That or 1 week try handing out 1/2 a paycheck to your employees…. 
Even though I voted NO, like said, I am paying it…. my Rep got a NASTY email from me. I don’t think this will help Paw with outdoorsman/people, if he really plans on running for the prez in 2012. 
big G 
Quote:
How do these other states get by bringing in less money but Minnesota always seems like they need a new tax?
Probably because we are the most liberal voting goddam state in the entire union. I am always completely embarrassed every election year to be a Minnesotan.
The good news, I got $30.00 extra this paycheck!! Thanks prez!! 
Quote:
The good news, I got $30.00 extra this paycheck!! Thanks prez!!
You may be payig that back if the tax cut are not passed. All BO did was order a reduction in tax collected. The actual cuts have not passed congress.
But, lets try to stay on topic.
-J.
If you ever VOTE YES for a TAX, . . .
. . . ya might as well just step out of the voting booth and . . . 
Based on the article Jon posted, I don’t understand why everyone is surprised or outraged. The way I read the article, they aren’t saying they are reallocating any of the money related to the new tax that was just voted in. I didn’t see anywhere in the article that says they will even try to do that. Just because the majority of MN people supported the ammendment, doesn’t mean the money the outdoors and arts were getting from the general fund is exempt from future cuts. With a 6 plus billion dollar deficit, pretty much everything should be on the chopping block. Would I prefer to have other areas cut? Absolutely. If I lived in Mn, would I have voted for the ammendment? No way.
With this being said, how about we trade you 10 Doyles for 1 T. Paw.? 
Sorry, you need to re-read the article. It clearly states the Gov wants to decrease the funding to the DNR. The difference in the cuts and the money from the fund will result in a cut from 1.2% to just 1%. That money is comming from the dedicated conservation fund.
-J.
Jon,
I’ve reread it a few times now.
Quote:
Pawlenty’s response: Outdoors and the arts will get more money than they’ve ever had, and during a budget crisis job-creating programs get priority. Pawlenty doesn’t interpret the amendment to mean funding can never be reduced in those programs, spokesman Brian McClung said.
The above quote doesn’t make it sound like overall, there will be a decrease.
Quote:
But advocates said the overall budget share for conservation programs would shrink from about 1.2 percent to just under 1 percent in Pawlenty’s budget.
I also thought the quote above was referring specifically to the monies conservation programs get from the general fund.
Quote:
The amendment gives the outdoors a third of the new sales tax money, and another third goes to a clean water fund. Parks and trails will get a little more than 14 percent, with the rest going to arts and cultural programs.
And this quote referred to the money the programs get from the new ammendment and was over and above the money the programs get from the general fund.
Again, I’m just basing my comments on the article you posted only. I’m by no means an expert on MN budget allocation process.
The title of hte article say it all.
Quote:
Extra money for outdoors, arts may be budget casualty
I’d suggest writing a note to the person who wrote the article. I did. The numbers will shock you.
-J.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
