Tom Horner and Matt Entenza answered questions specific to the legal world. They agreed on concerns about the politicizing of judicial elections. But they disagreed on taxes, with the former Republican-turned-Independent Horner being more open to increased sales taxes than DFLer Entenza.
When asked about extending the sales tax to legal services Entenza said “I’m not going to take a pledge, but I don’t think expanding the sales tax is the direction we want to go.” Horner on the other hand cited a nearly $6 billion shortfall saying “we’re going to need new revenue, I do think we need to increase the sales tax.” The IP-endorsed candidate added that some business taxes should be reduced as well as possibly lowering and broadening the sales tax.
…”Horner is a republican; Horner is a republican; Horner is a republican; Horner is a republican; Horner is a republican…”
No. Shush, and get chanting.
I was at our state convention last Thursday and attended the Third Placer’s gubernatorial forum (Entenza being the presumptive third-place finisher in the DFL primary and Horner being the presumptive third-place finisher in the general election) and here’s what I recall were their answers on the three topics:
1) On State funding for the courts, legal aid and public defenders – both said that they thought it was important but neither committed to increasing funding or forestalling any further “cuts.” Entenza also expressed opposition to increased court fees as being a “tax.”
2) On expanding the sales tax to covering legal services – Entenza said he wanted to increase taxes on “those who can afford it” but didn’t entirely rule out raising or expanding the sales tax so long as it continued to exempt food, clothing, and shelter to make it less regressive. Horner talked about the need to “redesign” our tax structure and favored broadening the sales tax (without specifically saying that it should cover legal services) and wanted to lower our taxes on job creators in order to create a more stable tax base and a better economic climate.
3) On replacing judicial elections with judicial retention “elections” – both were in favor of it (this seems to be a big deal at the MSBA particularly with our outgoing president). I don’t frankly think it has a snowball’s chance in Hades as it would essentially require people voting to give up their right to vote on something. About the only way I could see it happening is if the constitutional amendment were deliberately worded to deceive voters about what they were voting for – sort of like the MVET amendment which fooled a lot of people into thinking that they were voting to dedicate the MVET to pay for roads and bridges when in reality it only dedicated money to mass transit. So I guess it’s possible.
Pingback: Shot in the Dark » Blog Archive » The Wrath of Hahn
Pingback: Lady GaGa... | Ourbs.com