Lawmakers’ views: DFL will bring a new focus to St. Paul
January 5, 2013 at 6:00 pm in Duluth News Tribune
This Legislature will be focused, driven and dedicated to resolving what has become a perpetual cycle of repeated deficits. We will be inclusive of all and eventually reach a resolve that will be in the best interest of Minnesotans today, tomorrow and into the future.
Continue Reading
I really hope that everyone who reads this realizes that all these people who are quoted here have been part of the tax and spend group that got us into this mess. They want us to believe that you can change the stripes on the tiger, but we all know better. Sounds good, but I do not believe ir even a little bit.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
47 
20
Good to read about deficit reductions. Best way to achieve them is to reduce spending as that not only eases the debt but also returns more freedom to Minnesotans.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
39 
16
Which will never, ever, ever happen.
There is no way on (choose your deity)’s green Earth these people will say “Hey, we spend way too much on way too many, we need to end the trough.” It’ll be tax, tax, tax. Be prepared for higher income taxes, higher sales taxes, higher fuel taxes and more. Remember that the best way to improve people’s lives is to take more money from them.
And freedoms? Hahahahahahaha. You mean like treating MJ the same as alcohol? Being able to buy booze on Sunday or after 10pm or at a grocery store? Being able to buy a car on Sunday? Being able to buy regular fireworks? Or add in any other reversal of stupid regulatory/judicial BS? Fat chance.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
37 
13
I forgot to add:
We really need to “thank” the MN-GOP for setting this up. While anyone with a “DFL” after their name tends to make me want to regurgitate, the R’s alignment with the religious fringe on both a state & national level has completely & truly screwed us in an uncomfortable location. And I don’t mean the back of a Volkswagen.
Hot debate. What do you think?
17 
21
I agree Pat…The Republicans need to rethink what they stand for. Nothing wrong with being fiscally conservative. We are never going to be able to spend our way to prosperity. But the R’s go off on a tangent on gay rights. The marriage amendment they put forth last year was foolish. Just because you have beliefs on certain social issues doesn’t mean we should force others to live that way.
Hot debate. What do you think?
18 
18
The SMART thing to do would have been avoid all that crap, tell MN voters “Hey, don’t lump us in with what’s going on nationally” and explain a clear, concise vision.
But you know. And you’d think Simonson’s first priority should be making amends with his daughter & getting to know her.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
20 
5
As a whole, I don’t think Minnesota Republicans have a big incentive to change. They’re probably going to gain seats in 2014 no matter what they do.
But I would love to see some intelligent, fiscally responsible, anti-prohibition, pro-2nd amendment, gay neutral Republicans on the ballot next time around.
Like or Dislike:
12 
12
What’s new and exciting about the new tax and spend bunch in St. Paul? It’s just the same old retread the far left, currently in control, is trying to plaster on the face of the old tax and spend democrat party.
Like or Dislike:
7 
7
Ahh, what a refreshing narrative on AreaVoices. Taxes are the problem. We need to cut our way out of this. Anyone who disagrees is “far left”.
As a college graduate, I know first hand that cuts are the problem – not taxes. Tuition fees at public universities have increased exponentially primarily because of massive state education funding CUTS. The numbers show this. The college education you folks in your 40s, 50s, and 60s were offered was pennies compared to what young people are paying now. Plus, you would have graduated in a great job market. This was all BEFORE the “cut government, bad government, privatize everything” post-Reagan policies came about (instituted by both parties). You are all calling for more of the same, which will create more of the same problems, yet you’re still going to blame the “far left” for it.
Like or Dislike:
7 
8
That $10 trillion plus in red ink Obama is going to rack up in his two terms isn’t the result of cuts, that’s for sure.
Like or Dislike:
6 
4
Merv, yes, it was just as hard to come up with $4,500 for tuition then as it is today to come up with $14,500 of tuition. But then we had a professor who taught the class who was probably making $40 to $50 grand a year. Today you have a professor making $200,000+ who has his teaching assistants teaching the class. May not be true in all cases but seems to be prevalent in most cases. Current example is the U of M who seems to have a lot of administrative costs which could be “cut” so that tuition could be lowered.
Like or Dislike:
7 
2
bobk……very true! The # of administrative positions and the money spent to support those positions have gone up more than twice the amount of students who have enrolled and thru their their enrollment costs to support all of these extra admin costs. More bloat….which adds to more bloat, etc! The The Minn universities are certainly not alone…..they all do this….just like Gov’t operations! There is far, far too much waste, duplicity and sheer spending by these folks….because IF THEY DO NOT SPEND IT ALL…..the next year they do not get as much funding! This is sheer madness! Yes, it creates positions, but is totally unnecessary because all it does is add to the taxpayer expense etc, etc, and on and on! Just creates viscous circles which never, ever end!
Like or Dislike:
6 
1
Anyone that thinks Mark Dayton is going to cut anything needs only to look at his $37 billion request in the last budget cycle to see another pork barrel on the horizon.
Like or Dislike:
5 
4
All the $1.1 billion projected state deficit means is the governor hasn’t figured how to cover his pie-in-the-sky spending projections. Try to find out what Dayton’s total spending is projected to be. I’ve tried and haven’t been able to come up with it yet. That $1.1 billion doesn’t mean the democrats have less money available, it just means they have less money available than they want to spend. I’d bet money if I was a betting man that we’ll see double digit increases in state spending again this time around.
Like or Dislike:
5 
2
Smartimus….correct! A state PROJECTED deficit, is exactly that….projected! And by that, it means ( like you said )…..the projected revenue falls short of WHAT THEY WANT TO SPEND…..not for actual expenditures that they need. By phrasing it that way…..they prepare people to dig deeper!
Like or Dislike:
4 
2