August 2006 Weddings
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
*caden* and other conservs.
There's a discussion on my local right now about this proposed constitutional amendment to increase sales tax & use that increase to fund clean water & environmental causes in our state.
People who are for it are arguing that "it's only $0.37 on every $100" and "it's a good cause."
People who are against it are arguing that we don't need more taxes and they don't want to fund crap they don't use.
In 3 pages of argument back and forth, no one has bothered to mention (or seemingly, realize), that we're talking raising taxes by using the constitution and why that's problematic.
I think I'm about to bang my head against my desk.
Edit: I don't mean that this is only for caden and the conservatives here...
Re: *caden* and other conservs.
Beats me... they sort of did something similar in 2006 for transportation, except the practical result of that is that they ended up taking money away from other underfunded causes and requiring it be used for transportation. Passed with flying colors.
I might join you on the head to desk banging.
Why on earth do you need a constitutional amendment to raise an existing sales tax?
Could there be a cap on it somehow?
I don't think so, but honestly, I'm not sure.
elena-
It doesn't specify a cap, either. The language of the proposed amendment raises sales tax by like 3/8 of 1% and then makes it illegal to use those funds for anything other than designated in the amendment.
Oh, and we already have a tax that funds this area.
Maybe this will help in the argument
"It is very important for voters to understand they are voting on a tax increase on the November 4 ballot. If this measure passes, it will result in a tax increase of over $11 billion over the next 25 years," said Paap. "This tax increase will then be contained in the Minnesota Constitution. The only way the decision can be decreased or eliminated in the future will be to again amend the Minnesota Constitution through another ballot question."
"We, the citizens of Minnesota, elect legislators to make the tough decisions on raising taxes and funding programs and projects, and we should allow them to do so," said Paap. "By etching a sales tax increase into our state constitution we are tying the hands of those legislators as they grapple with the state budget in the future, and Farm Bureau cannot support this."
http://www.minnesotaagconnection.com/story-state.php?Id=897&yr=2008
I had to google trying to figure out why MN was doing this. I haven't found the answer as to why this would be a good thing yet!
We don't... Our state income tax is relatively high, but nothing quirky going on. In fact, I'm pretty sure we're prohibited from using the constitution to raise taxes, but I'd have to read up on that to be sure. I plan on voting no anyway, so it doesn't really matter to me that much.
I just did a quick search and I don't think it needs to be a Constitutional amendment at all. Whoever supports this probably wants it to be an amendment so that it's practically set in stone. Or maybe whoever opposes this wrote it like that so it would have a higher likelihood of failing. I can't imagine something like that passing in MI and we're a blue state. But the only MNs I know well are my ILs and they've never met a tax increase they didn't like. Do you think it will pass?
What's with MN and dedicated funding? Isn't that what the budget process and legislatures exist for?!
I think it's because of Option A (in my p.p.)
http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/33478324.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUJ
"Sheila Smith has heard the argument: A constitutional amendment is not the way to address state budget inequities. But the executive director of Minnesota Citizens for the Arts fears that the traditional way of doing business -- competing for the attention of legislators hashing out conflicting requests -- has ill-served arts groups and patrons. . . .Arts supporters look at 2003 and worry that without the guarantee provided in the amendment, their causes eventually will lose even current levels of funding."
So it looks like they're going for "set in stone" funding.
Considering the awful transportation amendment passed with like 75% of the vote in 2006, I have very little hope that this one won't pass. Practically everyone on my street has signs supporting this amendment.
I have no idea... and I'm not even sure this isn't something he wouldn't support. He's so random when it comes to funding things. He pretty much unilaterally raised taxes in the county where Minneapolis is to help fund the new Twins stadium ... and now that he's not up for VP anymore, I'm not convinced he'd veto it.
?
It's unfortunate that everyone is all willie-nilly gun-ho about unnecessarily changing the MN Constitution. ?
It's a heck of a lot easier to tweak a law for effectiveness than it is a Constitution.
?