Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
kevfish1

Dear Governor Pawlenty

39 posts in this topic

You say that you will not raise taxes trying to fix the budget. You then cut LGA, so the cities can raise the taxes. You also say that public safety should not be cut. Where are the cities to get the money so they do not have to cut public safety?? Small town MN is in a world of hurt because of the LGA cuts. Small town voters will remember this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cut the wasteful spending for one. If they look hard enough they can make up what they lost in LGA. Cities love to threaten to cut public safety when their LGA is cut which is nothing but a fearmongering.

Don't buy what they're selling. Hold them accountable....FOR ONCE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Limit, learn to budget your city. Blame these folks. So they don't want to cut so you are complaining that your city is raising taxes so they won't cut? But you are also complaining that Tpaw won't raise taxes? Um, what difference does it make if Tpaw raises or your city raises?

When gas was at $4 a gallon, did you go to your boss and ask for a pay raise or did you learn how to budget? Same goes for the cities. Learn to budget!! I get sick of these arguments. Govt spending is at all time highs and some just want to right blank checks? I'm glad Tpaw doesn't want to raise taxes and stands up to this type of spending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my point exactly sandman. By cutting LGA he is raising taxes. And he is forcing cuts. In a town of a one million dollar budget LGA has a huge effect. For mn small cities i do not think there is much wastfull spending. Not like at the state and federal level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cities DO budget based on a promised tax sharing from the State labeled LGA. The State started coming after the Cities and Counties in 2003. After all these years of cuts there is nothing left to cut. For the Clown Club in St Paul to second guess local governments is the absolute pinnacle of arrogance. Pawlenty can't get his charge under control so he tries to divert criticism to the Cities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I live in a small town and I am glad that the state doesn't just raise our taxes. The cities or small towns may threaten it but we have more control over that at a local level then we do over a state or federal level. At least if your community decides to raise your local taxes it stays local. When the state or feds raise your taxes your community may not even see a dime. Good job Tpaw!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my point is that he says he is not raising taxes but he really is forcing it at the local level. I said nothing about which was better

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fees in this state have hit record highs! 80% increase I believe,previous fees have increased 75% I've read.

The Smoking bans in other states are being considered dropped,Colo. Wyom. and a few others Have dropped them!

This seems like Govt. telling the people who own these places if the drop in profit hurts you TOO BAD! But when it cuts Govt. profit something has to be done! Then they state with the recession they need the extra money,When things were flourishing other taxes covered the smoking ban losses.

Their admitting what they said was untrue! Telling everyone smoking bans hurt nobody the clientele will change and smokers will yet do busisness in these places.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sandmannd, yes we did go to the employers and ask. 1 empoyer gave its employees there contract raise 2 months early, others did tweek a bit and others did say no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my point is that he says he is not raising taxes but he really is forcing it at the local level. I said nothing about which was better

If neither is better and the result is essentially the same, then what is the point? It seems that either the state gives the cities money and raises your taxes to cover it or the state cuts the cities money and the city raises your taxes. Or on the other hand the city or state in order to avoid raising taxes cuts services for its citizens. It seems the end result is the same no matter what but you are more upset because you believe that it hurts the small towns more. Why? Because they have a smaller budget? Doesn't it mean they also get a smaller amount accordingly? If every city got 10% of its budget from the state, then isn't it 10% regarless of the city you live in? What is worse, the small town losing a deputy or a big city losing half its gang task force? Sounds like it kind of is a tough thing regardless of where you live.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are living in troubled times. Sacrifices have to be made personally and at the government. I'd rather have a balanced budget than having even more debt held over our heads. Look at our neighbors to the west. In north dakota they've had a budget surplus for the past 3 years that has now grown to over a billion dollars! The reason being is that they didnt increase spending during the times of prosper, they've held on for a rainy day. If other states have taken the fiscal conservative stance of ND, the U.S would be in a much better shape. We spent ourselves into this mess by increasing all of our government handouts during a time of prosper, and now that we have fallen on hard times, we can't afford them. I give T-Paw credit for sticking to his guns during a very difficult time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fishlakeman, you are dead on. I'm from ND and they are very good with their spending. Maybe not as many luxeries as MN is used to, but they have a great life. They don't get fee'd and taxed to death either. Last time I licensed my new truck there it was $35. I moved here and it was $200. Quite the difference. I know, they don't have this or that, but they also don't have 3.5 million paying in so it all evens out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You say that you will not raise taxes trying to fix the budget. You then cut LGA, so the cities can raise the taxes. You also say that public safety should not be cut. Where are the cities to get the money so they do not have to cut public safety?? Small town MN is in a world of hurt because of the LGA cuts. Small town voters will remember this.

I believe the cuts are in the area of 5% (correct me if I am wrong) so are you going to tell me these effected cities can not cut this amount without raising taxes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But fishorgolf, why should they sacrifice 5% cuts when they can put the blame on T-paw and jack taxes by 12%?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have it all backwards. We should be paying the majority of our taxes locally and then smaller portions to the state and feds. Less waste at the local levels and we have more leverage on them than the state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have it all backwards. We should be paying the majority of our taxes locally and then smaller portions to the state and feds. Less waste at the local levels and we have more leverage on them than the state.

Exactly! If I see the mayor or council member at the grocery/hardware store I can let's say "engage" them in conversation on the subjects that I care about. If I want to I could even run for office myself and have a realistic chance of being elected. A person does not have the opportunity to have this much sway in how there tax dollars are spent when the decisions are being made by the few at the capital or in DC. There are very few things IMO except the obvious (national defense etc.) that are not better handled locally than state or nationally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have it all backwards. We should be paying the majority of our taxes locally and then smaller portions to the state and feds. Less waste at the local levels and we have more leverage on them than the state.

I agree totally. Why get taxed by the state so they can turn around and give it to the city? Why not give it straight to the city? In theory you should have more control of your dollars.

The reason why small towns are mad cause they dont want the money from their own residents (cause its not enough), they want the money from the rest of the state.

The reason why the big towns/cities are mad cause they are crazy and want to spend every last cent they can get their greedy hands on no matter where it comes from.

Where all this money is coming from? Who knows. Our pockets at one point or another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every tax should have to paid monthly like any other bill. No more escrow, no more payroll tax, no more s.s. tax, property tax etc.,. Then we would see people get excited about how much they are actually paying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LGA was created back in the 70s as a means to essentially share income and sales taxes. Right or wrong it's the way cities are financed and when LGA is cut and the budget is as thin as it will get, something has to give.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T Paw is abit lopsided there! 25% cut on LGA And 5% cut in state funding.Why not even all around?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It also wouldn't hurt for local governments to prioritize. Go through their budgets and determine what exactly are the essential services like police, fire and emergency medical response then start cutting from those that don't make the grade. I like parks, but not as much as I like police and fire services. No one is gonna die because the grass doesn't get cut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have question. Would you rather have the state cut LGA or raise your taxes to pay for it. Oh and I already know the answer from all the people that don't end up paying squat for taxes anyway, the question is for all those here who are actually paying the bill for all the spending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Posts

    • I have seen 3 different flocks of Swan's in the past week. I have also seen small flocks of little birds that look to be migrating.
    • MCI:   Sorry, but Waylon's only interests in life are ducks and my dirty laundry. I didn't start really getting into the shed hunting until recently so I didn't train him for it. I will probably do so with my next pup. He just tags along.   With the increase in popularity of shed hunting there is plenty of information out there. I know a few shed dogs and I know it's not as easy to get them excited about old bone then about a nice stinky duck, but definitely possible. The guys I know also compete in local shed competitions (staged courses) , so if you look into that type of thing there should be a group of guys with a lot of knowledge.
    • Trump is the enemy of the truth ! 
    •   Shouldn't be hard to come up with a way to fill a 1/4 inch gap, it seems to me.   Rip some strips of something, maybe even that synthetic decking, trex or something.    Then you could have the vinyl
    •   *marks "leech brings up someone's location as evidence their opinions are not relevant" on sillytown bingo card*   I'm one "big dave says you just don't understand freedom" away from a BINGO!
    •     ........if you are member of the LIVs. My 2nd graders think I am really smart at math as well. 
    •   No, but they wouldn't send them all to Belle Plaine where all the bleedies will take care of them, so what are we going to do? Man your pulling everything out of the old Libertarian hang book tonight.
    • Manafort was dumped quicker than a cheap date.   #pence2018
    •   No and no, I read it closely, but down here I shoot first then ask questions.                          
    •   Nice try.   You want me to rip apart your beloved Portugal?  There are hole everywhere.   First thing is first. This is a government policy, so this comes into play faster then a bullet..   " ...many of the problems stemmed not necessarily from a disagreement over the facts but a disagreement over which facts matter when it comes to interpreting the effects of decriminalisation."   Just like you Dave, only using the facts that fit your narrative.     HIV - down yes.   Due to eradicating drug dens, availability of needles, health awareness.   Deaths, over dose - yes (arguably)   Due to access of real drugs, not designer, dangerous synthetic weeds.     Homicides - yes/no Also there is no data collected for drug related homicides.       Drug users are not deemed criminals but as sick. Which immediately becomes a public expense.       -"" Goulão himself is skeptical of some aspects of marijuana reform in places like the United States, which he says can conflate medical use with recreational markets. "Sometimes I feel the promoters of this discussion are mixing things together using a lack of intellectual seriousness (Big Dave & Purple)," he said.""     This is just in 5 minutes, I'll go on doing this all day long. Leave you laying on the floor.   By the way, you just cut and paste articles. In no way way have you presented an intelligent reason why decriminalization would curb drug use.   Keep pasting,       
  • Our Sponsors