevin, dont get me wrong, but I am looking at this from a consumers point of view. And like Minnow said, should the market place, competition and the consumer decide who stays in business and not government controls? Wouldnt we all like to be in a business where politics promises us no competition?
Posted by jimhanson on Jan. 28 2004,10:33 pm
| Quote |
| I have to disagree that you would get "lots" of the bingo money and pull tab money from our local clubs in town. The people going to the "Clubs" spending that money on a regular basis are "older" people. Most of these "older" people won't drive 15 miles to spend money in Northwood. They like their local "Elks" club bingo night. It's a social thing for them. I do agree some of the money will come to Northwood but not "lots" like you stated. |
I mention this because having a Casino, with FULL gambling, only 15 miles away would drain funds from these limited charitable games, as well as providing "cheap eats" subsidized by the gambling profits in the Casino. It would make it hard for the clubs to continue their community service, and would make it even harder to have good dining in town. Not looking for an unfair advantage here, just to have the rules apply equally to the clubs and casinos.
And Tiger, I resent that "older" reference--I'm "only" 56--the same median age as the 2111 other Elks members!
Actually, our median age has gone down dramatically--we have about 325 life members (those who have been members more than 30 years), but for the median age to fall 6 years on average (in only 4 calendar years), it means we are working hard (and succeeding) in signing young family members. Finally, most Bingo players are NOT Elks members--Bingo is open to the general public.
Posted by Tiger on Jan. 29 2004,9:25 am
I don't think I said the people at Elks bingo night were members. Jim have you ever been to a bingo night at the Elks. I went one time and the people were "older". Even older than you. I really don't think the people playing bingo at the Elks will travel to Northwood to play bingo. Like I said before it is a social thing for these people. They see the same faces week after week.
Posted by Frustrated on Jan. 29 2004,11:35 am
Jim - I agree that a casino might have some impact on charitable gaming revenues, but pull-tabs suck anyway. Perhaps the solution is to require a small portion of casino revenues to go to these charities. As far as cheap eats and drinks subsidized by gaming revenues - that won't happen without competition between casinos.
Posted by Frustrated on Jan. 29 2004,11:40 am
PS Jim Sorry, I guess I missed the point about the casino being in Northwood - I'm still stuck on putting one in Albert Lea.
Posted by Old Geezer on Jan. 29 2004,11:41 am
Posted by minnow on Jan. 29 2004,11:44 am
^Wasn't da minner^But I did save a bunch of money by switching to Geico.
Posted by jimhanson on Jan. 29 2004,4:41 pm
Tiger--the "old people" thing was all in fun--I'm not offended (just let me wipe the tears from my eye!) I have to agree, Bingo and pull tabs aren't for me--but they must be for some people, and that's all the State will let charitable gambling have. If a FULL casino opened at Northwood--it would hurt charitable gambling in the local community. As I said last post--not looking for a free ride--just let charitable gambling be regulated the same as what is available across the border.From Frustrated--"Cheap eats and drinks won't happen without competition between casinos"? Look at the indian casinos at Morton, Baraboo, Hinkley, etc. No casino competition close by--but the drinks and eats are cheap as an enticement to get you there.
Posted by Tiger on Jan. 29 2004,5:06 pm
It's hard to be sarcastic in writing Jim. I didn't think you had taken any offense.
Posted by jimhanson on Jan. 30 2004,9:33 am
I'm tellin' ya, this board NEEDS a designated SARCASM SMILEY! 
Posted by Michael Jackson on Jan. 30 2004,11:14 am
As for wine, or as I like to call it Jesus Juice, I think it should be available for everyone anywhere. It is too bad the only place you can really get your fill of Jesus Juice it out at Neverland.
Posted by irisheyes on Jan. 30 2004,11:15 am
It also needs a, "I can't believe minnow just said that", face!
Posted by repdan on Jan. 30 2004,1:58 pm
Hoosier...One might want to check facts before posting. The "pro" side of this is the group with the cash, which is fine by me, just pointing it out.
So maybe you can tell me where I have taken money from "the industry"? In fact, what is "the industry"? Some hidden group of small off sale stores somehow outspending SuperValue?
Posted by ICU812 on Jan. 30 2004,2:11 pm
| Quote (jimhanson @ Jan. 30 2004,9:33:am) |
| I'm tellin' ya, this board NEEDS a designated SARCASM SMILEY! |
A smiley that looks like David Spade or Jerry Seinfeld would work perfect
Posted by Guest on Jan. 31 2004,8:45 pm
Maybe I'm wrong here but if you follow the link that shows< Dan Dorman political contibutors >
In the list of contributors you'll see the largest amount of money comes from "Republican Small Contributions" and if you look at the < Republican Small Contribution sources > you'll see the lions share of this money comes from HOUSE REPUBLICAN PARTY MN CAMPAIGN CMTE
Ok now the last link you need to follow is the list of groups that the < MINNESOTA LICENSED BEVERAGE ASSOC > gives money to. If you scroll down that page you'll see that the MINNESOTA LICENSED BEVERAGE ASSOC gives money to the HOUSE REPUBLICAN PARTY CAMPAIGN CMTE.
So doesn't that mean money goes from the "Minnesota Licensed Beverage Assoc" to the "House Republican Party Campaign Committee" to the "Republican Small Contributions" to Dan Dorman? Or am I just reading that wrong?
Posted by Jesus Juice on Jan. 31 2004,9:24 pm
what is wrong with selling Jesus juice in grocery stores? If Jesus drank it, it must be good.-JJ
Posted by rosebudinal on Jan. 31 2004,9:53 pm
Still I agree that a gambling casino would be a major boon to our community and if they wanted to sell "Jesus Juice" there, fine...but, no hotel/motel onsite. Hopefully, they will travel here and have car problems in order to keep our AUTO PARTS stores in business. What is the deal with all the auto stores anyway, the fact that due to no jobs or productive industry, no one can afford to buy a new vehicle??? Hey, I think I just answered my own question. 
Posted by limp on Jan. 31 2004,11:08 pm
LOL @ rosebud & JJ
Posted by softmoney on Feb. 01 2004,1:07 am
Guest :very interestingThe follow the money database is an excellent post keep up giving info, good work.
Could you check if other legislators voting to stop wine in supermarkets get money from these lobbying associations and post it?
Posted by hoosier on Feb. 01 2004,10:14 am
Guest, thank you very much for that info. Dan Dorman comes here often saying he doesnt take money from this or that. But everytime you push him on it or someone does some digging, we always find out he has his hands in someones pockets. Dan, plain and simple, you take PAC money, you have sold yourslef and your vote, dont try convince people here that you dont. Thanks also Guest for pointing out the industry that Dan and the Republicans take money from, he tried to make it look to people here that there was no industry or PAC watching out for the liq. business. So Dan, you need to get your facts straight before you come in here posting. I believe I have had mine straight on you all along, you are no different than other politicians, you vote with your pocket. You make me sick, and by they, you might scare some people in town, but not me, you are a crooked politician, we should scare you.
Posted by hoosier on Feb. 01 2004,10:57 am
Websters Dictionary- Bribe, anything given or promised as an inducement.Tell me, how is it that taking bribes or offering them is frowned on and even illegal in every country and job on the planet, but one. Our own U.S. politician. Dan will try to spin this as he always does, he has learned the ropes and how to lie all to well during his time in Saint Paul, but when someone hands you money and says we would sure like you to vote this way on this legislation, you are taking a bribe. PAC money is the legal way our criminal politicians have set the system up so they can benifit from these bribes and continue to get elected. All we do is unwittenly cast our votes, but we arent even in the game folks, the people with the money are the ones people like Dan and his buddies in Saint Paul and Washington listen to.
Posted by minnow on Feb. 01 2004,11:10 am
He could easily be beaten by even an average opponent and hope he is. In my view Dan is a big part of the problem. I disagree with most of his votes, even though you could say I'm republican on most issues. He's just more of the typical "Albert Lea trash thinker" that I've learned to despise.
Posted by Voter on Feb. 01 2004,12:54 pm
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Dan vote to lower the legal limit to .08 and also to extend the bar hours? How does that work?
Posted by guest on Feb. 01 2004,1:36 pm
My post was in no way intended to make anyone think Dan Dorman is bought and paid for by this group. It's insane to think that the small amount of money that group gives both the republicans and democrats would influence any politicians vote.I only posted that info because repdan got me thinking after he posted asking "maybe you can tell me where I have taken money from "the industry?". I started wondering where his and other politicians election money comes from and found that site. If you take the time to look over the site you'll see that Dan is no different than any other politician in either party though.
Posted by Concit on Feb. 01 2004,1:47 pm
Guest, the way you back peddled on that post makes me think you may be a politician too.
Posted by minnow on Feb. 01 2004,2:11 pm
"It's insane to think that the small amount of money that group gives both the republicans and democrats would influence any politicians vote."There's a lot of insane people around these parts. You don't have to be insane to be greedy and stupid.
Posted by irisheyes on Feb. 01 2004,10:08 pm
I went thru the first two pages that guest linked to (the 3rd one wouldn't work, I tried it a few times). I ran all the numbers available, my conclusion is, it was a big waste of time. I don't see any rationale that would even give the impression that Dan's vote would be affected by this long maze of circular logic. How much money do you think would funnel thru the two other organizations and end up in repdan's campaign, I doubt it's enough money to pay for one yard sign. Either way, its a weak arguement.
Posted by minnow on Feb. 01 2004,10:21 pm
What's really a weak argument is restricting beer to liquor stores. I'm from Iowa where it's possible to buy beer anywhere and it's been like that since before I was born. Afterall, THIS is where fountain centers is located so don't give me the standard BS argument about more alcoholism.Why must polititions make moral decisions and purchasing decisions on my behalf anyhow!
How dare some retarded son of a tire shop owner dictate where I'll buy beer! And I don't even drink.
Posted by Guest on Feb. 01 2004,10:45 pm
I never said his vote was influenced. (Infact my first post offered no opinion either way). Repdan posted and said that he wanted to be shown where he got money from that group. He didn't ask to prove that his vote was influenced. So I posted the links showing him how he takes money from that group.
Circular logic? It would only be circular if Dorman gave the lobbiest the money back at the end. Besides you don't even believe it to be circular logic yourself that's why you minimize the amount of money that funnels down to his campaign in your very next sentence.
Posted by irisheyes on Feb. 01 2004,11:42 pm
I called it circular logic because your linking several political organizations until you come up with a desired conclusion. I realize though, your post was unbiased as to the issue, but I was directing the part about its influence to other posters that have come to that conclusion (sorry I didn't specify that).Back to the issue of the thread. I don't drink, but I don't have any problem with letting them sell wine or beer in grocery stores, or gas stations either.
Posted by guest on Feb. 02 2004,9:26 am
| Quote |
your linking several political organizations until you come up with a desired conclusion. |
I'm not linking anything. The money creates the link. Also I didn't come to any "desired" conclusion. I looked up where Dorman gets his money. The majority comes from one fund, so I looked up the source of that fund and found that the money in that fund comes comes from 100's of sources and one of them is the Minn Licensed Beverage Assoc.
The website I linked to was called followthemoney.org and that's all I did, I offered no opinion either way and I didn't have a desired conclusion to reach.
Before you accuse someone of manufacturing information or drawing their own conclusion you should verify that the the facts are wrong.(Like I said in the first post I could be wrong)
Posted by repdan on Feb. 02 2004,10:09 pm
Guest....Nice try, but wrong. You are not reading the data, the majority of my money comes from regular folks. If you look towards the bottom of the page you see the pac money and donations of over $100 per person.
You have to go back to 99 for a House Caucus donation. Here's the link to the state site. The one you listed is interesting, but since all 50 states have different ways of reporting it can be misleading. http://www2.mainserver.state.mn.us/cmpfin/index.htm
The MLBA by the way, also donated $1250 to the House DFL caucus in 2002. They donated $1750 to the House Republicans. Only in Hoosiers world can you by 68 votes (needed to pass or stop a bill) for $3000.
Hoosier, boy you really got me! Hey, by the way who paid for the lobbiest to come down from St. Paul to generate the local story.....
Posted by Repdan on Feb. 02 2004,10:14 pm
Oh, I should point out that I have given more money to the caucus then they ever gave me.
Posted by repdan on Feb. 02 2004,10:17 pm
One more thing about follow the follow the money site, because donation are given to a Republican or Dem....they get lumped together. But I can tell you that I have had Rep., Dems. and lots of Ind. give to my campaign.
Posted by minnow on Feb. 02 2004,10:17 pm
So...that doesn't even begin to explain why you somehow feel it's your business to dictate where people can buy beer. Iowa doesn't have a problem...the problem is goofy nuts like you who are arrogant enough to feel it's your right to inconvenice folks because of some misguided moral objection.You always seem ready, able and willing to punish everyone for what a few might or could do. I don't like it..I don't buy it.
Like Donald Trump says....Sir, you're fired...
Posted by repdan on Feb. 03 2004,11:23 am
Minnow,Not sure if you really care about what people post or just like to rant. You may want to read my posts, I did not offer a reason, only commented that if people were concerned about "following the money" that the pro side is spending way more.
From my view, this is not a huge issue and is not being driven by the consumer but from SuperValue and other wholesalers. I havev no problem with them doing that, it's a free country and I support them on other issues.
Had the state never been involved in this to begin with, I would not care, but there are people who invested $$$$$ in their stores and played by the rules the state set up. Now someone else is asking for us to change the rules for them. Humm not sure how fair that is.
Posted by jimhanson on Feb. 03 2004,12:20 pm
| Quote |
| Had the state never been involved in this to begin with, I would not care, but there are people who invested $$$$$ in their stores and played by the rules the state set up. Now someone else is asking for us to change the rules for them. Humm not sure how fair that is. |
The FAA is about to impose a requirement that affects over 80% of all the jets in the United States. The cost will be over $200,000 per airplane. The FAA SAYS that it will save fuel--but every independent study says their assumptions are wrong. It doesn't matter--they are going to put it in place anyway. If a corporation has a jet, there is NO WAY THEY CAN SAVE $200,000 in fuel. The airlines, because of their bigger engines and vastly higher number of operating hours, might save that much--but who do you suppose will pay for the new equipment? THE PASSENGERS.
Like the liquor store issue, these changing government rules open up more issues than they solve. Absent a rationale of safety, should the government be able to mandate actions for fuel economy? It's not in the FAA's charter. If the government TAKES from one party (private owners) for the benefit of others (for-profit airlines), is that right? Who holds the government accountable if their science turns out to be junk? Is it right to, in effect, make passengers pay for government edicts?
This is another issue that would mitigate damages if there were a sunset provision in the law--you would know what the law is, when it expires, and can make plans accordingly. Government touches all aspects of our lives--for example, wouldn't it be nice for farmers to know what government programs are in effect--for how long, at what rate?
Do you ever wonder why many corporations register in Delaware? Most people think it is because it is a low tax state--it is not. The ADVANTAGE of being a Deleware corporation is that they make fewer laws than most states, the laws they DO have are strictly and consistently interpreted, and consequently, people and corporations can plan for the future. Would that ALL states follow their lead!
Posted by repdan on Feb. 03 2004,1:21 pm
Jim.Good points. Way too often the legislature acts before taking into account unintended results.
Posted by BeBack on Feb. 03 2004,3:24 pm
Look at the dairy compact. Government involvement in artifical barriers to free trade result in a tax on the public for the benefit of a very few. The Government interferance with the market has shifted the nations dairy production to Arizona. Tell me how that makes any ¢¢¢¢¢. An over reliance on Government has also recked more than a few businesses due to the fickle nature of the enterprise.
Posted by jimhanson on Feb. 03 2004,4:20 pm
BeBack--I was thinking of exactly that issue when I wrote my last post--more Unintended Consequences of government action. Most people are not aware that government price supports on milk DEPENDS ON THE PRODUCERS DISTANCE FROM EAU CLAIRE, WISCONSIN! The original thought--it will make the Midwest dairy industry the standard, and shore up the small producers on the coasts. It had exactly the opposite effect, encouraging LARGE corporate operations in Arizona and California--closer to population centers, and with more government price supports--causing a precipitous DECLINE in the Midwest dairy industry!Save us from the "do-gooders"--or, as Mark Twain observed (in the language of the times)--"No man's purse is safe while Congress is in Session!
Posted by To A TEE on Feb. 03 2004,9:06 pm
Dan Dorman is the best representative this area has ever had, period! I would like to remind the posters that to cut down every commissioner, council member, community leader, etc. does nothing more than to undermine what influence this forum may have. The inception of the peoples voice was an excellent idea but constructive criticism with positive alternatives is the order of the day, not a constant barrage of child-like bullying one liners.
Posted by Jesus Juice on Feb. 03 2004,9:25 pm
Although you may not agree with anything Dan or Tom have to say, I certainly give them credit for coming in here & posting their thoughts. Most people in any sort of power would not even think of commenting in this type of forum.If you ever read the St. Cloud Times on line you will see their mayor (John Ellenbecker) posts on occasion in their news forum. If you have an inteligent comment and ask with some tack, John will answer.
-JJ
Posted by minnow on Feb. 03 2004,9:27 pm
Kick the bums out!
Posted by Nose for News on Feb. 07 2004,7:22 pm
Wine in grocery stores helps economic developement and creates jobs.Where are our new high tech jobs?
High-tech company opens in Charles City
By KRISTIN BUEHNER, Of The Globe Gazette January 05, 2004
CHARLES CITY - Charles City has gone high-tech in a new Main Street business with roots in the Silicon Valley.
Blue Cube LLC, 413 N. Main St., develops and manufactures liquid crystal display (LCD) monitors for recreational vehicle, marine, medical and industrial use and any number of other customized applications.
Open since November, it is owned by Charles City native Jason Meyer, 33, and his wife, Carolyn, 34. They moved to Charles City from Santa Clara, Calif., in October.
"We wanted to move out of California," said Jason, an electronics research and development specialist. "I always wanted to have my own business."
The high-bright units they produce are designed to be easily read out-of-doors.
Jason said that LCD monitors for marine use was the company's original focus.
But he is working on a prototype for medical packs for filmless X-rays and has a contract to produce factory work stations for Cambrex Inc. in Charles City.
He is also working on a touch-screen informational kiosk system that he hopes to sell to large grocery chains. The kiosk would be available to customers to help choose wine or specialty breads or any products or services offered by the store, Jason said.
"We can do any design from concept to finished product," Jason said. "I like doing specialized products, things other people can't do, being on the cutting edge."
The building they are leasing, which includes a working freight elevator, is the former Hovey Automotive building, which had been vacant for three years, said Charles City Community Development Director Jim Thompson.
The Meyers are still remodeling, but plan to have a reception area in the front room; a room for optical bonding, film enhancements and touch-screen assembly; and a full-assembly room on the second floor. A basement area will be used for storage.
The Meyers have hired three employees and plan to hire three additional people in January. Their end-of-the-year target is to employ 15 to 20 people. Technical skills are essential.
The Meyers have two sons, Alex, 10, and Cyrus, 14 months.
You can reach the Blue Cube at (641) 228-2818 or at www.bluecubelcd.com.
Posted by DrBombay on Jul. 21 2004,1:41 am
3.2 beer is allowed in convenience stores in other towns in Minnesota. I believe Albert Lea's city ordinance is the reason for it not being sold in Grocery stores here.