""Pawlenty's "New New Taxes" pledge""

That's funny, I assume a typogaphic slip, or are you referring to the health Impact Fees, increased court fees, toll ways and other New New taxes that Governor TaxemPlenty has proposed during his administration!

Flash

Education spending in Minnesota exceeds 50% of the state budget. When will we reach a sufficient level of spending? When will the Matt Entenzas and Dean Johnsons and Ann Rests in government be satisfied?

"When will the Matt Entenzas and Dean Johnsons and Ann Rests in government be satisfied?"

When any person making a 6 figure income (or family making $250K) or more (a.k.a. EEEEEEEEEEEEEEVIL RICHIE RICHES) are taxed at Carter-era levels.

They should be paying their fair share, and that fair share includes subsidizing everything that the lower income brackets ever need to use/buy/eat/pay for. All the better to keep the poverty pimps in power.

Kermit stole my thunder (I could start whining like a liberal or I could just congratulate him...which I will do).

Spendza Entenza was leading the charge not that long ago that he "feared for Minnesota" because the state was in such dire financial terms (read not enough for the Dems pork). But as Kermit stated, over 50% of the states budget goes to education. That is an unbelieveable $9 to $10K per student....per student! So to the Dems out there.....at what number WILL IT BE ENOUGH for education!?!? 98% of the state budget!!

That would be a good story for you Mitch. How does Minnesota rank in terms of education spending to other states in terms of A) percent of state budget and B) $ per student. And throw in C) the number of special counselers and administration needed as compared to 20-years ago.

Why shouldn't college students pay more of their tuition?

Maybe because a large number of working people can not afford the higher tuition. If the tuition were lower, they could get more education, become more productive workers, pay more taxes, contribute more to the public good, and generally help themselves and the rest of us live happier richer lives.

Mitch..

They were wrong, of course, as all of us tax hawks predicted; as the economy has improved, so has the state's revenue picture - that my boy is not exactly the epitome' of profoound.

First, EVERYONE understood that as the economy went, so went revenue.

Second, I know I certainly didn't predict ruin, just poor priorities.

Third, and most important, under Ventura, the state irresponsibly set income at a level sufficient to fund boom time needs, using boom time tax rates. Clearly, as needs increased, and revenue fell, that was foolish.

The only thing the Pawlenty administration has proven is that if you ignore needed programs long enough, eventually the cycles of the economy, inflation and a couple of really large estate tax collections, will bring you back into the black.

That doesn't excuse pushing people from environmnent where they were living at home with assisted care, to being wards of the state. It's not about the ends Mitch, it's the route you choose to get there.

PB

"First, EVERYONE understood that as the economy went, so went revenue."

Nope. All absolutes are false, Peeb.

Not EVERYONE understood it. Scads of DFLers, pundits, commentators, and Nick Coleman evinced not the faintest clue that they knew this. Ditto not a few DFL legislators (and a few GOP solons as well).

"Second, I know I certainly didn't predict ruin, just poor priorities."

Nick Coleman: "Our Schools Are Burning!", becauase of the "Tax Evaders' League". His opinion was far from unique.

"Third, and most important, under Ventura, the state irresponsibly set income at a level sufficient to fund boom time needs"

I don't think I'm being nigglingly semantic when I say that's incorrect; Ventura *assumed* the boom would last forever, and the DFLers (and Ventura acted like nothing so much as DFL Lite from the beginning, and all but f*llated Roger Moe by the end of his term) increased permanent spending with that assumption.

"using boom time tax rates. Clearly, as needs increased, and revenue fell, that was foolish."

The foolish part was turning *surplus* revenue - by defnition cyclical - into permanent entitlements.

"The only thing the Pawlenty administration has proven is that if you ignore needed programs long enough, eventually the cycles of the economy, inflation and a couple of really large estate tax collections, will bring you back into the black."

True - and even more true (or at least more germane) if you leave out the "if you ignore..." clause.

"That doesn't excuse pushing people from environmnent where they were living at home with assisted care, to being wards of the state."

Not sure when/if that happened, but that's certainly up for case-by-case discussion.

" It's not about the ends Mitch, it's the route you choose to get there."

And who tells the story about the trip. Especially.

Minnesota provides more health care per capita than any state between Illinois and California. What, precisely, is Matt Entenza looking for?

Mitch,

What, precisely, is the point you're trying to make? Every state between Minnesota and California sounds like a lot — in geography — but it's only 14 thinly populated states.

Point being, we provide more per capita for healthcare than Illinois, Wisconsin, Missouri, Colorado or really any other state inland from the coast. I could have stated it more clearly.

As, indeed, I just did.

The DFL can spin it anywhich way they want. But no amount of DFL spin can get past this fact: Pawlenty inherited a massive budget deficit when he took office and, thanks to his sound and prudent management of state government dollars, Minnesota now has a surplus.

Oops...I forgot to add how much I enjoyed watching Entzena and Dean Johnson (aka The Brothers Grim) on TV. They looked like they were sitting in a mud puddle. They and the other misery merchants in the modern DLF just can't stand something good happening in the state. The modern DFLers sure have lost their way from the days of HHH's politics of joy. Perhaps that explains why they have lost, period, in recent years.

"Maybe because a large number of working people can not afford the higher tuition. If the tuition were lower, they could get more education, become more productive workers, pay more taxes, contribute more to the public good, and generally help themselves and the rest of us live happier richer lives."

More subsidized women's studies majors, that's what we need.

Meanwhile, employers are crying for apprentices in building trades all over the country and would gladly pay kids to learn them but no, that's not good enough for our kids: every Minnesota kid is above average so all must have college degrees, regardless of usefulness or cost.

And the military will train anybody who will sign up plus pay for college besides. But that's not good enough either.

Why is mine the only pocket good enough for the DFL to pick?

.

Nathan,
The DFL beleives in equality, fairness and inclusion. They will gladly pick every pocket they can. For the Children, of course.

Er, mitch, could you block the porn peddler? I mean, yuch!

“That's funny, I assume a typogaphic slip, or are you referring to the health Impact Fees, increased court fees, toll ways and other New New taxes that Governor TaxemPlenty has proposed during his administration!”

Umm, no. The only one of those that qualifies as a tax is the cigarette tax increase. The rest of them are fees in that they charge the user for a particular government service for their use. When Pawlenty made his No New Taxes pledge back in 2002 he specifically stated that he was not including fees (nor should he have) and with the exception of the cigarette tax increase, he’s kept his word.

“What, precisely, is the point you're trying to make? Every state between Minnesota and California sounds like a lot — in geography — but it's only 14 thinly populated states.”

1) Mitch said “any state between Illinois and California.”

2) Look up the meaning of “per capita.”

Hey if Minnesota is really spending 10k per student, it'd likely better served by simply sending out 10k vouchers for each kid, and making each public school a seperate private corporation, with the teachers as shareholders. We'd soon see a education market develop, and as those less entrepreneurial teachers sold their shares to those who wanted to be equity holders in the industry, the dead managerial weight would be tossed overboard. Heck, I know a very qualified person who would likely re-enter the profession; lease space for fifteen to twenty students, do some marketing through her network, and hang her shingle out. There'd likely be all sorts of home-school/traditional school hybrids which would spring up.

Innovation; what a concept!

Hi i wanted to leave the message