Seasoned. You mean like with salt?



I don't necessarily see his viewpoint as negative and slanted. Quite frankly I agree with most of what he has to say on this subject. My disagreement is not with the goals of this proposal.

I am an outdoorsman and I must in all honesty admit that yeah, I would love to see more of our public funds spent on the outdoors, environment, etc. but I also must admit that I see the selfishness of the same.

I just do not believe to do it we need to raise our sales tax to get it done. This process started with a proposal to just dedicate a portion of our existing budget but has now blossomed into something more. Why? Because nobody was willing to compromise their pet projects and so the best they could come up with was to raise taxes. To save face they will put the question to we the people rather than take the blame for raising taxes.

This one member of the people still believes we can do better and we should.

Bob

I am still in college, sort of. I am on year 10 or 11. With a few years off after the first 4.

I am about a month a way from 30 years old, LIMT's 3 years of extra seasoning ain't much.

I never claimed to know everything in the book, but I do know there there is no reason to be an A$$, Pier.

Come on guys, we're having a healthy debate and discussion here. Don't go personal or I'll have to turn this car around right now!

LIMITOUT, I agree with your whole heartedly. My vote will be a resounding NO! And I think when I posted my previous comment about where our taxes go ( and then was called a whiner) I'll state the comment again. Where does all of the other money i.e. taxes, lottery, licensing fee's etc. go??? Isn't that what it's for? Oh I know where it goes, it goes to corrupt DNR officials so they can throw lavish get togethers as stated in the other topic....

Also voting no. There's a lot to like in the goals of the Amendment but they lose me at a tax increase. Simple message...the state has enough of my money. Need something else? Cut from an existing expenditure. After all, it is what the rest of us have to do.

Big Tom is right on the "money."

Sorry Johny..... I'm still voting YES if that helps!

Vote No. We don't need any new taxes. It is coupled with a bunch of useless pork pertaining to funding the arts.

Join PF, DU and MWA if and be active in your chatper! Get off your butts! We will be much more effective this way. Eon't Relay on wasteful big Gov't to do this.

I totally support dedicated funding for the environment - I think most people do here at FM. The entire argument is how to go about this - my thought is an amendment to establish a percentage of the current MN sales tax that would be dedicated -- Not an additional tax.

Exactly. Of course those that support the idea like to twist the truth by insinuating or implying that because we would vote no we are voting against the environment. Hogwash. What we have is not a compromise. A compromise would be to work out where the money will come from. This is a copout and a means to save face.

Bob

Right on, Tom. Here's yet another example: Despite Gov. Pawlenty establishing a "Clean Water Cabinet" with it's attendent excutive secretary and functionaries, we still have the individual fiefdoms of DNR, PCA, and Board of Water and Soil Resources each sending their own set of bureaucrats to various meetings on Wetland regulation and management. Sure, sure, these folks all represent their agency viewpoint and have a specific mandate from either federal regulation and/or state law that gives them some jurisdiction. But the endless debates and unresolved issues among the agencies suggests that little or no coordination or cabinet level priorities are set out. The fiefdoms just continue to fight for their own funding, expanded jurisdiction, legislative influence, public recognition, and most 'green' status.

Another example is the thousands of dollars wasted on the decade old (at least) Lake Superior Basin Study that grinds along lead by the MPCA. Nothing essential is getting done, but at least the various federal and state bureaucrats can participate in as many meetings as they have the stomach for.

Wetland/water management in this state has been fragmented, uncoordinated, and timid for too long. Despite several studies (count on one every four or five years) neither the legislature nor the various governors have had the courage to reign in or reorganize the agencies and their long-lived career heads.

I won't vote for the amendment until the state agencies with responsiblity for water quality and wetland management are held responsible for very specific performance goals in terms of wetland restoration, water quality improvements, and effective shoreland management.

Where are the SPECIFIC goals to be achieved, targeted watersheds and/or eco-regions to be improved, or innovative/controverial approaches to environmental management to be implimented?

What a deal. Neither the agencies, the legislature, the governor, the NGOs, or the university system will have to take any risks. Just get more money to do the same old thing.

What a deal.

One other comment for you conservatives;

I don't suppose you see the irony among politically conservative members of this forum. As a proud liberal, I find it ironic that those of you who are firmly against us "tax and spend" liberals are willing to throw more money at this very critical issue without demanding some rigorous accountabiliy BEFORE you pony up.

You can't have it both ways. Show me your business sense, your highly honed skills at effective money management, your 'bottom-line' approach to efficient orgaizational management.

Summary: Conservatives are not any more effective at allocating and accounting for the efficient expenditure of tax funds than anyone else. They're just better at shifting the blame.

I am conservative.. and I made my case against this proposal.. your statement is incorrect

Actually, after reading your comments again, you appear to be a "no new taxes" conservative with a gnawing suspicion that the dedicated tax will increase over time, that previous bonding expenditures from dedicated accounts apparently do not meet your standard for public investment, and that you might just have to investigate how previous Environmental Trust Fund appropriations have been spent.

Those concerns may establish you as a Grumpy and Suspicious Conservative, but don't elevate you to a Guardian of the Public Trust Conservative or a Management Guru Conservative.

But don't worry there aren't many of the latter...although Arne Carlson was probably close.

As long as you are thinking about investigating previous expenditures from the Environmental Trust Fund, try to find the answers to my quiz. I think that excercise might move you up to a Grumpy Public Trust Conservative.

I find it interesting how you break it down into different catagories of conservatism.. If I am against it based on any fiscal Ideals, it is that I don't trust any new taxes being used for what the original stated pupose for them is.. end of story.. The only tax increase that I thought was good as of late was the Cigerrete Tax increase... it caused me to quit smoking...It wasn't that I was for a tax increase, it was because it gave me a incentive to quit..

Now that many others have quit smoking as well, due to the increase, the Government has to find a new stream of Revenue.. Believe me, they are looking hard for it. Thus the Gas tax increase, this new proposal being placed in front of us... and who knows what else is coming down the pipe ? Property has decreased in value in many areas this year.. but do you think property taxes will go down as a result? I doubt it...

I do not trust the Government to spend money wisely, they have never proven themselves capable of that.. so I am not sure what the point of your lecture was? Was it that Liberals can be fiscally conservative? If so thats great, I don't care what your party affiliation is, if you are against taxing and spending, you are among allies..

One more question what dedicated accounts? What account has been dedicated that can't be touched at the Governments whim? It certainly wasn't Social Security or medicare? So where are these untouchable accounts people keep talking about? I need to be educated on them..