Dan Severson, Republican from House District 14A, has been serving the district since his first election in 2002. Unfortunately, during that time his legislative record reflects a partisan unwilling to support even the most bipartisan of measures.
On education, I have already discussed the meaningless platitudes offered by Severson on his error riddled campaign site. However, his voting record reflects a bias against public education on the scale of the anti-public education organization known as Edwatch. In the past two sessions he has consistently voted against funding for both K-12 education and higher education. He voted against a one time revenue increase for K-12 education and last year voted TWICE against funding for higher education. The higher education funding Severson opposed would have provided $10 million in grants to veterans and their families in the state. In addition to these grants, the higher education appropriations bill would have established a Minnesota GI Bill Program.
Severson has been a consistent voice against working people in his district and throughout the state by voting against minimum wage increases as well as appropriations for a medical study to "conduct an industry-specific study of workers' health that includes a comprehensive study of lung health."
On vote after vote, Severson demonstrates that he is unwilling to provide even the most basic support to the people living within his district and people living throughout the state. He appears to be much more concerned with providing the public with overtly racist videos and forcing citizens to remain married through government imposed mandates.
On education, I have already discussed the meaningless platitudes offered by Severson on his error riddled campaign site. However, his voting record reflects a bias against public education on the scale of the anti-public education organization known as Edwatch. In the past two sessions he has consistently voted against funding for both K-12 education and higher education. He voted against a one time revenue increase for K-12 education and last year voted TWICE against funding for higher education. The higher education funding Severson opposed would have provided $10 million in grants to veterans and their families in the state. In addition to these grants, the higher education appropriations bill would have established a Minnesota GI Bill Program.
Severson has been a consistent voice against working people in his district and throughout the state by voting against minimum wage increases as well as appropriations for a medical study to "conduct an industry-specific study of workers' health that includes a comprehensive study of lung health."
On vote after vote, Severson demonstrates that he is unwilling to provide even the most basic support to the people living within his district and people living throughout the state. He appears to be much more concerned with providing the public with overtly racist videos and forcing citizens to remain married through government imposed mandates.
3 responses to "Dan Severson: A Legislative Record... (To Hide From)"
Excuse me??? Dan Severson shows a bias against public education??? Is that because he would've rather voted for Gov. Pawlenty's bigger education budget than voting for the miniscule DFL budget?
Gov. Pawlenty's budget called for a 4%/4% increase while the DFL budget called for a 2%/1% increase.
Rep. Severson's "legislative record reflects a partisan unwilling to support even the most bipartisan of measures"? Is that opinion based on your ignoring his work with your hero Larry Haws on the very bipartisan veterans bill??? Or is it based on your ignoring the very bipartisan Tax Conformity Law that was the first bill signed by Gov. Pawlenty in the 2007 session?
You're entitled to your opinions. You just aren't entitled to create 'facts'.
Eric, if you insist on making this type of accusation based on such inaccurate information, don't be surprised if your credibility disappears.
Bev Scalze, Julie Bunn, Denise Dittrich, Tom Huntley voted against HF 3149. Does that mean that these legislators demonstrate that they are unwilling to provide even the most basic support to the people living within his district and people living throughout the state, too?
BTW, of the Override 6, only Kathy Tinglestad voted against HF 3149. Does that mean that they demonstrate that they are unwilling to provide even the most basic support to the people living within his district and people living throughout the state, too?
I wouldn't say that your argument is flimsy because I wouldn't want to give flimsy a bad reputation.
It sounds like Dan is a breath of fresh air and if I lived in his district I would certainly support him. My impression is that he evaluates bills in the bigger picture and then decides whether to vote for them or not.