|
|
Location: Blogs Dan's Blog |
 |
| Posted by: Dan McGrath |
4/6/2009 |
 Minnesota Majority has partnered with eight other non-profit organizations to form an informal coalition focused on solving the state’s $6.4 billion state budget deficit. The group has produced a plan that closes the funding gap without raising taxes – in fact it actually eliminates some taxes. The proposal was introduced at a press conference at the Capitol today.
The coalition gathered proposals from policy experts and ordinary taxpayers to help identify opportunities to restructure state spending, and then collaborated to put the ideas into practical solutions. The result is a16-page document that solves the budget deficit using existing resources and doesn’t require federal “bailout” money or new taxes.
The budget solution document, titled “Real State Budget Reform” includes recommendations to save the state $6.6 billion through restructuring and greater efficiencies. It also suggests “revenue-neutral” reforms that we believe will improve Minnesota’s overall economic situation.
“This is more than just a band-aid,” said Phil Krinkie of the Taxpayers League of Minnesota, “this is budgeting reform that will have a lasting positive impact on the state’s economics.” The budget solution document is being distributed to all state legislators and to the governor.
“Minnesotans are outraged that their elected officials are once again contemplating raising their taxes,” said Jeff Davis, president of Minnesota Majority. “It seems some lawmakers just aren’t getting the message.” He announced that Minnesota Majority will be delivering an audio CD each week from now until the end of session with voice mail messages from angry taxpayers demanding cuts in government spending.
All state legislators are also being invited to sign a form stating that they will put spending cuts ahead of tax increases in the effort of balancing the state’s budget. “We are going to make sure that voters know which lawmakers refuse to make this simple commitment to their constituents,” said Davis. After April 15th, Minnesota Majority will launch a public awareness campaign to inform constituents how their legislators stand on budget solutions.
|
|
| Permalink |
Trackback |
Comments (2)
Add Comment
|
Re: Minnesota Majority, Coalition Partners Offer Real Budget Solution |
By Mrs. Wilson on
4/8/2009 |
I am appalled at this proposal. I understand the concept, and small parts of it could be implemented without making broad slashes to the services that are so deperately necessary. I think the authors of this proposal have an idealistic view that has no basis in reality. Our elderly would suffer the brunt of these reforms making many of them homelss. The vaste majority cannot generate income of their own anymore. What do the authors propose to do about that? I assure you, donations will not suffice.
To the item for cutting education funding I can only ask if they have lost their minds. Many of them have the education they do because of Minnesota's educational system. Teacher's salaries are not great, and class sizes increase at alarming rates. Surely there are individual programs that can be trimmed, but not many! We have already lost many cultural courses due to budget cuts. Why not cut sports? I didn't see that anywhere in the budget. If we keep that and none of the cultural curriculum, we will simply educate (and I use the term loosely) a generation of brutes.
This is not a realistic proposal in any way. Go back and try again. |
|
|
Re: Minnesota Majority, Coalition Partners Offer Real Budget Solution |
By dan.mcgrath on
4/8/2009 |
| Oh. Come on. That's the old tired arguent. "They're throwing grandma out on the street!" Not true. Go back and read it. School sports aren't a particular line item in the state budget, but it can be expected that if schools need to tighten belts, they will increase participation co-pays for extracirriculars like sports. The only "cultural" program we directly recommended cutting is IB, because there are less expensive alterntaives, and IB is anti-America in many ways. The proposal is more than realistic. It's modest. There are many areas we havent' even gotten around to examining yet for greater effeciencies. |
|
|
|
|
|