Government shutdown thoughts
Greetings y'all from the great state of Minnesota!
Our state government has been on "shutdown" status since July 1, due to the failure to agree on a balanced budget plan.
Myself, I was camping at Gooseberry State Park from June 26- July 1, and would have lost our last day of camping, except for a quick bill to keep the state parks open over the 4th of July weekend. (I'm not sure of the details of the bill)
The only apparent shutdown I saw was the rest stops along 35 were all closed. I guess licensing departments are also closed.
Looking online I find:
http://www.governor.state.mn.us/
Looks like the State Park bill is a permanent one for parts of the government - AGRICULTURE, ENVIRONMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BILL. The bill keeps state parks open and provides money for farm and job-training programs ( Senate File 69)
Main information at:
http://www.doer.state.mn.us/shutdown/
With closed list:
http://www.doer.state.mn.us/shutdown/pdfs/closed.pdf
****
****
Compare to "open" list:
http://www.doer.state.mn.us/shutdown/pdfs/open.pdf
Overall a rather short list being closed.
I am overall glad for at least some accountability with the shutdown process. I'm glad states are required to balance their budgets - unlike the federal government. Admittingly it has little affect on me in the short term. I dislike the wastefulness of the process, but it seems necessary to do something.
I don't know who I ought to "blame" on this shutdown. I don't have any immediate desire to "throw the bums out" for failing to pass a budget. There's strong opinions out there for direction and all sides surely have some strengths to have a place in the decision. I suppose we might have as easily been like the federal government where one party controls all 3 branches - Senate/House/Governor, and then we'd have a very efficient process perhaps - steamrolling opposition.
I'm glad the DFL is there in the Senate to oppose the Governor's Gambling expansion plans, even if perhaps a good number of republicans might equally have strong feelings against it.
I'm gratified there was a $0.10/gallon gas tax passed, even if the governor vetoed it. It shows recognition for our needs for government funding for transportation. This amazing step shows something has changed in the consciousness of the representatives over previous years.
I don't support the Governor's pledge to the Tax Payers League against raising taxes. Clearly the governor made a foolish mistake, one that he can't easily squirm out of without looking foolish. I do appreciate some of his willingness to look foolish.
Looking at the Tax Payers League website:
http://www.taxpayersleague.org/issues/pr_display.php?rid=304 Article from Mark Buesgens, R-Jordan, Minnesota House of Representatives
$1.4 billion desired by the DFL sounds like a rather big number for a state of ~5 million people, extra ~$280/person/year perhaps. Maybe $1000/family?
I really try to see "both sides", and hope for room for compromise. The "smaller government" movement is played on the "my money" card. Somehow the republicans have to convince people that their taxes are "too high". They also have to convince people that it is "unfair" to demand higher income people pay a higher rate for their taxes on the grounds that such people are the movers and shakers of the state and they'll do their moving and shaking elsewhere unless we keep their taxes low.
I'm unmoved by arguments that I pay too much in taxes, or that it is unfair for wealthy people to pay more. I am more concerned on long term trends and I do accept that there needs to be debate on what functions a government ought to perform and how they will be funded.
I'm unmoved by the "nanny state" diatribe against social programs. I do accept that there are long term consequences of our programs that need to be addressed. If we're unsure whether such programs are sustainable in the long term, we ought to consider whether it's better now to "ween" ourselves from them, even if they are still within the "affordability" of a wealthy and prosperous state.
Overall I think the republicans for the moment must give in to the DFL positions that increase some taxes to cover maintaining current programs. The republicans have made their point crystal clear that they represent smaller government. So it's up to "the people" to see if they agree next election cycle and dump the DFL majority in the senate, and raise the republican margin in the house, as well as keeping the Governorship.
Why should the republicans compromise now? Because people like me exist who believe that a strong state is supported by a strong set of social programs, and who are willing to pay more to keep it.
It would be nice to be nonpartisan and say the democrats also need to compromise. They do! But they have the more noble side in the short term. Our tax rates were lowered in 2000 when we thought we had a surplus. Well, what harm does it do to raise them now (for everyone) back to the old rates?
YES, trouble is a'brewing in our future, and that trouble will as likely as not require much greater costs than our current shortfalls. YES, increasing government now will make future cuts even more harsh when they come.
I'm "long term" all the way in policy, but for the moment I only accept "shrink the government" as a scare tactic to keep the system fearful enough that people will get a clue and not assume we'll always have what we have now.
I don't believe there are many people who will choose to move to Wisconsin to reduce their income taxes. I think we've got a good place here, more than enough to attract good people to our state.
And on the shutdown?
Ugh, come on Reps, you've got the upper hand. You've made your point, but lets move on and get a compromise budget that is honest and free from undue ideological blindnesses.
Please?
Our state government has been on "shutdown" status since July 1, due to the failure to agree on a balanced budget plan.
Myself, I was camping at Gooseberry State Park from June 26- July 1, and would have lost our last day of camping, except for a quick bill to keep the state parks open over the 4th of July weekend. (I'm not sure of the details of the bill)
The only apparent shutdown I saw was the rest stops along 35 were all closed. I guess licensing departments are also closed.
Looking online I find:
http://www.governor.state.mn.us/
Looks like the State Park bill is a permanent one for parts of the government - AGRICULTURE, ENVIRONMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BILL. The bill keeps state parks open and provides money for farm and job-training programs ( Senate File 69)
Main information at:
http://www.doer.state.mn.us/shutdown/
With closed list:
http://www.doer.state.mn.us/shutdown/pdfs/closed.pdf
****
Agency Discontinued Services & Public ImpactEducation
- State and federal funding for libraries would be delayed.
- State funding for early childhood programs, including ECFE, would be
delayed.- State and federal adult basic grants and aid would be delayed.
Health
- Suspend grants to local public health agencies
Public Safety
- Suspend issuing new drivers licenses and driver testing.
- Administrative support and training for troopers will be reduced.
- Most vehicle title processing will be delayed.
- Internal investigations delayed.
Transportation
- Slow or no response on all maintenance activities.
- Rest areas will be closed, affecting July 4th holiday travelers.
- Suspend message boards & traffic information for motorists.
****
Compare to "open" list:
http://www.doer.state.mn.us/shutdown/pdfs/open.pdf
Overall a rather short list being closed.
I am overall glad for at least some accountability with the shutdown process. I'm glad states are required to balance their budgets - unlike the federal government. Admittingly it has little affect on me in the short term. I dislike the wastefulness of the process, but it seems necessary to do something.
I don't know who I ought to "blame" on this shutdown. I don't have any immediate desire to "throw the bums out" for failing to pass a budget. There's strong opinions out there for direction and all sides surely have some strengths to have a place in the decision. I suppose we might have as easily been like the federal government where one party controls all 3 branches - Senate/House/Governor, and then we'd have a very efficient process perhaps - steamrolling opposition.
I'm glad the DFL is there in the Senate to oppose the Governor's Gambling expansion plans, even if perhaps a good number of republicans might equally have strong feelings against it.
I'm gratified there was a $0.10/gallon gas tax passed, even if the governor vetoed it. It shows recognition for our needs for government funding for transportation. This amazing step shows something has changed in the consciousness of the representatives over previous years.
I don't support the Governor's pledge to the Tax Payers League against raising taxes. Clearly the governor made a foolish mistake, one that he can't easily squirm out of without looking foolish. I do appreciate some of his willingness to look foolish.
Looking at the Tax Payers League website:
http://www.taxpayersleague.org/issues/pr_display.php?rid=304 Article from Mark Buesgens, R-Jordan, Minnesota House of Representatives
$1.4 billion desired by the DFL sounds like a rather big number for a state of ~5 million people, extra ~$280/person/year perhaps. Maybe $1000/family?
I really try to see "both sides", and hope for room for compromise. The "smaller government" movement is played on the "my money" card. Somehow the republicans have to convince people that their taxes are "too high". They also have to convince people that it is "unfair" to demand higher income people pay a higher rate for their taxes on the grounds that such people are the movers and shakers of the state and they'll do their moving and shaking elsewhere unless we keep their taxes low.
I'm unmoved by arguments that I pay too much in taxes, or that it is unfair for wealthy people to pay more. I am more concerned on long term trends and I do accept that there needs to be debate on what functions a government ought to perform and how they will be funded.
I'm unmoved by the "nanny state" diatribe against social programs. I do accept that there are long term consequences of our programs that need to be addressed. If we're unsure whether such programs are sustainable in the long term, we ought to consider whether it's better now to "ween" ourselves from them, even if they are still within the "affordability" of a wealthy and prosperous state.
Overall I think the republicans for the moment must give in to the DFL positions that increase some taxes to cover maintaining current programs. The republicans have made their point crystal clear that they represent smaller government. So it's up to "the people" to see if they agree next election cycle and dump the DFL majority in the senate, and raise the republican margin in the house, as well as keeping the Governorship.
Why should the republicans compromise now? Because people like me exist who believe that a strong state is supported by a strong set of social programs, and who are willing to pay more to keep it.
It would be nice to be nonpartisan and say the democrats also need to compromise. They do! But they have the more noble side in the short term. Our tax rates were lowered in 2000 when we thought we had a surplus. Well, what harm does it do to raise them now (for everyone) back to the old rates?
YES, trouble is a'brewing in our future, and that trouble will as likely as not require much greater costs than our current shortfalls. YES, increasing government now will make future cuts even more harsh when they come.
I'm "long term" all the way in policy, but for the moment I only accept "shrink the government" as a scare tactic to keep the system fearful enough that people will get a clue and not assume we'll always have what we have now.
I don't believe there are many people who will choose to move to Wisconsin to reduce their income taxes. I think we've got a good place here, more than enough to attract good people to our state.
And on the shutdown?
Ugh, come on Reps, you've got the upper hand. You've made your point, but lets move on and get a compromise budget that is honest and free from undue ideological blindnesses.
Please?
posted by Ares Olympus at 4:01 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home