Dedicated funding - yes or no?

[Tom7227]

Now that dedicated funding is moving forward the question next is whether you'll vote for it or against it.

News organizations have suggested that hunt and fish types will not back it because of the money going to the arts. Others have said that the increase in the sales tax is too much or unfair.

So - are you going to vote yes or no?

[tview]

YES

[DonBo]

YES! I agree the arts should fend for themselves, but this bill would not have gotten this far without it being part of it. The percentage that the arts get would be small compared to what our Natural Resources would recieve.

This would amount to almost 300 million per year for land aquisition and reclamation. Water clean up, better and more launch ramps, etc.

IMO This is the most important bill we have ever seen for the future of Minnesotas natural resources. I urge all of you to vote yes, and tell everyone you know how important this is for our future.

[WaveWacker]

I too hate the fact that the arts is tagged onto this. After all it was all the hard work of outdoorsmen/women that pushed to get this brought up in the first place and the arts just decides to jump on the bandwagon. With that said, if it takes having the arts on board compared to getting nothing, I'll take leaving the arts on.

YES, YES, YES!!

Maybe we could get a little poll/voting thing at the top for people to vote on

[MNpurple]

I will vote yes, but with a couple quesions.

Who decides how the money is spent? IS it just given to the DNR to use, does the legislature dictate how and where it is used (not good)? And is this in addition to funding natural resources already gets or is this now their sole source of funding?

[kobear]

Yes. We fought to get it this far.

The winds are changing though. Hackbarth?-Republican who was co-sponsor, now say's he can never, has never, and will never vote for this. Actually had him on the radio still identified as a supporter from last year. He stopped the intro and said "Actually I have never..." also beat on the Republican drum about this one "piggyback, new taxes, piggyback, new taxes, never, never, never".

[Tom7227]

MnPurple

Who decides how it is going to be spent has yet to be decided. Many are pushing for a citizens based committee.

It is my understanding that it is all going to be "new money". I suppose the whole thing could be derailed if/when the politicians cut existing budgets by the amount of the dedicated funding.

[Powerstroke]

YES

[Augusta]

YES!

[Tom7227]

Looks like this subject is better represented in the following:

http://www.fishingminnesota.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/1275748#Post1275748

We can move the rest of the discussion to that thread.

[harvey lee]

NO WAY. Just another way to collect funds that will never see what they are dedicated for. Lets look at the lottery funds and other programs that are robbed evry year.

This is a way for the politicians to get this past and then they decide where to spend the money.

Time and time again they play this game. I really do not believe that it will pass.

[BoxMN]

 Originally Posted By: harvey lee

NO WAY. Just another way to collect funds that will never see what they are dedicated for. Lets look at the lottery funds and other programs that are robbed evry year.

This is a way for the politicians to get this past and then they decide where to spend the money.

Time and time again they play this game. I really do not believe that it will pass.

Respectfully, Harvey, I disagree. This is not a goofy lottery or other such item, it is specificially for the purposes intended, and that is why it is a big deal, and was worked on so hard. Yeah, the arts are in it, but that is where it stops. Look to what Missouri has done, great things, and we need some great things to be done in MN. No more status quo, or IMHO we will never get out of the hole years of neglect and bad policy have done. Pay $ now or $$$$$$ later.

Mark me a big YES. And in disclosure I was at the duck rallies, but not an organizer. Just a supporter.

[BLACKJACK]

Yes!!!

[DonBo]

Yes, this will be in addition to funding already in place.

[LMITOUT]

NO!!

[BobT]

I say no. They can do the job we have hired them to do and manage the funding they already get from us.

After reading through the discussion threads I have come to the conclusion that our state congress wants to increase refenue without being named the culprit so they pass it on to us. I think we give the state plenty to work with. Most of it is based on percentages and so the better job they do, the more they'll have to work with. I'm not in favor of upping the percentage again.

Bob

[primetime49]

it will just be another way to hire your sisters brothers cousins aunts borther in law to an attractive job that will go nowhere.

Even voting for it with arts added sucks

Paying for the upper class to have more art shows,places and events funded for there lifestyle is robbing the poor working class

Who is the one person that added [ARTS] into bill .I want to pick their brain.

I will not vote for any bill with any attachment like that and in our house we can cast 3 votes and all are against arts bill.

Someone said that 22& was going to arts,time to do a little grafitti

[311Hemi]

 Originally Posted By: BobT

They can do the job we have hired them to do and manage the funding they already get from us.

I can't argue that....but:

1) In reality how long will this take?

2) Can the current outdoors/water resources wait for #1 to be completed?

3) What is the lesser evil in all of this?

[hanso612]

I am torn on this one, The goverment has, time and time a gain, stolen from dedicated funds to help the general fund. There is no reason to think they won't do it again. Many times it is justifiable and I forsee times in the future when a crisis will necessitate robbing these funds again.

What we need is a contitutional amendment forcing them to pay back with interest these stolen dedicated funds. We also need a watchdog to make sure the moneys are spent on the intended purchase.

Here is where I am torn-We need more money for habitat, another source would help. Even if it is gutted for special interest the cost is spread evenly. Right know sportsman are paying an unfair share for something that bennifits everybody.

I will vote for this bill, but rest assured everytime I corner a politician I will demand accountability. I will vote for this bill becuase it will be one more source to point to and ask where did this money go and what was it used for. You know as well as I, they will just have to raise taxes somewhere else, and at least this way not only sportsman will be standing on capitol steps, but hopefully so to will be the rest of us.

I don't think the bill is specific enough on where the money will be used. I would like to see each special interest stand on its own merit-but government has always relied or riders and favors no reason to think it will change now.

What I would realy like to see is a bill that would tax individuals, groups, and companies that lease land for hunting or charge an access fee to pay a tax that would de dedicated to buying mantaining and buying new WMA and nothing else. Potlatch, for years and years, was given a tax break to leave their acreage open to public hunting. Now they see that they can make more money leasing the property than the tax break is worth. We now have nothing to show for the tax dollars wasted. In the model I propose the lease option won't look so attractive or at least in the end we will have permanent set aside for everyone.

There is a strong belief on the hill that the government doesn't want to be managing 1/6of the state land. The loopholes that have allowed pay hunting are proof to me that they would like hunting to be privately mangaged. (I also think this is a push within education as well with "no child left behind" and the explosion of private pay schools like sylvan-completely another topic but similar dynamics) We need to stand up and fight the privatization of our resources and by voting for this dedicated amendment we will tie peoples pocket books to there beliefs.

If we don't, watch public hunting end in our lifetime and get ready to pay expedentialy more for canned hunts than the little percentage this amendment is asking for. Hans

[DonBo]

 Originally Posted By: hanso612

I don't think the bill is specific enough on where the money will be used.

Approx. 54.5 million for the arts.

91.1 million for the outdoors. Mostly habitat

improvement and land aquisition.

91.1 million for a clean water fund, including 4.5

million for drinking water programs.

39.9 million for parks and trails.

Yes, there will be some questions on exactly where and how these funds will be spent, but they WILL be spent to improve the wild things we all enjoy.

EVERYONE PLEASE VOTE YES!!!!!!

[kobear]

http://www.lccmr.leg.mn/abstracts/03abs.htm#05c

Interesting link, tells you where they spent the lottery money each year, this one is for 2003. Also has final reports for projects outlining what we got for the money.

In most cases the lottery dollars were matched by one or two other sources. So for every dollar we put in three dollars got spent on our resources. Example WRP/RIM we have a deal where the Feds pay for about 2/3 and we pay about 1/3 and wetlands are restored, planted to prairie, and permanently protected. Last year we had to forfeit $13 million in Federal money because we had no matching dollars.

One recently added requirement to LCCMR is a report that demonstrates that these funds do not displace any traditional Natural Resources funding but are in addition.

In 2003 the lottery contributed over $30 million to mainly habitat($12mil.), water, trails and parks, environmental ed, etc.

It is best to know where it is ACTUALLY going.

[hanso612]

Donbro and kobear, thanks for the information and links. Without real numbers we are just left to speculate or give grose generalizations(of which I am often guilty) There is no more helpful posts than kinds like these. Thanks, Hans.

[ANYFISH]

YES

[BoxMN]

 Originally Posted By: primetime49

Paying for the upper class to have more art shows,places and events funded for there lifestyle is robbing the poor working class

Doh!!! Not sure how the upper class came into this discussion. But it is telling on how people group things together. Keep me marked a YES I will gladly give an addition 4 cents for every 10 bottles of Diet Coke I buy at a Kwikie-Mart if it means my lakes will be cleaner, my prairies will be grassier, my woods will be woodier, and my arts...well, ok I have no art... but somebodies will be artier....

Pay now or pay later at many times the price.

[ImissReeds]

Harvey Lee, how could a 'sportsman' not want more money for the wetlands, waters, trails, etc?? Even if we have to drag the artsy fartsy types with us to get it...

I say yes, and if you've been following the drama for the last nine years and understand politics and its dirty tricks and extortion, you'd realize its the best deal MN is going to get in the reasonable future.

I think we should be convincing all our friends and family to get out and vote yesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyes.......

If people think the current staff needs to do a better job with the current money, I don't disagree, but limiting the total available is dumb.

[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