May 17-18, 2011
May 17-18, 2011
In his letter to Speaker Zellers and Majority Leader Koch , Gov. Dayton said that he'd meet the Republicans halfway on his tax-the-rich scheme. Here's how he framed it:
The math falls apart once it's remembered that Gov. Dayton's first budget called for 2 new tax brackets: the 10.95% bracket and the additional 3% surcharge bracket for people making $500,000 a year or more.
The minute the February forecast was published, dropping the projected deficit from $6.2 billion to $5.03 billion, Gov. Dayton dropped the 3% income tax surcharge entirely. Just by dropping that 3% income tax surcharge, Gov. Dayton would have cut a substantial amount off of Gov. Dayton's initial $3.356 billion tax increase figure, probably eliminating one-third to a half of Dayton's initial tax increase figure.
That's dropping the size of the tax cut from $3.356 billion to the $1.6-2.2 billion range. That 'compromise' was made in early March.
Predictably, Rep. Thissen weighed in on Gov. Dayton's disaster:
If you aren't willing to sponsor Gov. Dayton's budget, then it isn't support. PERIOD. It can be characterized as paying lip service to Gov. Dayton's budget but it isn't supporting it.
Rep. Thissen is quick to use the "all-cuts" meme, which is intellectual dishonesty. An honest person couldn't say that growing a budget by $3,000,000,000 is cutting it. Furthermore, it's dishonest to say that Minnesota's small businesses will be laid waste if the GOP budget gets spending under control.
There's talk that, regardless of how this deficit is solved, Minnesota will start the 2013 legislative session with a $3,500,000,000 deficit. Will Gov. Dayton, Sen. Bakk and Rep. Thissen argue for another tax increase at that point? At what point would the DFL admit that Minnesotans are taxed too much? At what point will the DFL admit that the richest 2% have paid their fair share?
Actually, will there ever be a point at which the DFL admits that everyone is paying their fair share? At this point, I wouldn't bet on it.
When Rep. Thissen says that they "need a fair deal that keeps taxes down on 98%" of Minnesotans, he isn't being honest either. He's assuming, incorrectly, that all people who aren't part of the upper 2% have experienced property tax increases. That's verifiably false.
Willmar, St. Cloud and Prior Lake haven't raised property taxes. Other small cities that don't qualify for LGA haven't raised property taxes either. Doesn't that prove that Rep. Thissen's statement that the DFL wants to protect the bottom 98% of Minnesotans isn't accurate?
Isn't it accurate to say that the DFL wants to protect the bottom 98% of metropolitan wage earners from reckless spending liberal mayors? Big city mayors have used LGA to hide their reckless spending. Even so, testimony given by Dayton administration staff to the House Taxes Committee was that they couldn't guarantee that property taxes wouldn't increase if LGA was increased.
Rep. Thissen's claim that 98% of Minnesotans get property tax increases if income taxes aren't raised is verifiably false and should be rejected as DFL spin.
Finally, let's examine Gov. Dayton's repeated statements that he won't consider the GOP's "piecemeal budgets." That's chutzpah personified. The DFL hasn't offered a budget, whether it's piecemeal or comprehensive. Unlike Gov. Dayton, the GOP hasn't said that they won't negotiate with the DFL if they don't present a comprehensive budget.
Unlike the DFL, the GOP's leadership team hasn't spent time whining about Gov. Dayton's budget or the lack of a DFL budget. They've simply put a budget together. Granted, they didn't finish their conference committees as quickly as some thought they should. Still, they've put their budget bills together as required by Minnesota's Constitution.
If the DFL won't put a budget together, then it's time that they stopped pretending like they're contributing anything meaningful to the budget process.
Here's a final, philosophical question worth answering: If a governor submits a budget but his own party refuses to a) vote for any part of it or b) submit a budget of their own, should people say that that governor's budget is a serious document?
Posted Tuesday, May 17, 2011 1:45 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 17-May-11 07:34 AM
Comment 2 by Lady Logician at 17-May-11 09:32 AM
Comment 3 by C Quigley at 17-May-11 11:25 AM
I haven't had time to write about this DFL tweet until now but it's important to know that the DFL knows what's important to their constituents:
Isn't it reassuring that the DFL will head in the direction of where the pork trough is? It's as if they'd been trained by the Pied Piper.
The sad thing is that the DFL will gorge themselves on pork funded by the Legacy Act, which provides a great picture of what happens when government funding is put on autopilot. (Hint: this is a warning to Republicans thinking about Racino. The only thing it creates is a race to the pork trough. It doesn't create path to limited government.)
Dedicated revenue streams, for the most part, are testimony to the special interests' ability to bamboozle John Q. Public and our elected officials into supporting one of their worthy causes. The problem with that is that there's an endless supply of worthy causes littering the landscape.
It's important to highlight that the DFL, led by Gov. Dayton, have preached the gospel of progressive taxation. They're progressive taxation's staunchest allies...until they support regressive taxes to fund one of their pet projects.
Isn't it amazing how quickly principles change when a carrot is dangled enticing you to abandon your principles just this once to pay for something you really, really want or something that you're told we really, really need?
The bottom line is this: this is the most active I've seen the DFL this session. Isn't it telling that it's when they're determined to get their fair share of pork? Thanks to Rep. Scalze and Rep. Winkler, we now know what the DFL's priorities are.
Posted Tuesday, May 17, 2011 2:22 PM
Comment 1 by M Hanson at 17-May-11 08:16 PM
Comment 2 by Lady Logician at 18-May-11 09:10 AM
When Judge Susan Richard-Nelson ruled against the NFL in the NFLPA's anti-trust lawsuit against the NFL, labor experts hailed it as a major victory for the NFLPA. Based on their ruling , the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals feels differently . In its ruling the Eighth Circuit said that the district court didn't have jurisdiction over the case based on the Norris-LaGuardia Act:
The Norris-LaGuardia Act obviously saw the hammer that the courts could have against one side or the other by granting injunctive relief to one side or the other.
This part in particular slaps down Judge Susan Richard-Nelson's ruling:
Frankly, that's a harsh slapdown of Judge Susan Richards-Nelson for ignoring a key provision of the Norris-LaGuardia Act. This shouldn't have been a difficult decision. Still, Judge Susan Richard-Nelson got it badly wrong.
The language of the Norris-LaGuardia Act seems exceptionally expansive yet Judge Susan Richard-Nelson essentially ignored it. It could be plausibly argued that she determined the outcome first, then crafted the wording of the ruling afterward.
Either way you slice it, that's shoddy judging. No wonder the NFLPA rushed to this court. Thankfully, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals straightened her out.
Posted Tuesday, May 17, 2011 7:56 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 17-May-11 04:59 PM
Thus far, the DFL has framed the budget debate as being between making "the rich pay their fair share" vs. Minnesota GOP legislators saying that we won't add to Minnesota's job creators' burdens.
What this debate is really about is whether we should choose to grow the economy vs. whether we should just concern ourselves with funding an ever-expanding government.
Frankly, I'm betting that most Minnesotans would agree that we should install pro-growth policies that give people the incentive to increase their risk-taking and increase their entrepreneurial activity level. I'm betting that most Minnesotans just want a job a) that's going to be there for a decade or longer & b) going to pay them a good wage & provides good benefits.
The Dayton budget doesn't lead to a happy ending unless you're a government employee. The DFL legislative leaders understand that. That's why they've refused to a) sponsor the Dayton budget or b) vote for Gov. Dayton's tax increase proposal.
Another reason why the DFL won't push for a vote on Gov. Dayton's tax increase proposal is because DFL legislative leaders are afraid that alot of rank-and-file DFL legislators will vote against the Dayton tax increase proposal. From a strategic standpoint, they can't afford to have that happen because the endgame starts the minute Gov. Dayton doesn't have that type of leverage.
That's why it's important for Republican leaders to stand firm. If the DFL won't vote for the Dayton tax increases or a tax increase that they've proposed, then these negotiations are essentially over.
Then we're essentially dealing with the money that's projected to come into the state's general fund coffers.
Gov. Dayton says that he's moved to the 50 yard line but that the Republicans are still stuck at their 20 yard line. That isn't the truth. Right now, Gov. Dayton and the DFL legislature are still in the locker room. They haven't pushed a thoughtful budget because they don't have one to push. They aren't willing to vote on their comprehensive proposals because their proposals aren't comprehensive.
If Gov. Dayton wants to veto the Republicans' budget and call a special session, the intensity only goes up against the DFL because they're the ones who don't have a real plan. Gov. Dayton has given speeches on what he wants but his legislators have treated his proposals like toxic waste.
This debate needs to be whether Minnesota supports the party trying to fund a Twentieth Century government or the party tring to create a 21st Century economy.
In the end, that's what this debate is about. I'm confident that Minnesotans will pick the latter over the former. That's why I'm confident that they'll support the Republicans' plans.
That's the real endgame. That's the endgame that Minnesota deserves.
Posted Tuesday, May 17, 2011 10:46 AM
No comments.
I wish I could say that this tweet was surprising but it isn't. It's just typical DFL spin:
Just once, I'd like to see the DFL stop whining about the "richest 2%" not paying their fair share and actually have the cajones to propose and vote on the tax increases they say are so important.
Thus far, the courage of their convictions is pretty miniscule. They've whined all session long that "the rich" are "paying their fair share." Despite all their whining, they still won't put their money where their mouth is. They still won't vote on Gov. Dayton's tax increase and they still haven't proposed their own tax increase plan.
The Minnesota Poll shows that 63% of Minnesotans support a "balanced approach" tax increases and budget cuts. That's compared with 27% who say no new taxes. If that poll was accurate, which it isn't, DFL legislators should be tripping over each other to get their tax increase proposals submitted.
The DFL is all talk and no action. In other words, they're cowards who don't have the courage of their convictions. Thanks to Derek Brigham's great graphics work, we now have a picture that sums the DFL up perfectly:
If actions were money and talk was debt, the DFL would be asking President Obama for a bailout.
When the DFL actually has the courage to put tax increases to a vote, then I'll pay attention. If all the DFL will do is whine that the richest 2% aren't paying their fair share without even introducing a bill, then let's call them what they are: profiles in wimpiness.
Posted Tuesday, May 17, 2011 3:56 PM
Comment 1 by C Quigley at 17-May-11 05:03 PM
Comment 2 by Mike Owens at 17-May-11 05:26 PM
Comment 3 by Donna Foster at 18-May-11 06:35 AM
Comment 4 by M Hanson at 18-May-11 08:21 AM
Comment 5 by Lady Logician at 18-May-11 09:07 AM
It's apparent that Tarryl Clark felt the sting of criticism that she was essentially the political equivalent of being a gold-digger. It's apparent because she's written this defensive-sounding op-ed in the Duluth News Tribune. The reason it's defensive-sounding is because it's filled with typical soupline boilerplate. Here's a sample of Tarryl's op-ed:
In the Gospel according to Tarryl, the nation is a mess and it's all the fault of evil Republicans and greedy Big Oil. In the Gospel according to Tarryl, Republicans want to harm seniors by ending Medicare and Social Security. Nevermind the fact that, as they're currently configured, they're on a path to destruction.
The biggest problem with Tarryl's 'solutions' is that they're 'government-first' solutions. She doesn't deal with building a strong economy that lets people save for their retirements. Tarryl's solutions don't deal with Social Security or Medicare because the Democrats would rather demagogue the issue than solve the problem so seniors don't have to live in fear.
That isn't leadership. That's typical DFL/DCCC fearmongering boilerplate.
Tarryl can't point to federal legislation that have Republicans proposed that strips unions of their right to negotiate collective bargaining agreements. She can point to states that are limiting the things that unions can negotiate over but that's it.
I'd further highlight the fact that Chip has walked picket lines. He's served as part of union leadership. It isn't like Chip can't relate to union's worries.
It's especially worth highlighting the fact that Tarryl is part of the problem, not part of the solution, in terms of high gas prices. After voting for the Minnesota equivalent of cap and trade, aka the Next Generation Energy Act, Tarryl admits that she's a big supporter of the typical liberal utopian veiwpoint that windmills and batteries will eliminate the need for foreign oil:
I'm fine with clean-energy companies except if they require massive subsidies to stay solvent. That's where I draw the line. Tarryl doesn't draw that line. That line doesn't exist in Tarryl's world.
Notice that Tarryl's op-ed doesn't include a peep about increased domestic oil production, tapping America's vast coal reserves or lifting the moratorium on building nuclear power plants.
There's a reason for that. It's because Tarryl can't go there if she expects campaign contributions from the leaders of organizations like the Minnesota Environmental Partnership, the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy or other militant environmentalist groups.
Tarryl is cookie-cutter DFL. She won't go anywhere that the DFL's special interest allies tell her she shouldn't go. This isn't about serving people. Tarryl's presumptive run is based on her ability to serve her special interest allies.
When Tarryl complains about bigger class sizes, what she's really doing is fighting for a bigger budget so EdMinn's teachers get bigger salaries. When Tarryl complains about high gas prices, Tarryl's solution isn't about dramatically increasing domestic oil production. It's about getting bigger subsidies for failed products like ethanol.
Tarryl was in the Minnesota Senate for 4 years. Did she ever introduce permit reform to make it easier for businesses to expand? That'd be NO, she didn't.
By comparison, Chip 's been in the U.S. Congress less than 6 months and he's already working on federal permit reform so PolyMet can start construction and production. Ask an Iron Ranger how important it'd be to get PolyMet running. They'll tell you that Chip's, not Tarryl's, priorities are closer to their own.
This line tells the whole story:
Tarryl, does that mean standing up to MEP, MCEA and the Nature Conservancy and telling them to stop holding the mining industry hostage? They're preventing creating permanent, great paying jobs. That's a verifiable, indisputable fact.
I can guarantee from Tarryl's past behavior that Tarryl won't fight for those jobs because her militant environmentalist allies oppose mining projects.
Finally, and possibly most importantly, Tarryl didn't answer why she didn't buy a property in Elk River, Big Lake or Becker. If her goal was to serve Minnesota, why did she pick Duluth as the place for her to serve? The answer is simple. It's because she didn't stand a chance of defeating Michele Bachmann.
That, not serving the people of Duluth, was Tarryl's primary, possibly singular, reason for picking Duluth.
Posted Wednesday, May 18, 2011 2:13 PM
Comment 1 by C Quigley at 18-May-11 03:19 PM
Comment 2 by Angie O Plasty at 27-May-11 01:26 AM
Gov. Dayton presented his budget on February 15. Today, the House finally voted on his tax plan . In the end, though, the DFL still didn't sponsor the bill:
Just 91 short days after Gov. Dayton unveiled his tax-the-rich scheme, the House of Representatives voted on Gov. Dayton's tax-the-rich scheme. This is a great day for Republicans but it's an even better day for Minnesota. Here's why:
For people keeping score at home, Rep. Pelowski was the only DFL legislator sane enough to vote against Gov. Dayton's tax-the-rich scheme. Rep. Pelowski is consistent about this, having voted againt the DFL's tax increases in 2009. In fact, he went further than that:
The reason why I think it's a good day for Republicans is because DFL leadership pushed vulnerable swing district legislators off a cliff. The reason why I'm confident it's a great day for Minnesota is because 72 GOP legislators and Rep. Pelowski said no to Gov. Dayton's tax-the-rich scheme.
Ask Gov. Patterson and Gov. Corzine how raising taxes worked in their state and in getting them re-elected. Either that or you can email Gov. Cuoumo and Gov. Christie and ask them what they're doing to clean up the mess they were left with.
The DFL's tired lines were out in full force today :
Rep. Marquart, exactly what is "the rich's fair share?" Let's settle this now. It's getting tiresome to hear the DFL's whining the same thing year after year after year. Is it fair that "the rich" pay a top marginal rate of 10.95%? Will that change in 2013, when the deficit is projected to be $3,500,000,000?
Does "the rich's fair share" change with the size of the deficit? Is "the rich's fair share" flexible depending on what the DFL wants to spend that biennium? Is it attached to the amount the DFL's special interest allies want to spend?
The MNGOP's tax rates are based on staying competitive with surrounding states like the Dakotas and states like Utah and Colorado.
If Gov. Dayton thinks that raising taxes will grow our economy, then he's a fool. The list of times where raising taxes when the economy is struggling is miniscule, almost nonexistent. That's the path that Gov. Dayton wants to take Minnesota.
No thanks, Gov. Dayton.
Posted Wednesday, May 18, 2011 2:35 AM
Comment 1 by Lady Logician at 18-May-11 08:53 AM
Comment 2 by JA at 18-May-11 09:38 AM
Comment 3 by JA at 19-May-11 12:50 PM
Comment 4 by JA at 19-May-11 10:09 PM
This afternoon, Senate Transportation Committee Chairman Joe Gimse and Transportation Conference Committee member Ted Lillie talked about Gov. Dayton's apparent disinterest in negotiating on the Transportation bill. In their press conference, they highlighted the fact that Gov. Dayton and Transportation Commissioner Sorel spent precious time negotiating with the Vikings instead of focusing on Minnesota's priorities:
Based on the reporting in various Twin Cities media outlets, it's apparent that Gov. Dayton's interest in reaching a final settlement on the budget is, politely speaking, minimal. According to the Revisor's page , the transportation committee's conference report is posted.
Shame on Gov. Dayton for devoting the time and staff to working Vikings stadium details before getting the budget passed and approved. That's inexcusable. There are a little more than 125 hours before the end of session.
Gov. Dayton, by his own choosing, has refused to negotiate on any of the budget deals prior to the final week. In other words, it's apparent that he's hoping for a trainwreck at the end of the session in hopes of blaming it on Republicans.
There's no justification for his not starting negotiations a month ago. His rationalization that he wouldn't negotiate until a final conference committee report was capricious and arbitrary. What it wasn't, though, was justifiable.
Gov. Dayton's priorities aren't consistent. Why is Gov. Dayton willing to devote the time and resources on what is essentially the early phases of a Vikings stadium process? It's worth asking because he didn't send his commissioners to start negotiating omnibus budget bills until after the House and Senate passed the conference committee reports.
It's time for Gov. Dayton to pay attention to what's important instead of what's relatively trivial. It's time he started setting better priorities because his priorities at this point stink.
Posted Wednesday, May 18, 2011 3:21 PM
No comments.
I said in this post that Gov. Dayton's negotiating priorities indicate that he's hoping for a trainwreck so he can blame Republicans. Everything I'm reading in this Strib article pretty much confirms that opinion.
Resolve isn't the thing that's most questionable about Gov. Dayton. The thing that's most questionable is Gov. Dayton's policies. To illustrate that point, let's bring in the 2014-2015 budget. According to an article I read last week, the expected deficit staring at the legislature in 2013 will be $3.5 billion.
I'm betting that that's because President Obama's policies will have failed miserably and the economy will still be staggering. The housing crisis won't be resolved, unemployment and inflation will still be high and gas prices will still be through the roof.
How will Gov. Dayton create the type of economy that will pull Minnesota out of this recession? If he's betting that a major tax increase during a recession/slowdown will trigger a sustainable recovery, then he's plain wrong.
The only thing a major tax increase during a recession will trigger is a statewide, intense anti-Dayton, anti-DFL backlash. (When I say statewide backlash, I'm referring to everywhere outside urban St. Paul and Minneapolis.
Despite Gov. Dayton's attempt to walk his statement back, that's impossible because there's really only two options. Either he's willing to shut the government down or he isn't. This isn't a situation of multiple choices. It's binary. If he isn't, that means he'll blink and Minnesota wins.
If Gov. Dayton wants to ruin the economy by playing chicken, he's got the constitutional authority to do that. If he wants to run the DFL into the ditch, which seems apparent, he's got that constitutional authority, too.
I'll admit that there are times when major tax increases don't kill the economy. This isn't one of those times. I'd further argue that Gov. Dayton's tax increase won't net the money that MMB is forecasting. When states raise taxes to continue their reckless spending, which is what New York, New Jersey, Michigan, Illinois and California have done, people leave in droves and relocate to Texas, Florida and other low tax, right-to-work states.
That means the projected revenue isn't realized. In New York's, New Jersey's and California's cases, they opted for raising taxes again, which left them short again and with their economy even further in the shitter.
Minnesota won't be any different if Gov. Dayton insists on raising taxes.
It's time for Gov. Dayton to quit with his brinksmanship and admit that now isn't the time to raise taxes. If he truly is this stubborn, then Minnesota will needlessly be facing some difficult, difficult times.
We can't afford that type of devastation.
Posted Wednesday, May 18, 2011 8:36 PM
No comments.
May 17 01:45 Gov. Dayton's Fuzzy Math Exposed May 17 14:22 Fighting for the Right Priorities? May 17 07:56 How Straightforward Must It Be? May 17 09:42 Raising Revenues vs. Raising Taxes May 17 15:56 Typical DFL Spin May 18 14:13 Tarryl Fights Back...With Typical Soupline DFL Boilerplate May 18 02:35 Our Long Statewide Nightmare Is Over May 18 15:21 Questioning Gov. Dayton's Questionable Priorities May 18 20:36 Dayton's Trainwreck
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Gov. Dayton's Fuzzy Math Exposed
In his letter to Speaker Zellers and Majority Leader Koch , Gov. Dayton said that he'd meet the Republicans halfway on his tax-the-rich scheme. Here's how he framed it:
I am willing to meet you half-way: $1.8 billion in spending cuts and $1.8 billion in additional tax revenues. In my Feb. 15th budget, I proposed $3.356 billion in new tax revenues. I am willing to cut my proposal almost in half to $1.8 billion. I will also agree to $1.8 billion in spending cuts, to be negotiated with you.
The math falls apart once it's remembered that Gov. Dayton's first budget called for 2 new tax brackets: the 10.95% bracket and the additional 3% surcharge bracket for people making $500,000 a year or more.
The minute the February forecast was published, dropping the projected deficit from $6.2 billion to $5.03 billion, Gov. Dayton dropped the 3% income tax surcharge entirely. Just by dropping that 3% income tax surcharge, Gov. Dayton would have cut a substantial amount off of Gov. Dayton's initial $3.356 billion tax increase figure, probably eliminating one-third to a half of Dayton's initial tax increase figure.
That's dropping the size of the tax cut from $3.356 billion to the $1.6-2.2 billion range. That 'compromise' was made in early March.
Predictably, Rep. Thissen weighed in on Gov. Dayton's disaster:
In a press release and a news conference that followed the GOP's, DFL House Minority Leader Paul Thissen, of course, supported Dayton while blasting the Republicans: "The GOP is choosing to keep their feet in cement while laying waste to Minnesota seniors, small businesses, children and homeowners with their all-cuts budget: We need to make difficult choices and cuts. We also need a fair deal that keeps taxes down on 98% of Minnesotans by asking the richest 2% to take a share of the budget-balancing responsibility."
If you aren't willing to sponsor Gov. Dayton's budget, then it isn't support. PERIOD. It can be characterized as paying lip service to Gov. Dayton's budget but it isn't supporting it.
Rep. Thissen is quick to use the "all-cuts" meme, which is intellectual dishonesty. An honest person couldn't say that growing a budget by $3,000,000,000 is cutting it. Furthermore, it's dishonest to say that Minnesota's small businesses will be laid waste if the GOP budget gets spending under control.
There's talk that, regardless of how this deficit is solved, Minnesota will start the 2013 legislative session with a $3,500,000,000 deficit. Will Gov. Dayton, Sen. Bakk and Rep. Thissen argue for another tax increase at that point? At what point would the DFL admit that Minnesotans are taxed too much? At what point will the DFL admit that the richest 2% have paid their fair share?
Actually, will there ever be a point at which the DFL admits that everyone is paying their fair share? At this point, I wouldn't bet on it.
When Rep. Thissen says that they "need a fair deal that keeps taxes down on 98%" of Minnesotans, he isn't being honest either. He's assuming, incorrectly, that all people who aren't part of the upper 2% have experienced property tax increases. That's verifiably false.
Willmar, St. Cloud and Prior Lake haven't raised property taxes. Other small cities that don't qualify for LGA haven't raised property taxes either. Doesn't that prove that Rep. Thissen's statement that the DFL wants to protect the bottom 98% of Minnesotans isn't accurate?
Isn't it accurate to say that the DFL wants to protect the bottom 98% of metropolitan wage earners from reckless spending liberal mayors? Big city mayors have used LGA to hide their reckless spending. Even so, testimony given by Dayton administration staff to the House Taxes Committee was that they couldn't guarantee that property taxes wouldn't increase if LGA was increased.
Rep. Thissen's claim that 98% of Minnesotans get property tax increases if income taxes aren't raised is verifiably false and should be rejected as DFL spin.
Finally, let's examine Gov. Dayton's repeated statements that he won't consider the GOP's "piecemeal budgets." That's chutzpah personified. The DFL hasn't offered a budget, whether it's piecemeal or comprehensive. Unlike Gov. Dayton, the GOP hasn't said that they won't negotiate with the DFL if they don't present a comprehensive budget.
Unlike the DFL, the GOP's leadership team hasn't spent time whining about Gov. Dayton's budget or the lack of a DFL budget. They've simply put a budget together. Granted, they didn't finish their conference committees as quickly as some thought they should. Still, they've put their budget bills together as required by Minnesota's Constitution.
If the DFL won't put a budget together, then it's time that they stopped pretending like they're contributing anything meaningful to the budget process.
Here's a final, philosophical question worth answering: If a governor submits a budget but his own party refuses to a) vote for any part of it or b) submit a budget of their own, should people say that that governor's budget is a serious document?
Posted Tuesday, May 17, 2011 1:45 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 17-May-11 07:34 AM
If the issue is just one of fairness then the solution is simple, Rep. Thissen. Give 98% of us a tax CUT!
Comment 2 by Lady Logician at 17-May-11 09:32 AM
I would love to see some enterprising person do for Minnesota what the WSJ did for the rest of the country - a study to show that taxing "the rich" won't do a thing to fix the overspending problem we have in St. Paul. That there is not enough of their money to cover the bill....
LL
Comment 3 by C Quigley at 17-May-11 11:25 AM
There have been plenty of studies done to show that taxing the rich won't solve budget problems and those studies are called "failed tax policy in NY, NJ, etc." None of the states that put a target on the rich realized anything close to what was projected in revenues.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 17-May-11 01:12 PM
Gov. Patterson tried taxing the rich in NY. He's been ousted & replaced by Gov. Cuomo, another liberal who's cutting taxes. People will vote with their feet & another man's moving company.
Fighting for the Right Priorities?
I haven't had time to write about this DFL tweet until now but it's important to know that the DFL knows what's important to their constituents:
Rep. Scalze, Winkler standing up for suburban parks to get their fair share of state support.
Isn't it reassuring that the DFL will head in the direction of where the pork trough is? It's as if they'd been trained by the Pied Piper.
The sad thing is that the DFL will gorge themselves on pork funded by the Legacy Act, which provides a great picture of what happens when government funding is put on autopilot. (Hint: this is a warning to Republicans thinking about Racino. The only thing it creates is a race to the pork trough. It doesn't create path to limited government.)
Dedicated revenue streams, for the most part, are testimony to the special interests' ability to bamboozle John Q. Public and our elected officials into supporting one of their worthy causes. The problem with that is that there's an endless supply of worthy causes littering the landscape.
It's important to highlight that the DFL, led by Gov. Dayton, have preached the gospel of progressive taxation. They're progressive taxation's staunchest allies...until they support regressive taxes to fund one of their pet projects.
Isn't it amazing how quickly principles change when a carrot is dangled enticing you to abandon your principles just this once to pay for something you really, really want or something that you're told we really, really need?
The bottom line is this: this is the most active I've seen the DFL this session. Isn't it telling that it's when they're determined to get their fair share of pork? Thanks to Rep. Scalze and Rep. Winkler, we now know what the DFL's priorities are.
Posted Tuesday, May 17, 2011 2:22 PM
Comment 1 by M Hanson at 17-May-11 08:16 PM
A true patriot would be looking on both sides of the aisle for places to cut. Otherwise you'd be considered a stoolie. This describes the fruit brigade and the wingnuts.
I do appreciate you allowing me to comment. Most of your friends don't believe enough in their statements to discuss.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 17-May-11 09:03 PM
It isn't that I don't get PO'ed from time to time & it isn't that I never delete comments. It's just that I've set a fairly high threshhold before I'll boot someone. I'm not a shrinking violet. I think things through. I'm a partisan, yes, but I'm not blindly so.
Eric Austin tells me that I just repeat GOP talking points. Nothing is further from the truth. I do my own thinking. In fact, I've won over legislators to my perspective from time to time. That isn't repeating the same old talking points, IMHO.
Comment 2 by Lady Logician at 18-May-11 09:10 AM
M. Hanson - you have obviously not been hanging out here long. If you had been you would have seen some of Gary's rants on "his side" for the stupid crap they have done.
Maybe you should go through the archives before you make such bold blanket statements....just sayin'
LL
How Straightforward Must It Be?
When Judge Susan Richard-Nelson ruled against the NFL in the NFLPA's anti-trust lawsuit against the NFL, labor experts hailed it as a major victory for the NFLPA. Based on their ruling , the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals feels differently . In its ruling the Eighth Circuit said that the district court didn't have jurisdiction over the case based on the Norris-LaGuardia Act:
The Norris-LaGuardia Act limits the jurisdiction of a district court to issue an injunction 'in a case involving or growing out of a labor dispute.' 29 U.S.C. § 101. The district court ruled that the Act does not apply here and that it had jurisdiction to enjoin the lockout.
Congress wrote the Act in broad language, in order to take the federal courts 'out of the labor injunction business.' Jacksonville Bulk Terminals, Inc. v. Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n, 457 U.S. 702, 712 (1982) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Marine Cooks & Stewards v. Panama S.S. Co., 362 U.S. 365, 369 (1960)). 'No court of the United States shall have jurisdiction to issue any...temporary or permanent injunction in any case involving or growing out of a labor dispute to prohibit any person or persons participating or interested in such dispute...from doing, whether singly or in concert,' any of several acts. 29 U.S.C. § 104. One of these acts is 'refusing...to remain in any relation of employment.' 29 U.S.C. § 104(a).
The Norris-LaGuardia Act obviously saw the hammer that the courts could have against one side or the other by granting injunctive relief to one side or the other.
This part in particular slaps down Judge Susan Richard-Nelson's ruling:
The district court apparently did not question that this case is a 'controversy concerning the terms and conditions of employment.' 29 U.S.C. § 113(c). The complaint seeks relief concerning such terms and conditions, and the lawsuit was filed on the same day that the Players' union discontinued long-term collective bargaining over terms and conditions of employment. The Players argued in the district court that the Norris-LaGuardia Act does not preclude a court from enjoining a group boycott, citing Boise Cascade International, Inc. v. Northern Minnesota Pulpwood Producers Ass'n, 294 F. Supp. 1015 (D. Minn. 1968). The district court rejected the Players' argument because the dispute enjoined in Boise Cascade 'was not a controversy over the terms and conditions of employment, but a dispute over the sale of commodities...Each of the cases [cited in Boise Cascade] rejected application of the Norris-LaGuardia Act because the disputes did not concern labor, but the sale of goods.' Brady, 2011 WL 1535240, at *24 n.44.
The district court reasoned that this case does not involve or grow out of a labor dispute because the Players no longer are represented by a union. See id. at *24. We have considerable doubt about this interpretation of the Act. The plain language of the Act states that a case involves or grows out of a labor dispute when it is 'between one or more employers or associations of employers and one or more employees or associations of employees.' 29 U.S.C. § 113(a)(1) (emphasis added).
Frankly, that's a harsh slapdown of Judge Susan Richards-Nelson for ignoring a key provision of the Norris-LaGuardia Act. This shouldn't have been a difficult decision. Still, Judge Susan Richard-Nelson got it badly wrong.
The language of the Norris-LaGuardia Act seems exceptionally expansive yet Judge Susan Richard-Nelson essentially ignored it. It could be plausibly argued that she determined the outcome first, then crafted the wording of the ruling afterward.
Either way you slice it, that's shoddy judging. No wonder the NFLPA rushed to this court. Thankfully, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals straightened her out.
Posted Tuesday, May 17, 2011 7:56 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 17-May-11 04:59 PM
So what happens now? Seems to me that, absent the players' union, each player gets to negotiate their own contract and we can actually play some football.
Raising Revenues vs. Raising Taxes
Thus far, the DFL has framed the budget debate as being between making "the rich pay their fair share" vs. Minnesota GOP legislators saying that we won't add to Minnesota's job creators' burdens.
What this debate is really about is whether we should choose to grow the economy vs. whether we should just concern ourselves with funding an ever-expanding government.
Frankly, I'm betting that most Minnesotans would agree that we should install pro-growth policies that give people the incentive to increase their risk-taking and increase their entrepreneurial activity level. I'm betting that most Minnesotans just want a job a) that's going to be there for a decade or longer & b) going to pay them a good wage & provides good benefits.
The Dayton budget doesn't lead to a happy ending unless you're a government employee. The DFL legislative leaders understand that. That's why they've refused to a) sponsor the Dayton budget or b) vote for Gov. Dayton's tax increase proposal.
Another reason why the DFL won't push for a vote on Gov. Dayton's tax increase proposal is because DFL legislative leaders are afraid that alot of rank-and-file DFL legislators will vote against the Dayton tax increase proposal. From a strategic standpoint, they can't afford to have that happen because the endgame starts the minute Gov. Dayton doesn't have that type of leverage.
That's why it's important for Republican leaders to stand firm. If the DFL won't vote for the Dayton tax increases or a tax increase that they've proposed, then these negotiations are essentially over.
Then we're essentially dealing with the money that's projected to come into the state's general fund coffers.
Gov. Dayton says that he's moved to the 50 yard line but that the Republicans are still stuck at their 20 yard line. That isn't the truth. Right now, Gov. Dayton and the DFL legislature are still in the locker room. They haven't pushed a thoughtful budget because they don't have one to push. They aren't willing to vote on their comprehensive proposals because their proposals aren't comprehensive.
If Gov. Dayton wants to veto the Republicans' budget and call a special session, the intensity only goes up against the DFL because they're the ones who don't have a real plan. Gov. Dayton has given speeches on what he wants but his legislators have treated his proposals like toxic waste.
This debate needs to be whether Minnesota supports the party trying to fund a Twentieth Century government or the party tring to create a 21st Century economy.
In the end, that's what this debate is about. I'm confident that Minnesotans will pick the latter over the former. That's why I'm confident that they'll support the Republicans' plans.
That's the real endgame. That's the endgame that Minnesota deserves.
Posted Tuesday, May 17, 2011 10:46 AM
No comments.
Typical DFL Spin
I wish I could say that this tweet was surprising but it isn't. It's just typical DFL spin:
Rep. Hosch "budget is about priorities. Majority's priority is to protect richest 2% and cut 20k jobs, 125k off health care."
Just once, I'd like to see the DFL stop whining about the "richest 2%" not paying their fair share and actually have the cajones to propose and vote on the tax increases they say are so important.
Thus far, the courage of their convictions is pretty miniscule. They've whined all session long that "the rich" are "paying their fair share." Despite all their whining, they still won't put their money where their mouth is. They still won't vote on Gov. Dayton's tax increase and they still haven't proposed their own tax increase plan.
The Minnesota Poll shows that 63% of Minnesotans support a "balanced approach" tax increases and budget cuts. That's compared with 27% who say no new taxes. If that poll was accurate, which it isn't, DFL legislators should be tripping over each other to get their tax increase proposals submitted.
The DFL is all talk and no action. In other words, they're cowards who don't have the courage of their convictions. Thanks to Derek Brigham's great graphics work, we now have a picture that sums the DFL up perfectly:
If actions were money and talk was debt, the DFL would be asking President Obama for a bailout.
When the DFL actually has the courage to put tax increases to a vote, then I'll pay attention. If all the DFL will do is whine that the richest 2% aren't paying their fair share without even introducing a bill, then let's call them what they are: profiles in wimpiness.
Posted Tuesday, May 17, 2011 3:56 PM
Comment 1 by C Quigley at 17-May-11 05:03 PM
The "rich" already pay their fair share but what is it the DFL thinks they need to pay more for anyway? Do they use more roads, sewer, water, police, fire and other government services? Yeah, didn't think so. The DFL needs the money to keep buying votes.
Comment 2 by Mike Owens at 17-May-11 05:26 PM
Has everyone forgot the tenth commandment.
"Do not covet thy neighbors money, house, or wife".
I guess that doesn't apply to the DFL.
Comment 3 by Donna Foster at 18-May-11 06:35 AM
Derek's graphic lists money spent on the Redistricting plan - but then on the "Fail" part switches to budget. He doesn't drive the point home that after spending all that money for the tools they need to put together a REDISTRICTING PLAN - they have REFUSED to do so.
Comment 4 by M Hanson at 18-May-11 08:21 AM
Its really not about tax rates folks. Its the ability to write off expenses that give us our real taqx rate. 66 percent of wisc corps pay no income tax. 47 percent of filers have zero federal tax liability. Aint quite right.
Comment 5 by Lady Logician at 18-May-11 09:07 AM
M. Hanson is right - we need to do away with the deductions that the "rich" get....things like Earned Income Tax Credits and Daycare credits and credits for popping out babies and all those other corporate taxes....
All snark aside, the above was to make the point that "the rich" and corporations are not the ONLY ONES who get tax credits and who pay little to no taxes. That is indeed a part of the problem we have today. But the biggest part of the problem is that government as a whole is spending too much.
Think about this - every year the average Minnesotan pays state sales taxes, FICA, Medicare, state income taxes, state and federal excise taxes on telephone, cable, natural gas, electricity, tires, gasoline, etc. and, if you own property, property taxes. For the person who makes $40,000 to $80,000 that can be upwards of 50% of your income and the Dems still say THAT IS NOT ENOUGH. When does it become enough? When it's 100%?
LL
Tarryl Fights Back...With Typical Soupline DFL Boilerplate
It's apparent that Tarryl Clark felt the sting of criticism that she was essentially the political equivalent of being a gold-digger. It's apparent because she's written this defensive-sounding op-ed in the Duluth News Tribune. The reason it's defensive-sounding is because it's filled with typical soupline boilerplate. Here's a sample of Tarryl's op-ed:
Families are talking about how hard it is to find a job or how class sizes in local schools keep growing. Seniors are talking about proposals in Congress to end Medicare and Social Security as we know them. Veterans are wondering if they will be able to get the benefits we promised them. Everyone wonders why gas costs so much when Big Oil companies are making record profits totaling billions of dollars.
In the Gospel according to Tarryl, the nation is a mess and it's all the fault of evil Republicans and greedy Big Oil. In the Gospel according to Tarryl, Republicans want to harm seniors by ending Medicare and Social Security. Nevermind the fact that, as they're currently configured, they're on a path to destruction.
The biggest problem with Tarryl's 'solutions' is that they're 'government-first' solutions. She doesn't deal with building a strong economy that lets people save for their retirements. Tarryl's solutions don't deal with Social Security or Medicare because the Democrats would rather demagogue the issue than solve the problem so seniors don't have to live in fear.
That isn't leadership. That's typical DFL/DCCC fearmongering boilerplate.
Right now, the priorities in Washington are not the priorities of Minnesotans. Our work, our seniors' livelihoods and our communities are being threatened. The ability for workers to negotiate contracts is being stripped away. And this Congress has supported an end to Medicare while cutting taxes for Big Oil, drug companies, Wall Street CEOs and the super-wealthy by more than $1 trillion, all in the same proposal. Instead of rewarding the creation of new jobs in the U.S., Congress continues to reward large corporations for shipping jobs overseas.
Tarryl can't point to federal legislation that have Republicans proposed that strips unions of their right to negotiate collective bargaining agreements. She can point to states that are limiting the things that unions can negotiate over but that's it.
I'd further highlight the fact that Chip has walked picket lines. He's served as part of union leadership. It isn't like Chip can't relate to union's worries.
It's especially worth highlighting the fact that Tarryl is part of the problem, not part of the solution, in terms of high gas prices. After voting for the Minnesota equivalent of cap and trade, aka the Next Generation Energy Act, Tarryl admits that she's a big supporter of the typical liberal utopian veiwpoint that windmills and batteries will eliminate the need for foreign oil:
I obtained a residence in Duluth before I decided to run for this seat, as I've been spending significant time in the area as part of my job as an advocate for growing jobs, especially in the clean-energy economy.
I'm fine with clean-energy companies except if they require massive subsidies to stay solvent. That's where I draw the line. Tarryl doesn't draw that line. That line doesn't exist in Tarryl's world.
Notice that Tarryl's op-ed doesn't include a peep about increased domestic oil production, tapping America's vast coal reserves or lifting the moratorium on building nuclear power plants.
There's a reason for that. It's because Tarryl can't go there if she expects campaign contributions from the leaders of organizations like the Minnesota Environmental Partnership, the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy or other militant environmentalist groups.
Tarryl is cookie-cutter DFL. She won't go anywhere that the DFL's special interest allies tell her she shouldn't go. This isn't about serving people. Tarryl's presumptive run is based on her ability to serve her special interest allies.
When Tarryl complains about bigger class sizes, what she's really doing is fighting for a bigger budget so EdMinn's teachers get bigger salaries. When Tarryl complains about high gas prices, Tarryl's solution isn't about dramatically increasing domestic oil production. It's about getting bigger subsidies for failed products like ethanol.
Tarryl was in the Minnesota Senate for 4 years. Did she ever introduce permit reform to make it easier for businesses to expand? That'd be NO, she didn't.
By comparison, Chip 's been in the U.S. Congress less than 6 months and he's already working on federal permit reform so PolyMet can start construction and production. Ask an Iron Ranger how important it'd be to get PolyMet running. They'll tell you that Chip's, not Tarryl's, priorities are closer to their own.
This line tells the whole story:
It is time to stand up for creating good jobs, not record corporate profits.
Tarryl, does that mean standing up to MEP, MCEA and the Nature Conservancy and telling them to stop holding the mining industry hostage? They're preventing creating permanent, great paying jobs. That's a verifiable, indisputable fact.
I can guarantee from Tarryl's past behavior that Tarryl won't fight for those jobs because her militant environmentalist allies oppose mining projects.
Finally, and possibly most importantly, Tarryl didn't answer why she didn't buy a property in Elk River, Big Lake or Becker. If her goal was to serve Minnesota, why did she pick Duluth as the place for her to serve? The answer is simple. It's because she didn't stand a chance of defeating Michele Bachmann.
That, not serving the people of Duluth, was Tarryl's primary, possibly singular, reason for picking Duluth.
Posted Wednesday, May 18, 2011 2:13 PM
Comment 1 by C Quigley at 18-May-11 03:19 PM
All I can say is, what a buffoon.
Comment 2 by Angie O Plasty at 27-May-11 01:26 AM
Tarryl Clark has bought a Condo in Duluth and is looking forward to being an "Iron Ranger". I guess she thought Duluth was on the Iron Range. Now Duluthians and Rangers alike have a common reason to question not only her intentions, but also her intelligence.
Our Long Statewide Nightmare Is Over
Gov. Dayton presented his budget on February 15. Today, the House finally voted on his tax plan . In the end, though, the DFL still didn't sponsor the bill:
It was a conversation that, as one member put it, 'we've been meaning to have for a long time.' The conversation referred to by Rep. Banaian (R-St. Cloud) took place on the House floor over the governor's budget proposal as laid out in HF1231. Although sponsored by Rep. Greg Davids (R-Preston), chairman of the House Taxes Committee, it was brought to the floor by Rep. Sarah Anderson (R-Plymouth) as a minority report to the bill.
Just 91 short days after Gov. Dayton unveiled his tax-the-rich scheme, the House of Representatives voted on Gov. Dayton's tax-the-rich scheme. This is a great day for Republicans but it's an even better day for Minnesota. Here's why:
'This is probably our most important vote for our work ahead, for it really is a parting of the roads of the vision for the state, and for the conclusion of session,' said House Majority Leader Matt Dean (R-Dellwood). 'We've had this debate all session: How much are we really going to grow government, and do we need new revenue?'
His comments summed up four and a half hours of debate that ended in a 60-73 vote to not accept the minority report.
For people keeping score at home, Rep. Pelowski was the only DFL legislator sane enough to vote against Gov. Dayton's tax-the-rich scheme. Rep. Pelowski is consistent about this, having voted againt the DFL's tax increases in 2009. In fact, he went further than that:
Rep. Gene Pelowski, DFL-Winona, condemned the DFL House tax proposal in particularly harsh terms Wednesday, calling it "dead on arrival" at the desk of Gov. Tim Pawlenty. The Minnesota House and Senate have different plans to balance the $4.6 billion state budget shortfall using tax increases, which DFL leaders say must happen in conjunction with spending cuts, to sustain vital services. A Pawlenty spokesman called the DFL Senate proposal an "extraordinary tax hike that will negatively impact everyone's pocketbooks and kill jobs."
The House proposal would generate $1.5 billion in 2010 and 2011 by hiking alcohol and tobacco taxes, removing certain deductions from the tax code and boosting income taxes on wealthy Minnesotans. The far-simpler Senate proposal would net $2.2 billion by increasing income taxes across-the-board on all taxpayers. Both bills may be voted on by the full House and Senate in the next week.
Pelowski said lawmakers won't have enough votes to override a Pawlenty veto of a DFL tax plan, and said the proposals are a "fiction" that will force lawmakers to scramble to craft another budget proposal after Pawlenty's veto. "We have to do what is real and not go through an exercise of what-ifs," Pelowski said. "There are no what-ifs. There is only the stark reality of this budget deficit."
The reason why I think it's a good day for Republicans is because DFL leadership pushed vulnerable swing district legislators off a cliff. The reason why I'm confident it's a great day for Minnesota is because 72 GOP legislators and Rep. Pelowski said no to Gov. Dayton's tax-the-rich scheme.
Ask Gov. Patterson and Gov. Corzine how raising taxes worked in their state and in getting them re-elected. Either that or you can email Gov. Cuoumo and Gov. Christie and ask them what they're doing to clean up the mess they were left with.
The DFL's tired lines were out in full force today :
After a brief meeting with Republicans, Dayton said Tuesday he will not "surrender" to Republicans' demand that he cut the budget down to their level.
But Republicans were equally resolute.
"The governor's proposal taxes everyone that buys something," House Taxes Committee Chair Greg Davids. "The myth is that only the (top) two percent get hit."
"Now is the time to draw the line in the sand," the Preston Republican shouted on the House floor.
DFL Rep. Ryan Winkler and other Democrats, who had been a bit squeamish about Dayton's previous tax plan, were equally vehement in drawing their lines.
Republican Rep. Mary Franson accused Democrats of using "big, fancy words," so she put her stance in little ones: "We are not going to raise taxes."
DFL Rep. Ryan Winkler retorted: "I'll try not to use big, fancy words like 'shared sacrifice' because they are incomprehensible to your side."
Republicans members have taken to wearing pennies on their lapels and saying they will spend $34 billion on state government in the next two years and "Not a penny more."
On Tuesday, DFL Rep. Paul Marquart turned that mantra around. The rich should pay their fair share and, he exclaimed "Not a penny more."
Rep. Marquart, exactly what is "the rich's fair share?" Let's settle this now. It's getting tiresome to hear the DFL's whining the same thing year after year after year. Is it fair that "the rich" pay a top marginal rate of 10.95%? Will that change in 2013, when the deficit is projected to be $3,500,000,000?
Does "the rich's fair share" change with the size of the deficit? Is "the rich's fair share" flexible depending on what the DFL wants to spend that biennium? Is it attached to the amount the DFL's special interest allies want to spend?
The MNGOP's tax rates are based on staying competitive with surrounding states like the Dakotas and states like Utah and Colorado.
If Gov. Dayton thinks that raising taxes will grow our economy, then he's a fool. The list of times where raising taxes when the economy is struggling is miniscule, almost nonexistent. That's the path that Gov. Dayton wants to take Minnesota.
No thanks, Gov. Dayton.
Posted Wednesday, May 18, 2011 2:35 AM
Comment 1 by Lady Logician at 18-May-11 08:53 AM
Wait a minute...wait a minute....WAIT A MINUTE....
The DFL is trashing the GOP for killing a spending bill, proposed by the DFL Governor, that the DFL WOULDN'T EVEN SPONSOR? Can they get any more hypocritical? I know...rhetorical question...
LL
Comment 2 by JA at 18-May-11 09:38 AM
Because keeping low taxes has been so good for South Dakota...Oh wait, they are proposing cutting every department's budget by 10%. Also if low taxes grow the economy, why hasn't our economy grown in the last 8 years of no new taxes? Where are all the jobs? Why not raise EVERYONE's rates to the pre- Jesse levels, when the economy was growing?
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 18-May-11 12:23 PM
Jobs haven't grown over the past 8 years because businesses worried about their costs skyrocketing if the DFL passed their proposed tax hikes. Jobs haven't grown because businesses have worried about the DFL's reckless spending habits.
BTW, why didn't you cite NORTH DAKOTA instead of South Dakota? According to this report, North Dakota's unemployment rate in March, 2011 was 4.2%. They cut taxes, too. The housing industry is booming, too. Yes, the oil boom helps but they're also being fiscally smart. They aren't doing the boneheaded things that the DFL here in Minnesota has done.
Comment 3 by JA at 19-May-11 12:50 PM
Why would the business community be concerned about high taxes the last 8 years? Pawlenty made it clear that there would be no new taxes. Furthermore, what business decides to expand based on taxes? If the market for a product is out there, will a business really chose not to expand because of taxes? Or on the other hand what business will expand because of low taxes if the market is not there?
I cited South Dakota obviously because low taxes hasn't helped. They don't have the oil (similar to us) and have stayed the line on taxes (like us). North Dakota has stayed the line on taxes (like us and SoDak) but has oil so what is the difference between these states?
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 19-May-11 02:28 PM
I didn't want to leave the impression that taxes were THE SOLE FACTOR in creating a prosperous economy. They aren't. Keeping business costs stable and cheap gives businesses the incentive to expand.
You're right that a market must exist before anything happens. Still, I know numerous businessmen who pulled their punches during the 1990's. They'd have a strong year & stop short of the top tax bracket because they refused to work hard & hand extra money over to the government. Before you say that isn't wise, rest assured that it wasn't uncommon.
Another difference between North Dakota & Minnesota is that the DFL still insists on picking which industries will get special tax breaks & which ones get overburdened. The DFL has a worthless record of picking winners & losers. North Dakota cut taxes & got out of the way of the entrepreneurs. By contrast, the DFL insists on micromanaging things through mandates, tax incentives & disincentives & other 'government knows best' tactics.'
Finally, North Dakota doesn't give militant environmentalists the opportunity to kill jobs like Minnesota does. The single biggest drag on Minnesota's economy is the MCEA's & MEP's environmental lawsuits. Their lawsuits have killed more jobs than you'd imagine.
In short, there's alot of things that are screwed up about Minnesota's economy, with high taxes being only one of them. Still, it's important that we straighten that out, too.
Comment 4 by JA at 19-May-11 10:09 PM
Gary,
Enjoying having a reasonable debate about this with you...I agree that gov't does but should not give tax breaks to preferred companies(medtronic), behavior (hybrids) or in preferred locations (JOBZ) and I agree with the environmental burdens on businesses, the people who benefit the most are the lawyers. But those issues are not what the republican legislators are discussing...The issue is about the personal income tax
While I believe your points about the business climate in the 1990s, I still don't understand why we have such a high unemployment rate since we have had 8 years of not raising taxes at the federal and state level. If low and stable taxes create jobs, then we should not be in this situation. I also fail to see how raising the personal income tax level limits job creation. I don't socialize with many wealthy small business (who make over $200,000) owners, but have they really used the extra dollars they got from the federal gov't to create jobs in Minnesota? I always figured that their salary was set at the last year profits. Furthermore, what about all the people who make over $200,000 who aren't job creators but provide services like lawyers, doctors etc...? What jobs do those people create? While I respect what they do and the effort and talent it takes to make that money, we are in a crisis and they should be asked to sacrifice as well. Couldn't the gov't give small business owners tax breaks and not people who are not in a position to hire others? But then again, this would be the state picking preferred jobs.
I support a tax increase for everyone in the state because in tough economic times, people depend on the government for more services. People cut back on things like private school, resort vacations, buying books etc...making things like public schools, state parks and libraries more depended on. These things should not be with fewer resources as their costs (health care, energy, and transportation) are going up as well.
Hope you respond...again enjoy reading your comments and "hearing" your opinions.
Questioning Gov. Dayton's Questionable Priorities
This afternoon, Senate Transportation Committee Chairman Joe Gimse and Transportation Conference Committee member Ted Lillie talked about Gov. Dayton's apparent disinterest in negotiating on the Transportation bill. In their press conference, they highlighted the fact that Gov. Dayton and Transportation Commissioner Sorel spent precious time negotiating with the Vikings instead of focusing on Minnesota's priorities:
TRANSPORTATION CONFERENCE COMMITTEE MEMBERS COMMENT ON BUDGET NEGOTIATION PROCESS
St. Paul - With just days remaining in the 2011 legislative session, Governor Dayton and his Minnesota Department of Transportation Commissioner and staff have decided to focus on reaching a stadium resolution rather than a budget resolution.
Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch (R-Buffalo) and Speaker of the House Kurt Zellers (R-Maple Grove) sent a letter to Governor Dayton on Tuesday, May 17 requesting commissioners provide committee chairs the changes they were seeking in each conference report. Multiple news sources confirmed reports that Governor Dayton, State Transportation Commissioner Tom Sorel, and agency officials spent time and resources negotiating stadium funding instead:
State and county transportation officials spent much of the afternoon huddled behind closed doors trying to arrive at a final cost for the necessary state road improvements around the stadium site. ('Budget Battle Impedes Vikings Stadium,' Star Tribune online, May 18, 2011)
[... the] sides [MnDOT and Ramsey County] have been working to agree on a final number. ('Cost of Vikings Stadium Road Upgrades Expected Today,' Associated Press, via Pioneer Press online, May 18, 2011)
'[MnDOT Commissioner Tom] Sorel led a meeting with the Ramsey County public works director Tuesday afternoon with the goal of reaching what they called 'real numbers' for the added costs of accommodating the Vikings in a new home.'
'No movement to break Capitol gridlock over Vikings stadium,' Minnesota Public Radio online, May 17, 2011
In response to these developments, Senate Transportation Committee Chair Joe Gimse (R-Willmar) commented, 'The level of involvement by Governor Dayton, Commissioner Sorel and their staff on the transportation budget has been little to none. Instead of working with the legislature to agree upon a final budget, they have decided to work on a Vikings stadium deal. We have maintained that we will not obstruct stadium negotiations and progress, but we have been unmistakably clear that the budget remains our number one priority. We respectfully reiterate Majority Leader Koch's and Speaker Zellers' request for the Governor, Commissioner Sorel, and their staff to join us in reaching a budget solution that works for all Minnesotans.'
Transportation Conference Committee member Senator Ted Lillie (R-Lake Elmo) added, "It appears that Governor Dayton is running out the clock on the people of Minnesota, by spending more time with NFL Commissioner Goodell than focusing on working with the legislature to balance the budget."
Based on the reporting in various Twin Cities media outlets, it's apparent that Gov. Dayton's interest in reaching a final settlement on the budget is, politely speaking, minimal. According to the Revisor's page , the transportation committee's conference report is posted.
Shame on Gov. Dayton for devoting the time and staff to working Vikings stadium details before getting the budget passed and approved. That's inexcusable. There are a little more than 125 hours before the end of session.
Gov. Dayton, by his own choosing, has refused to negotiate on any of the budget deals prior to the final week. In other words, it's apparent that he's hoping for a trainwreck at the end of the session in hopes of blaming it on Republicans.
There's no justification for his not starting negotiations a month ago. His rationalization that he wouldn't negotiate until a final conference committee report was capricious and arbitrary. What it wasn't, though, was justifiable.
Gov. Dayton's priorities aren't consistent. Why is Gov. Dayton willing to devote the time and resources on what is essentially the early phases of a Vikings stadium process? It's worth asking because he didn't send his commissioners to start negotiating omnibus budget bills until after the House and Senate passed the conference committee reports.
It's time for Gov. Dayton to pay attention to what's important instead of what's relatively trivial. It's time he started setting better priorities because his priorities at this point stink.
Posted Wednesday, May 18, 2011 3:21 PM
No comments.
Dayton's Trainwreck
I said in this post that Gov. Dayton's negotiating priorities indicate that he's hoping for a trainwreck so he can blame Republicans. Everything I'm reading in this Strib article pretty much confirms that opinion.
Dayton said Tuesday that he will not "surrender" to Republicans' demand that he cut the budget down to their level, and he was "pessimistic" about a resolution. Republicans got the word at the private breakfast.
" He [said he] would hold out through a special session, through a shutdown, for a tax increase ," said Deputy Majority Leader Geoff Michel, R-Edina. He said Dayton told them " he would hold out until 2012 for a tax increase...that's exactly what he said ."
The governor said he may have been hyperbolic and wasn't promising a shutdown, but he wanted to convey his determination.
"They believe I'm going to fold or cave or give in," Dayton said. "My resolve is every bit as great as theirs...I've never been involved in a shutdown, and neither have they...Certainly, it is not something I've decided in any way I'm going to do or not do. But I did want them to understand how firm my resolve is."
Resolve isn't the thing that's most questionable about Gov. Dayton. The thing that's most questionable is Gov. Dayton's policies. To illustrate that point, let's bring in the 2014-2015 budget. According to an article I read last week, the expected deficit staring at the legislature in 2013 will be $3.5 billion.
I'm betting that that's because President Obama's policies will have failed miserably and the economy will still be staggering. The housing crisis won't be resolved, unemployment and inflation will still be high and gas prices will still be through the roof.
How will Gov. Dayton create the type of economy that will pull Minnesota out of this recession? If he's betting that a major tax increase during a recession/slowdown will trigger a sustainable recovery, then he's plain wrong.
The only thing a major tax increase during a recession will trigger is a statewide, intense anti-Dayton, anti-DFL backlash. (When I say statewide backlash, I'm referring to everywhere outside urban St. Paul and Minneapolis.
Despite Gov. Dayton's attempt to walk his statement back, that's impossible because there's really only two options. Either he's willing to shut the government down or he isn't. This isn't a situation of multiple choices. It's binary. If he isn't, that means he'll blink and Minnesota wins.
If Gov. Dayton wants to ruin the economy by playing chicken, he's got the constitutional authority to do that. If he wants to run the DFL into the ditch, which seems apparent, he's got that constitutional authority, too.
I'll admit that there are times when major tax increases don't kill the economy. This isn't one of those times. I'd further argue that Gov. Dayton's tax increase won't net the money that MMB is forecasting. When states raise taxes to continue their reckless spending, which is what New York, New Jersey, Michigan, Illinois and California have done, people leave in droves and relocate to Texas, Florida and other low tax, right-to-work states.
That means the projected revenue isn't realized. In New York's, New Jersey's and California's cases, they opted for raising taxes again, which left them short again and with their economy even further in the shitter.
Minnesota won't be any different if Gov. Dayton insists on raising taxes.
It's time for Gov. Dayton to quit with his brinksmanship and admit that now isn't the time to raise taxes. If he truly is this stubborn, then Minnesota will needlessly be facing some difficult, difficult times.
We can't afford that type of devastation.
Posted Wednesday, May 18, 2011 8:36 PM
No comments.
