The top Republican lawmaker on the Minnesota legislature’s tax committee is slamming Gov. Tim Walz, over “bad” and “lazy” tax policy pertaining to the state’s excise tax on gasoline, which the lawmaker indicated hurts lower-income residents in his state the most. 

“There’s generally some pretty strong resistance to putting anything on inflators, because that – I call it the ‘lazy man’s tax increase’ – because what you do then is you never have to come back through the legislature to justify another tax increase,” said Rep. Greg Davids, the top Republican guiding tax policy in the state. “Some rich person, if [the excise tax] is on an inflator and it goes up 10 cents a gallon, they say, so what? But for the person in the district I represent, that drives 35 miles to work at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, or different jobs in Rochester, that’s a lot of money, and now it goes up every year, no matter what.”

Davids has been on the state legislature’s tax committee for nine terms, including three as chair and four as Republican lead, and he argued Friday that the decision to tie the state’s gas tax to an index was “very poor tax policy,” citing its regressive nature and the fact that it is “hurting the poorest of the poor” the hardest.

WALZ FACES BACKLASH AFTER DEFENDING OBAMA-ERA MANDATE REPEALED BY TRUMP: ‘MASSIVE TAX PENALTY’

“I try to stay away from regressive taxes. I try to stay away from inflators,” Davids said. “Because if your cause is good enough, you’ll get your increase. But to put something out there, where it just happens with no representation of the people, that’s bad tax policy in my estimation.”

In 2019, Walz’s first budget proposal as governor intended to increase the state’s gas tax 70%, which would have made the state among those with the highest gasoline excise tax in the nation, behind California, Pennsylvania, Washington and Illinois. The proposal was passed by the Democrat-controlled House but stalled once it made it to the Senate. 

Later, during an election year in 2022, Walz called on the federal government to suspend the federal excise tax on gasoline. Minnesota Republican Party Chair David Hann called the move a “laughable political stunt” at the time, considering that Walz and his Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party (DFL) colleagues have “always supported” increasing the gas tax. 

Currently, Minnesota’s gas tax ranking is on the lower end of the spectrum, but that will change after next year’s index increase. Such an increase will move Minnesota up the list 11 spots, making it the 21st-highest in the nation.

BLUE STATE REGULATORS COULD HIKE PRICE AT PUMP JUST DAYS AFTER ELECTION, GOP LAWMAKERS WARN

Minnesota’s current average cost of gas stands at $3.06, according to AAA, which is a decrease from $3.43 from a year ago. This photo shows a gas pump. (Getty Images)

Under Walz, the state of Minnesota did see tax cuts for the middle class, such as an increased child tax credit and reducing the Social Security tax rate. However, Davids questioned what Walz and his fellow DFL members did to squander a record high nearly $18 billion budget surplus in 2023. Meanwhile, by 2026, the state of Minnesota is expected to see a roughly $1.5 billion deficit, Davids said.

VANCE RIPS WALZ ON ECONOMY, SAYS HE’S FORCED TO ‘PRETEND’ TRUMP DIDN’T LOWER INFLATION

Other measures under Walz included efforts to increase taxes on corporations and the wealthy, such as a new “surtax” on long-term investment income.

The Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan tax policy nonprofit in the nation’s capital, called Walz an “outlier” when it comes to his tax policy, compared to those of Harris’ other potential running mates, including Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro and Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear. 

Governors Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, Tim Walz of Minnesota and Andy Beshear of Kentucky. All three are long-time Democrats.

“Governors bring executive experience. They also bring policy records that are more concrete than those of legislators, in the sense that a governor’s signature or veto makes (or prevents) law in a way that one vote in Congress rarely does,” the Foundation wrote in a report published several weeks ago outlining Walz’s tax policy as the governor of Minnesota. “Observers will doubtless scrutinize Walz’s record as governor to get a sense of what policies he may favor at the federal level and what that may say about the Harris-Walz ticket.”

Fox News Digital reached out to Walz’s press office and the Harris-Walz campaign for comment but did not receive an on-the-record response.

The rumors and conspiracy theories in Hurricane Helene’s wake came armed and dangerous: Government relief was a green light for property confiscation; funds had immediately run dry; the storm itself had been engineered by the government for the benefit of Kamala Harris’ campaign. Meterologists suffered death threats. In North Carolina, FEMA workers stopped knocking on doors out of fear that militia members were after them. In Tennessee, a church-group volunteer stood between federal helpers and angry open-carry gun-toting locals. And at least one arrest, of a man armed with a rifle and a handgun, took place in North Carolina.

The paranoia in hurricane country, with its undercurrent of violence, is just the latest sign of a new wrinkle in American gun ownership, something scholars have started describing as gun culture 3.0. The 1.0 version is firearm ownership based on hunting, often animated by a mythologized Western frontier. Gun culture 2.0 is self-defense-oriented, motivated by overwhelming concerns about violent crime that emerged in the 1960s. For years, gun-owning Americans have told pollsters that the No. 1 reason they own guns is to protect themselves in dangerous situations.

But that broad motivation conceals a shift in what many — though not all — gun owners feel they now need protection against. Borrowing from the militia movement, which identifies government tyranny as a key reason for firearms ownership, Gun culture 3.0 is all about perceived political threats unleashed by those no longer invested in normal guardrails — whether rogue government agents or rogue private individuals.

Of course, gun culture 3.0 raises the question of what will happen after Nov. 5. Regardless of what the American electorate does on election day, it’s hard to imagine a scenario that doesn’t enable violence.

In fact, it has already begun.

In Arizona, where I live, the Democratic Party office in Tempe was shot up three times over the last two months — and closed this month, its staff worn down by the threat of sprayed bullets. In Pima County, the Democratic office reset its public hours in light of incoming violent threats. Election workers scared for their lives are so common now, the change hardly made news.

Meanwhile, two assassination attempts against former President Trump almost feel unremarkable. Even the near-miss first attempt failed to register — one poll taken in the days after found that roughly 30% of Biden supporters (he was still in the race) downplayed the severity of the situation, suggesting that the attempt might have been staged. A similar slice of Republicans feel the same way about mass shootings.

Political violence and threats are looking like a feature, not a bug, of American politics.

Although gun owners are modestly more likely to believe that political violence is justified than their non-gun-owning counterparts, they are not more likely to express willingness to engage in such violence. Nevertheless, there is evidence that certain subgroups of gun owners may be. According to a recent study, 42% of assault-style-weapon owners say political violence could be justified, as did 56% of gun owners who carry all or most of the time.

Such attitudes betray right-wing distrust of government and a hard-line embrace of the 2nd Amendment. And yet, the same study reported that 44% of a different but potentially overlapping subgroup — new gun owners — also agreed that political violence could be justified. Disproportionately, new gun owners are women and people of color, and they tend to lean liberal as compared with existing gun owners. They too are part of an emergent gun culture 3.0.

In fact, a study published this summer in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine found that new gun owners are much more likely to be motivated by political concerns with regard to protective force than other issues: They want protection during rallies and demonstrations, and they are especially worried about violence from people who don’t share their political beliefs. Black gun owners — long-standing or new — in particular worried about police violence.

These data points suggest that Americans across the spectrum are turning to firearms as a tool of last resort to regain — as “bad feminist” and new gun owner Roxane Gay recently put it — “ways to not feel out of control.” And our divisive and distrustful politics are driving them there.

Some think political violence resolves itself, that it is its “own worst enemy,” because the backlash it causes renews people’s commitment to civility, and a fundamental, despite-our-differences unity. But waiting for political violence to shock Americans back from the brink can’t be the only way to stem the division and fear behind gun culture 3.0.

In Tennessee when armed antagonists approached aid workers in the aftermath of Hurricane Helene, the woman who stepped between them listened. “People just need to be heard,” she told a reporter, “I said, ‘I hear you.’ ” But she also pointed out what they could see for themselves: storm victims being helped, not exploited.

We can depolarize everyday life, calling out divisive behavior and labeling disinformation for what it is, even among our political allies, and working — no matter how hard it might be — to approach those on the “other side” with curiosity. Maybe even compassion.

Neither gun ownership nor gun limits will address the underlying fear and polarization that feeds gun culture 3.0. We have to address our withered capacity to live with one another.

Jennifer Carlson is the founding director of the Center for the Study of Guns in Society at Arizona State University and a 2022 MacArthur fellow.

Louisiana House candidate Elbert Guillory released an advertisement explaining his decision to switch from the Democratic to the Republican Party, arguing it is the GOP that has the history of championing the rights of the Black community.

“It was the right decision, not only for me, but for all my brothers and sisters in the Black community,” Guillory said in the ad, explaining his decision. “The Democratic Party has created the illusion that their agenda and their policies are what’s best for Black people. Somehow, it’s been forgotten that the Republican Party was founded in 1842 as an abolitionist movement.” 

The ad comes just over a week before Guillory faces off with four other candidates in Louisiana’s primary election, with Guillory being the only Republican candidate in the field.

TRADITIONALLY DEM LEADERS IN KEY MICHIGAN VOTING BLOC DITCH HARRIS, ENDORSE TRUMP

Louisiana uses a majority-vote system, with all candidates, regardless of party, competing in the same election. If a candidate is able to get over 50% of the vote, that candidate wins the election outright. If no candidate is able to achieve the 50% mark, the two top candidates will then compete in a runoff election the following month.

Guillory served in the Louisiana House from 2007 to 2009 and the state Senate from 2009 to 2016. He switched his party affiliation from Democrat to Republican during his time in the state Senate in 2013.

In his new ad, Guillory explained the decision as a simple one, arguing that Democrats have done little to actually help the Black community.

“The Democrats, on the other hand, were the party of Jim Crow. It was Democrats who defended the rights of slave owners,” Guillory said. “It was the Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who championed the Civil Rights Act of 1957, but it was the Democrats in the Senate who filibustered the bill.”

Dwight D. Eisenhower poses for a portrait before his inauguration to become president of Columbia University on June 1, 1948, in New York City. (Irving Haberman/IH Images/Getty Images)

FOX NEWS POWER RANKINGS: VOTER OUTREACH, BALLOT EFFICIENCY AND A LITTLE HOUSEKEEPING

Guillory is making the pitch to voters in a district that is now much more competitive for Democrats after the state’s maps were redrawn in 2022, with the Cook Political Report rating the race as “Solid Democratic” as of Oct. 22.

Nevertheless, Guillory is standing behind his decision to switch parties.

“At the heart of liberalism is the idea that only a great and powerful big government can be the benefactor of social justice for all Americans,” he said in the ad. “But the left is only concerned with one thing, control, and they disguise this control as charity programs such as welfare, food stamps.”

Voter services van in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, Tuesday, Oct. 22, 2024. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke)

“These programs aren’t designed to lift Americans out of poverty,” he continued, “They were always intended as a mechanism for politicians to control the Black community. The idea that Blacks, or anyone for that matter, need the government to get ahead in life is despicable.”

Get the latest updates from the 2024 campaign trail, exclusive interviews and more at our Fox News Digital election hub.