Pawlenty Proposes Amendment To Limit Spending In Minnesota

An effort to have government live within it's means and to no longer be on budgetary auto pilot. What a great idea!

Who would dare to be against this common sense idea?

So now the cr*appy roads will never get fixed. And Timmy can let more bridges fall down. Timmy has already led this state to mediocrity.

Hey Choices,

We found someone that actually believes run away government spending is under control. Read Aaron from Hopkins post.

Pat from Blaine wrote:

Hey Choices,
We found someone that actually believes run away government spending is under control. Read Aaron from Hopkins post.

So Pat and Aaron think that government budgeting of programs should assume increases across the board regardless of the economy and the ability to afford increases, regardless of whether the program was actually successful, and regardless of whether our State is in a crisis due to Federal unfunded mandates?

Do I have that right?

The kind of pointless symbolic act that a man running for president might do to burnish his checkered record of fiscal conservatism.

Choices,

YOu may have read my post wrong. I agree with you. I disagree with Aaron.

I am for smaller government at all levels. Personally I can not think of one government entity that should be increased.

California's Reckoning—and Ours


The state's budget debacle holds a lesson for America, but one we will probably ignore.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/210186...
California's budget debacle holds a lesson for America, but one we will probably ignore. It's easy to attribute the state's protracted budget stalemate, now temporarily resolved with about $26 billion of spending cuts and accounting gimmicks, to the deep recession and California's peculiar politics. Up to a point, that's true. Representing an eighth of the U.S. economy, California has been harder hit than most states. Unemployment, now 11.6 percent (national average: 9.5 percent), could top 13 percent in 2010, says economist Eduardo Martinez of Moody's Economy.com . Meanwhile, the requirement that any tax increase muster a two-thirds vote in the legislature promotes paralysis. Democrats prefer tax hikes to spending cuts, and Republicans can block higher taxes.

All this produced the recent drama: plunging tax revenue and the state's resulting huge budget deficits; endless negotiations between Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders; the deadlock that led the state to issue scrip (in effect, IOUs) to pay bills; and a final agreement on a 2009-10 budget. But there is also a bigger story with national implications. California has reached a tipping point. Its government made more promises than its economy can easily support. For years, state leaders papered over the contradiction with loans and modest changes. By overwhelming these expedients, the recession triggered an inevitable reckoning.

Here's the national lesson. There's a collision between high and rising demands for government services and the capacity of the economy to produce the income and tax revenue to pay for those demands. That's true of California, where poor immigrants and their children have increased pressures for more government services. It's also true of the nation, where an aging population raises Social Security and Medicare spending.

more at newsweek.com ...

----------

A little truthful editing here:

“That’s true of California, where illegals and their children have increased pressures for more government services as soon as they come into California illegally.”

The best way to summarize California is from Shakespeare's Julius Caesar;

"...the fault, dear Brutus lies not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are their underlings..."

Will the leftist politicians learn anything form this? No, They are beyond redemption.

Aaron wrote:

So now the cr*appy roads will never get fixed. And Timmy can let more bridges fall down. Timmy has already led this state to mediocrity.

It will force the elected officials to PRIORITIZE. Take some money from the arts or nature. Take some money from social programs. Take some money from special education.

You'll bet I won't touch any of the billioniares - those are the folks who will get me elected president. Not you overworked, overtaxed working stiffs! Ooops, gotta go to a lecture and fundraiser in Florida!

Disgruntled Outstater wrote:

<quoted text>
It will force the elected officials to PRIORITIZE. Take some money from the arts or nature. Take some money from social programs. Take some money from special education.

Aaron wrote:

So now the cr*appy roads will never get fixed. And Timmy can let more bridges fall down. Timmy has already led this state to mediocrity.

Your thoughts are the only things that are mediocre.

LGA Larry wrote:

California's Reckoning—and Ours
The state's budget debacle holds a lesson for America, but one we will probably ignore.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/210186...
California's budget debacle holds a lesson for America, but one we will probably ignore. It's easy to attribute the state's protracted budget stalemate, now temporarily resolved with about $26 billion of spending cuts and accounting gimmicks, to the deep recession and California's peculiar politics. Up to a point, that's true. Representing an eighth of the U.S. economy, California has been harder hit than most states. Unemployment, now 11.6 percent (national average: 9.5 percent), could top 13 percent in 2010, says economist Eduardo Martinez of Moody's Economy.com . Meanwhile, the requirement that any tax increase muster a two-thirds vote in the legislature promotes paralysis. Democrats prefer tax hikes to spending cuts, and Republicans can block higher taxes.
All this produced the recent drama: plunging tax revenue and the state's resulting huge budget deficits; endless negotiations between Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders; the deadlock that led the state to issue scrip (in effect, IOUs) to pay bills; and a final agreement on a 2009-10 budget. But there is also a bigger story with national implications. California has reached a tipping point. Its government made more promises than its economy can easily support. For years, state leaders papered over the contradiction with loans and modest changes. By overwhelming these expedients, the recession triggered an inevitable reckoning.
Here's the national lesson. There's a collision between high and rising demands for government services and the capacity of the economy to produce the income and tax revenue to pay for those demands. That's true of California, where poor immigrants and their children have increased pressures for more government services. It's also true of the nation, where an aging population raises Social Security and Medicare spending.
more at newsweek.com ...
----------
A little truthful editing here:
“That’s true of California, where illegals and their children have increased pressures for more government services as soon as they come into California illegally.”
The best way to summarize California is from Shakespeare's Julius Caesar;
"...the fault, dear Brutus lies not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are their underlings..."
Will the leftist politicians learn anything form this? No, They are beyond redemption.

You are correct. Minnesota eventually will be nothing more than a few farms and a large poor population. Minnesota is hostile to business large and small. What company in their right mind would want to do or start a business in this god-forsaken high-tax state? The f**king DFL just wants to keep raising taxes to pay for more social services, throw more money down the toilet for "education," let's not forget about the "arts," and so on. In Minnesota, eventually there will be fewer jobs, less manufacturing of any kind, and less actual tax-payers. Since most welfare recipients vote for the Democrats it makes sense that eventually the DFL will bankrupt the state. Oh but don't worry the DFL will keep going to the well until they suck it dry. Since the DFL truly sucks, the well will be dry in record time. In the end we'll be like California, no tax base and everyone on the dole.

Choices wrote:

<quoted text>
So Pat and Aaron think that government budgeting of programs should assume increases across the board regardless of the economy and the ability to afford increases, regardless of whether the program was actually successful, and regardless of whether our State is in a crisis due to Federal unfunded mandates?
Do I have that right?

No.