Dedicated funding - yes or no?

[tealitup]

There was a discussion on the "outdoors" thread on this site. Let me chime in a little. There is a couple points that I would like to make.

Sportsmen may not want this dedicated funding because it increases the overall tax for every person in the state. It is the reponsibility of our lawmakers to allocate tax funds as needed. They, as far as, outdoors, cleanwater and arts have not done a sufficient job. Many other projects that are less worthy have been funded. Set priorities - it is our job as sportsmen to educate the lawmakers; if that does not work we should vote them out of office.

Also, please take this hypothetical. If the DNR receives $250 million a year from the general fund allocation in 2007. In 2008 the DNR will receive $100 million from the dedicated tax. Will the total DNR budget increase to $350 million or will the legislature keep the DNR's budget at $250 million while decreasing the general tax allocation by $100 million.

There is the possibility of no-net gain for any of these areas. Only the chance for your lawmakers to take the good intention of a dedicated tax to replace general fund allocations.

ImissReeds, this is not a good deal for tax paying citizens. This is a way to increase the overal state tax while creating other "projects" from the left over money.

[brittman]

NO. Unless ....

You show me the current DNR budget vs the proposed DNR budget

... show me the increased spending really will go where?

Spending to spend is not good if you do not have a solid, defined plan. True whether you are talking wildlife, roads & bridges, schools, or health care....

[tealitup]

Someone correct me if I am wrong on this-- Was there not an ammendment for dedicated tax for transportation? What happened to that money? We need more - hum...

[brittman]

 Quote:

Also, please take this hypothetical. If the DNR receives $250 million a year from the general fund allocation in 2007. In 2008 the DNR will receive $100 million from the dedicated tax. Will the total DNR budget increase to $350 million or will the legislature keep the DNR's budget at $250 million while decreasing the general tax allocation by $100 million.

Exactly my 1st question.

[BobT]

 Quote:

how could a 'sportsman' not want more money for the wetlands, waters, trails, etc?

I don't believe the issue is whether sportsmen and women want or don't want more money to support our cause. The issue is in the management of the monies we already provide to our elected officials. Throwing more money into the pot does not mean it will be managed any better and if history repeats itself, it'll likely be managed worse.

Voting NO is not a vote against supporting the outdoors. Voting NO is a vote against just throwing away more of our hard earned incomes on taxes that are poorly managed.

Bob

[brittman]

[brittman]

 Quote:

Voting NO is not a vote against supporting the outdoors. Voting NO is a vote against just throwing away more of our hard earned incomes on taxes that are poorly managed.

exactly Bob

[anyfishwilldo]

 Originally Posted By: tealitup

Someone correct me if I am wrong on this-- Was there not an ammendment for dedicated tax for transportation? What happened to that money? We need more - hum...

Exactaly! That is the same thing that will happen to the money that we are to spend on just another tax. It may start out just peachy, but every year the arts will rob more, and it will go for more uneeded social programs. I am not willing to spend any more money on people too lazy to get off thier backsides and make a living. NO NO NO NO!

[tealitup]

So your reps/senators over - rode a veto from the governor to raise your gas tax. The largest single tax increase since the inception of the State of Minnesota. See the picture on the front page of the Star and Tribune? Laughing, smiling and happy that they have mismanaged your money in such a bad way that they needed to take more money from your pockets.

I actually heard one person say at the capital - well the casino will get less money. ITS OUR MONEY TO SPEND HOW WE WANT! You think the outdoors ammendment will pass now? Not a chance.

[vitalshot5]

I think we have more problems to worry about besides dedicated funding.....How about the 1 billion dollar defecit projected...We need to worry about fixing that and getting our educational system straight before we worry about dedicated funding....I'm all for raising the price of my outdoors licences before a dedicated tax.

[skee0025]

As of today I'm still a yes, but.. It all depends on the Legislature. They already helped themselves to what... 7 Billion of our hard earned dollars and the session just started. We all know what the Dems are like, this is only the begining of the fleecing. They got 1 tax bill passed they are sure to push for more. Hold on to your wallets guys, it's gonna be a long summer. hopefully I'll still be able to afford to hunt this year.

[dogs]

I have come to the conclusion that the reason the money gets robbed out of these dedicated funds is people just are not responable enough to police the people they have elected. "WE" have to get off our a$$e$ and start riding these people that take half of our more of our money. When I say, and hear others say, were did this money or that money go? It is an admission of guilt.... we think that someone is going to take care of our interest just because we work our butts off at a job and hope for the best. time to take the next step and put down the remote and pursue politicians. Everybody wants to blame special interest groups; these groups are just more motivated and

smarter than us.

Yes time to pony up

[BobT]

The problem is that in most of those situations is that it's too late by the time we find out. There's an old saying, "It's easier to get forgiven than to get permission."

Bob

[Neighbor_guy]

I hate to say it, but I too will be voting no on this one. Sorry.

[anyfishwilldo]

Here is just another reason to vote no on the funding. I clipped this out of the DNR site. This is for deer hunting.

Regulations Book

1.

Publish an abbreviated regulations book in the Hmong language.

2.

Organize a small group of people to review the regulations book before it is published.

Just another waste of our money to cater to people who are too lazy to learn to read, write and speak english in America.

NO NO NO

[Fisherman For a Lifetime]

And 20% going to "Arts"...? Ha!

They threw that in to get the city folk to vote for it.

Absolutely No.

With that big increase that just passed and the economy tanking (I lost my job to Ireland and still unemployed), there's almost no way it's gonna pass anyway.

[WaveWacker]

I did say yes above, and still lean that way but I think before anyone should completely decide lets see what comes out of how/who is going to make decisions on how to spend the money. Right now it looking as though it's going to highly be comprised of a citizen committee which I feel is better then just letting the decisions lie in a complete gov. run sort of committee.

anyfishwilldo...I'm quite sure how these funds are tied to any sort of changes to the rule book??? Not that I don't 100% agree with you that this is America and if you choose to participate in an activity in America you should be able to read the rules in English.