True North

DFL gubernatorial candidate Matt Entenza thinks that "wind industry and alternative energy will be a source of economic development for southwest Minnesota and the entire state..." In making this statement, Entenza also took the obligatory shot at Gov. Pawlenty, albeit a mild one:

The wind industry and alternative energy will be a source of economic development for southwest Minnesota and the entire state, Entenza said. But the present administration is doing little to lead Minnesota in the development of wind energy and other alternative jobs, Entenza said.

The wind industry and alternative energy will be a source of economic development for southwest Minnesota and the entire state, Entenza said. But the present administration is doing little to lead Minnesota in the development of wind energy and other alternative jobs, Entenza said.

"This is next big push in the economy for Minnesota, and the state government needs to play a role," Entenza said.

There's a bigger question that Mr. Entenza must answer about state government involving itself in the building of wind farms. Specifically, why should government determine which industries get preferential treatment and which industries get stuck with higher taxes? Shouldn't state government policy be that we'll get out of the way for all industries?

Shouldn't state policy avoid favoring industries that liberal special interest groups push?

Let's have Mr. Entenza explain why it's good to keep taxes low for industries that the DFL's special interest allies support but it's unacceptable policy to keep taxes low for existing small businesses. Let's remember that the last DFL legislature tried creating a new income tax bracket.

Most importantly, let's ask the biggest question: Shouldn't small business owners across the state, whether they're in St. Cloud, Brainerd, Alexandria, Forest Lake Eden Prairie or Jordan, demand the same treatment that Mr. Entenza is proposing to give wind energy-related businesses?

Finally, shouldn't Mr. Entenza's statements be interpreted as an admission that tax cuts would have a significant impact on Minnesota's economy?

Comments welcome at LFR.