Secrets of the City

Without getting into the merits of the tax hike (I really don’t know enough about it yet)… what do you guys think about the wisdom of the DFL going for broke, in really hiking taxes big time? What happened to all the talk about trying to find common ground and get stuff done, because that’s why the voters tossed the GOP?

Policy aside… I find it a curious political move.

This from a guy who barely won re-election.

Why is that relevant? At least the ads are honest and they remind the rubes who’s for higher taxes and who’s not.

Besides, he wouldn’t have to do this if the press was honest and mentioned in their articles that we have a surplus, so we don’t need higher taxes. The democrats simply want o raise taxes as a punitive measure, not because the state needs any more money. Let them spend the surplus before they even think about raising more taxes.

jason, sometimes getting stuff done means spending money.

not curious when pawlenty’s lost this game of chicken twice before. the previous budget showdowns have cost repubs big in the house and senate, because voters think it’s pawlenty’s fault.

the media war has already been lost, i think. “tax fairness for the middle class” has already been replaced by the “LARGEST TAXES EVER!” headlines. maybe poge can make this a “fee” on the top 1%?

i’m not sure “common ground” is the dfl constantly bowing to pawlenty “no taxes” mantra. pawlenty has got to choose whether he wants to compromise and run the state, or whether he wants to posture for ‘08.

Jason hints at what is the case here, which is a bunch of folks dropping the “oh by the way, we’re raising taxes to do all of this” after the – and I quote – “Back in August, we promised voters that our focus at the Legislature would be on the issues that matter to all Minnesotans  a better education for our kids, better health care and lower property taxes. We listened to the hopes and concerns of citizens across the state and heard about their biggest priorities,” said House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher.

I wasn’t fooled back in August and I’ve seen them laying the groundwork across the state since December. It didn’t make the Twin Cities media very often, but there was a lot of “well, uh, you know we might not have enough money and you know, uh, there really isn’t a budget surplus, so, uh…” from Democrats in greater Minnesota media outlets. So when they dropped their real income tax increase bomb, about two hours before it was voted on, this turd wasn’t surprised.

Their political calculation, as I see it, is their typical tactic of taxing The Rich and (allegedly) use the money for dollar-for-dollar property tax relief, using selective facts from the tax incidence study as justification. Standing alone, that might work for relying on emotional appeals rather than rational thought, but their problem is that it doesn’t stand alone. They aren’t just going after The Rich. You can’t eat, drink or die (literally) without getting hit by the taxes they are passing (leaving out the ones that died as mere proposals). I’ve also spent some time going through media records of what they’ve said and put forward and I don’t think the numbers add up in terms of what they’re saying.

Folks (ie. Wayne) there is $2 billion on the table. How ever you cut it up, whatever getting stuff done needs to be gotten done should be able to fit within that amount. If not, then it’s time to re-examine some priorities. Having spent the better part of the last few days digging through omnibus bill summaries, I’d say that discussion could definitely be had anyway. But that’s another thread.

But their real calculation is yet to come. Despite what they say, they know Pawlenty will veto every tax increase that crosses his desk. There is zero doubt. So they will have to decide – do they pass their tax increases and play “gotcha politics” with the governor (read: special session)? If so, do they let their vulnerable freshman who campaigned on being fiscally moderate off the hook? How will a special session hurt those folks? Or do they surrender and pass a budget without tax increases and then spend the next 18 months badmouthing it, even though it’s their product by way of controlling the Legislature?

Pawlenty isn’t caving this year like he did in 2005 (sorry smokers) and despite what Teryl Clark says, “No, no, no” is fair bargaining when the other side offers “Tax, tax, tax.” I called shutdown in January of 2005. This year, my call was lengthy special session. Governing isn’t easy in any sense, especially when you have to balance eight years of pent up desires and hardcore liberals salivating over their gavel like it’s Frodo’s ring with a gang of very vulnerable incumbents who suddenly find themselves behind an agenda they didn’t campaign on. Judging by what I’ve seen so far in how they handle that balance, shutdown might not be a bad call.

True. I guess I’m just envisioning all the attack ads next time around: In a time of surplus (ominous voice intones), these guys passed the largest tax rate in the country, blah blah blah.

I expected a softer approach.

i don’t get it. all this hype from the DFL’s about trying to get along, then they propose this ridiculous tax hike that is even too high for some democrats! i’m sure when pawlenty opposes it Dems will accuse him of not “working together” or whatever. it’s absurd, but politics at its finest, i guess.

Sometimes I wonder if there’s a more meaningful solution to helping our schools than just throwing money at the problem…/ducks from rotten tomatoes trown by my fellow libs…

pawlenty has got to choose whether he wants to compromise and run the state, or whether he wants to posture for ‘08.

right…but by proposing this ridiculously large tax hike, are the dems even putting him in a position to compromise? seems awfully combative to me. which is the exact opposite of the tone they promised a few short months ago.

The government schools now spend over $10,000 per student. Do the math. That’s about $300,000 per classroom. If I offered a school marm $300,000 a year to teach 30 kids in a one-room school house, would he/she turn me down? Would he/she say I’m only paying for mediocrity as the tv commercials allege? Would he/she happliy agree to do it? Would you?

it’d be different if pawlenty said, “wow, i’m not sure i can deal with taxing my rich donors, but i’ll get a plan out and we can work this out.” instead it’s always, “sorry guys, taxes are off limits.” that’s not negotiating, no matter your opinion on raising the wealthy’s taxes.

the dfl has been pretty low key until now, though. ed budgets below pawlenty’s, etc. they could have come out with their huge majority w/ guns blazing, but they’ve laid low.

Sometimes I wonder if there’s a more meaningful solution to helping our schools than just throwing money at the problem…/

oh there most certainly is, but that’s not to say they don’t need the funding too

they just need some funding with strings attached so they get their act together and quit all the bureaucratic horseshit

I’m pretty sure that school marm couldn’t bus all the kids to her house, provide athletic facilities, arts supplies, etc. etc. etc. for that price, maz. or if she could, she’d spend most of her time doing it.

maybe poge can make this a “fee” on the top 1%?

ahaha, the “Excessively-High Income Impact Fee?”

A surplus? How can it really be a surplus if there’s so much that needs to be fixed?

I get it, the DFL is really betting it all on this, but it’s necessary. Why are people settling for our state operating like Alabama or something, when we’re accustomed to soo much better?

I’m pretty sure that school marm couldn’t bus all the kids to her house, provide athletic facilities, arts supplies, etc. etc. etc. for that price, maz. or if she could, she’d spend most of her time doing it.

Maybe that’s the problem. That’s no one’s definition of education that I know of.

Well good luck with your internet school maz, but real education has overhead.

but real education has overhead.

We can fix that. But let’s be honest and not imply that that money is going to the kids. It’s going to pay for the teachers’ retirement fund and health insurance.

Prior to 1970, the NEA was an education association whose mission was to educate kids. Since it became an organized labor union in 1970, its mission now is to take care of its membership. Two different priorities, two different results.

Also, Maz, the fact he barely won re-election says something. He’s acting like he got 85 percent of the vote and ignores the fact that the people returned the DFL into power by the boatload.

His primary concern is higher office. He’s getting his “Street” cred in the GOP realm by doing these radio spots. He doesn’t give a fuck about Minnesota.

by the boatload?

heh. We shall see how much power they have.

What is your job, Kevin?

Prior to 1970, the NEA was an education association whose mission was to educate kids. Since it became an organized labor union in 1970, its mission now is to take care of its membership. Two different priorities, two different results.

Its ‘06 year-end report had the Ed Minn PAC spending something like $2.8 million. Wow. My favorite was when they started branching out to issues like transportation and health care. The best was their ad criticizing Republicans for making the Honeycrisp the state apple while letting everything else go unattended. Funny thing, the Honeycrisp bill was a totally student-driven class project. I would think that’s a good thing. Of course, now we have another representative (who is no stranger to unions of all sorts, to the point of denigrating her own constituents for the union’s benefit) doing the same with the Tilt-a-Whirl. I eagerly await Ed Minn’s attack on Democrats. No I don’t.

Its ‘06 year-end report had the Ed Minn PAC spending something like $2.8 million

The really perverse thing about this is, where do you think they got that money? From the paychecks of public employees, paid for by taxpayers like you and me! You and me are paying for those dishonest ads that lobby for even more public money!! arrrggghh!

Maz, I’ll spare you the union legislation that’s lining up this year. But technically their PAC is funded through donations, not necessarily union dues.

As an average Minnesota with aspirations to make it to that top tax bracket, I can’t say I’m very concerned about paying more. Minnesotans want accountable govenment, yes, but the adjective modifies the noun: government. We’ve seen what it can do and we all know that state-provided services like transportation infrastructure, schools, even state parks have been suffering while the government took in less revenue. Sure, in some states government only fouls things up, but that has never been our tradition.

If the state can do the job, and it’s demonstrated under other leaders that it can, then I say fund it.

When Pawlenty makes it clear that “I will not negotiate” he should expect little else than stubbornness in return. Remember–he was making a lot of conciliatory noise back in November too.

Jared – government never took in less revenue. Even when things were “cut” government spending grew. The closest it ever comes to that is unallotment, which isn’t even really close at all. Go look up our biennial budget history. You might be surprised. The issue with the top tax bracket is that it also includes businesses — about 16,500 (out of about 28,000) would be hit by a 9 percent fourth tier. They would account for about 60 percent of all the new money. They also tend to have more volatile incomes, which is a risky way to fund long-term spending.

two mn economists today on mpr were saying how mn has been taking in less revenue.

re: “risky way to fund long-term spending”…
still better than accounting tricks and shifting revenue-generating down to cities, etc (via property taxes) because the state is unable to raise new revenue on all state citizens.

The issue with the top tax bracket is that it also includes businesses — about 16,500 (out of about 28,000) would be hit by a 9 percent fourth tier. They would account for about 60 percent of all the new money.

This has a cascading affect. As a contractor who’s customers are primarily small businesses, fewer dollars in their hands means maybe they can’t afford to hire me this year. Or maybe they’d cut back on other expenses to make up for the reduction in their budgets … and that hurts the suppliers and vendors who now maybe don’t get their business. The problem with these democrats in government is, they don’t understand how the economy works and how it’s adversely affected by their stupid short-sighted decisions designed to fund their political supporters.

two mn economists today on mpr were saying how mn has been taking in less revenue.

They should add “than predicted” If government actually starts taking in less revenue, then we got big problem.

re: “risky way to fund long-term spending”…
still better than accounting tricks and shifting revenue-generating down to cities, etc (via property taxes) because the state is unable to raise new revenue on all state citizens.

That’s not necessarily a correlation. State aid to local governments was created to allow cities to reduce their property taxes. We’ve all seen how well that shell game works. Taxes go up on both ends and we’re left holding the bill going “Whuh?”

As far as “accounting tricks” go, I would argue otherwise. Are they anyone’s first choice? No. But they effetively allowed them to spread out some of the $4.5 billion over four years rather than two. There was also a very wise provision that said any excess revenue must first go to pay off the “tricks” which was completed last year. Then the reserves and cash flow were replenished and we still have an extra $1 billion left over (the difference between actual spending and actual revenue as compared to 2004 projections). Criticize all you want, but that’s pretty impressive.

I’m in favor of voluntary taxes, like the gas tax, cigarette tax, booze tax, etc. I you don’t want to pay them, you don’t have to buy the product.

I think we should have a 50 cent gas tax hike and let the people who use the roads pay for the roads.

While you are at it, let the progressive income tax result in lower property taxes, which are getting ridiculous.

and oh yeah, maz: these democrats in government is, they don’t understand how the economy works and how it’s adversely affected by their stupid short-sighted decisions designed to fund their political supporters. This differentiates them from the Republicans how?

Then why does the government do better during democrat terms? Or, that all other presidents combined have borrowed less than Bush?

Why do higher-service states typically do better as a whole on a whole host of measurements? I don’t want to live in Mississippi.

Even when things were “cut” government spending grew.

it’s called inflation

you can’t ever talk about spending in absolute dollars and expect anyone to take you seriously

We can fix that. But let’s be honest and not imply that that money is going to the kids. It’s going to pay for the teachers’ retirement fund and health insurance.

God forbid the people that teach your children possibly get to retire or have insurance! Especially since they’re already positively raking in the cash by being teachers in the first place.

You’re ridiculous.

The DFL tax increase and Pawlenty’s “no new taxes” are just about equal in terms of who’s trying to compromise. I think the Dems’ experience in Pawlenty’s first couple of terms was that if they start out with a compromise position, Pawlenty just wheedles them down from there. They didn’t get much Pawlenty’s first term. We won’t know who’s actually trying to compromise, if anyone, until the end of the session.

As for teachers’ role in the increasing costs of education, the state college system (MNSCU) faculty salaries went up 11% from 2002-2006. Inflation that period was just over 12%. In the same period, state college tuition went up, 54% five times the rate of salary increase. Hard to argue all the additional money’s going to those teachers.

What’s the difference between the proposed tax hikes in the legislature and Gov. Pawlenty’s continued use and increase of user fees. They differ in name only. A tax is a tax, a fee is a form of tax. Whatever you call it it is still to much money coming out of my pocket all the time. It’s time for all the politicians to quit lining their pockets and those of their friends and get to work on some long term reductions in the property and income taxes. This must be done soon. Schools do need some help from the state because of the never ending requiremwnts for special education and some other favored programs. Hold the schools accountable for their performance, but remember! Minnesota, especially certain areas of the twin cities have a large influx of people imigrating from other countries. These people do some help with the language and other customs a long time resident takes for granted.

Another thing that always has bugged me about the way taxes are collected is the middle class ALWAYS gets stuck paying more than their share. What is wrong with the wealthy, those that make over $250,000 per year paying a bit more. They certainly could afford a small hike. The middle class gets them all the time, why not them as well?? I could go on a long time about the sad condition of our states and countries finances but enough said. Thankyou for listening. Sign me; Disgusted with New Taxes and Fees.

PS, $2B is a drop in the bucket for any kind of real programs, and will disappear within a year or two anyway thanks to inflation and capital projects

Or why not cut taxes for the middle class? Because you aren’t arguing for “tax fairness” you are arguing for more government spending.

Wayne, PS, $2B is a drop in the bucket for any kind of real programs, and will disappear within a year or two anyway thanks to inflation and capital projects

Um, inflation grows revenues, too, and capital projects are largely financed through borrowing.

Your comments aren’t in line with how state government budgets. Budgets are set in advance based on projected revenues and spending (spending does not include inflation for the belief that government should not grow on autopilot). In 2003, expected spending outpaced expected revenues by about $4.5 billion for the 7/1/3-7/1/5 budget cycle. Hence the term “deficit” but not because revenues were going down. Rather, growth was not expected to keep up with spending growth. On 7/1/5 the state balance must be $0 and the estimate was that if no changes were made, the state would be $4.5 billion away from $0, to the bad. If I remember right, the actual balance on 7/1/5 was to the good, making us able to pay off some of the “accounting tricks”

We’re in the same sitiation now. Estimates are that the budget will close on 7/1/9 with about $1 billion to the good.

Oops, misplaced comma. “… up 54%, five times the rate of salary increase.”

because the rich people have money to donate to campaigns

And I forgot to add that fee increases over the last five years aren’t a tremendous amount higher than their traditional growth.

And The Rich already pay the overhwlming majority of taxes.

And The Rich already pay the overhwlming majority of taxes.

As they should.

So projected revenue increases take inflation into account, but projected expenditures do not? How many responsible people plan their own finances that way?

Fine.

I also enjoy excessive use of the word “folks”. It’s such a…folksy…word.

the rich overwhelmingly benefit from the current system so it makes sense that they should pay the lion’s share of its upkeep. if they don’t want to pay taxes, I guess the police can stop protecting them from the poor unwashed masses that want to take their things

TBar,

As someone in the affected tax bracket, are you OK with a hike? I understood from your comment post that you are OK with use-taxes, but what about income taxes?

the rich overwhelmingly benefit from the current system

Directly behind the bus is not a good place to stand, Wayne.

So projected revenue increases take inflation into account, but projected expenditures do not? How many responsible people plan their own finances that way?

Like I said, it’s based on the belief that government should not grow on autopilot. It’s more of a philosophical decision than an accounting decision. Justify the increase.

what does that even mean? the bus isn’t backing up is it?

you lost me. but they do benefit most, or they wouldn’t be the rich ones. every system has winners and losers, and whether they like it or not, the programs their taxes pay for are all that keep the losers from changing the system and taking what the winners have. stability is key.

You’re assuming it’s the system that makes people rich. I would say it is a person’s ability to create profit that makes them rich. Steve Jobs is rich because he’ sells his genius products for a profit; Bill Gates is rich beacuse lots of people are stupid.

The last half I actually agree with, to a point. Difference being that government runs the system, not The Rich. If The Rich ran the welfare state, well that’s another thread.

“Government should not grow on autopilot” isn’t a philosophy, it’s a slogan. Please explain to me how staying even in terms of real dollars is growth. If all you are saying is that government needs to re-evaluate its programs every year, the vast majority of us agree on that. We just don’t need to attach the concept to funny bookkeeping, which is irresponsible.

Re-evaluate the program and if you need more, we’ll see what we can do. But don’t ask for more simply because you continue to exist. That’s like expecting birthday presents.

That’s not answering the question. Constant real dollars isn’t more. Teach fourth grade or sell salt to the highway department? This year we’ll pay you in dollars, next year we’ll pay you the same amount in dollars that are only worth 97 or 98 cents. What’s wrong with realistic assumptions in government?

“We can fix that. But let’s be honest and not imply that that money is going to the kids. It’s going to pay for the teachers’ retirement fund and health insurance.”

So, how long are YOU going to work for free?

“The really perverse thing about this is, where do you think they got that money? From the paychecks of public employees, paid for by taxpayers like you and me! You and me are paying for those dishonest ads that lobby for even more public money!! arrrggghh!”

So, you get to choose how someone else spends the money THEY earn? Strange definition of freedom you have there.

I would say it is a person’s ability to create profit that makes them rich.

It’s so ironic that conservatives have a conception of liberals as naive and idealistic. That’s the most goddamned naive and idealistic thing I’ve heard in weeks.

There is probably some tiny correlation of intelligence and hard work with riches, but I have a gut feeling steve jobs isn’t 10,000 times more intelligent and hard working than me, and I don’t know that anyone deserves to be that rich even if they were.

In reality, it’s a particularily filthy sort of person that benefits the most from our system. Pure capitalism is the metric for everything. It’s disgusting. If someone gets rich, it’s because they’re “good” or “smart”, not lucky or swindling, which is much more likely the case. And the honest workers – people doing manual labor, people doing science, people making art, people that create real products – get the least, while the people who trade other people for a living and sell people shit they don’t need get the most. But we justify this as right somehow because of the founding assumption of the dollar as the universal measuring stick. The morally dubious and outright thieves have higher moral capital than the starving. Give me a break.

This man is totally desperate. First, he barely won re-election last year against former attorney general Mike Hatch by only one percent of the total vote; second, he has no friends or allies at the state captiol since all other government offices are now in the hands of the DFL, and that both houses are also control by the DFL in wide majorties; third, he continues to ruin his entire political career by siding with John McCain as a possible veep canadiate in which McCain himself has no chance of winning either the 2008 general election or the GOP nomination against any of the field of national democrats in the race; and fourth, he managed to shot himself in the foot so many times in which nobody in the role of politics don’t trust him anymore, when it comes to handling with public affairs.

Man, what a pathetic little worm this moron is. And the neo-cons think this guy is great to be a staunch leader? Bleetch! Tell me about it.

sorry kwatt, the people disagree with you. look at them, they’re pissed.

It’s okay, Chris. Like all great visionaries, I am used to it. It’s not easy talking to folks like Jeff, trying to open their eyes to the realities of supply and demand. I mean, imagine being me, Chris. It isn’t easy. Not easy at all. You’re lucky I’m here. Lucky I’m here. Take mums for example. As smart as I am, I can’t seem to get through to him that I will give him 2007 dollars for something, but he has to justify it first. He must think I have this pot of 2005 dollars sitting around or something. C’mon, Chris. You’re better than this.

I don’t even think Jeff even has a job. I think he’s a professional student. So, it’s not as if he knows anything about anything. But given his view on capitalism, I would suggest to him that when he is eventually forced to leave school kicking and screaming, he should really get a job with a non-profit. He wouldn’t last too long where you have to know how the world works.

As smart as you are, kwatt, you can’t seem to figure out that next year’s dollars and last year’s dollars aren’t the same thing. I hope you’re not planning your retirement without factoring in inflation. Bad idea. And I’ve got no problem with factoring in changes. Think there’ll be fewer kids in school next year? A reason to cut funds. Think global warming means no snow next year? Eliminate money for salt. But if you realistically expect government to do basically the same things next year as last and think inflation will occur, make your projections accordingly. Cutting the real dollars without deciding what you would cut in services is an evasion.

Maz, you know I’m a “professional” student right now. I take a fair deal of pride in it. I also live just damn fine on an $18k stipend, so I think I’ll be able to find that in the future without turning into a republican.

I understand supply and demand. I’m not a moron. Explaining to me how libertarian capitalism works isn’t the same as making a case for it. It’s sad that you’re so locked in to exactly the way things are done that you couldn’t possibly question it. But really – do I not have a point? Use your imagination, try thinking of another way to evaluate people than how much money they make. Consider the meanings of “fair” and “deserves” a little bit. It’s not so simple.

Actually, to clarify, I do have a job, I’m a research assistant. That’s a job; I do work and get paid in return.

That’s a job; I do work and get paid in return.

Yeah, and since I’m a taxpayer, you work for me.

Kwatt would have made a great assistant editor for Leni Riefenstahl.

“More flags, junge! More flags!”
————————————————————————————
This is what always happens: The Repubs drain the pool and then the Democrats go to fill it up and they attack them for “exploiting” people with their wasteful use of water.

Same shit, different day. Bor-ing!

It’s true. After our current experiment is finished, I’ll email the papers directly to you.

Wow, the amount of condescension in this thread is amazing…

HEY YOU, PUBLIC SERVANT! LICK MY BOOTS CLEAN! YOU WORK FOR ME BECAUSE I PAY TAXES SO YOU ARE MY PERSONAL SLAVE!

WAH HA HA HA HA! I DON’T UNDERSTAND THE SYSTEM AT ALL!