It seems like Vote Yes MN is doing some pretty good work promoting the The Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment. I could summarize the Amendment that you get to vote on on November 4th, but quoting is so much easier:
Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to dedicate funding to protect our drinking water sources; to protect, enhance, and restore our wetlands, prairies, forests, and fish, game, and wildlife habitat; to preserve our arts and cultural heritage; to support our parks and trails; and to protect, enhance, and restore our lakes, rivers, steams, and groundwater by increasing the sales and use tax rate beginning July 1, 2009, by three-eighths of one percent on taxable sales until the year 2034?
It needs a simple majority to pass, but remember, leaving the ballot empty is equivalent to a no vote.
But back to Vote Yes MN. Recently the Star Tribune’s polling showed that 59% of Minnesotans support the amendment, they’ve got ads up all over the state, and have amassed an impressive bipartisan coalition. Well, now they can add another influential name to that list, Brian H. Davis, the chair of Republicans for Environmental Protection. It’s interesting how this amendment is cutting across party lines and speaking to Minnesotans from all walks of life. Davis’s endorsement is evidence of this:
In a race between candidates, the person with fewer votes loses. If this amendment doesn’t pass, Minnesota loses. We would lose the chance to clean up our polluted waters and protect our remaining clean rivers and lakes. We would lose the chance to preserve our outdoors opportunities and quality of life for future generations.
Find the full text of the endorsement below the fold.
The political environment seems toxic. Every issue seems nothing more than a fence, upon which you choose sides and stubbornly remain. As Minnesota Coordinator of Republicans for Environmental Protection (REP) www.rep.org , I recognize that we must all come together on critical issues to move our state forward.
On November 4th we have just such an opportunity. The Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment is good for all Minnesotans: Republicans, Democrats and Independents alike. This is demonstrated by the fact that all three major U.S. Senate candidates urge this ballot initiative’s passage.
In a race between candidates, the person with fewer votes loses. If this amendment doesn’t pass, Minnesota loses. We would lose the chance to clean up our polluted waters and protect our remaining clean rivers and lakes. We would lose the chance to preserve our outdoors opportunities and quality of life for future generations.
Conservation knows no party. One hundred years ago Republican President Teddy Roosevelt pioneered stewardship of our natural heritage. Roosevelt encouraged the efficient use of natural resources, and fought to protect them. He knew that future generations deserve the chance to enjoy and benefit from them. Theodore’s great grandson maintains that great conservation tradition on the REP Board of Directors.
We share just such a conservation opportunity on November 4th. Minnesotans have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to come together for stewardship of our natural heritage. I strongly believe that the amendment is a generation long investment of which all Minnesotans will be proud.
If passed, this initiative would dedicate funding to address serious water quality issues in the 40% of our already tested waters that are polluted and violating Federal law. It would invest in fish, game and wildlife habitat to continue our strong outdoors and tourism traditions. It would protect enjoyment of our natural beauty by funding upkeep and expansion of our parks and trails system. Our art community would also be protected throughout the state.
Regardless of political party and views, we are all responsible for the wise stewardship of Minnesota’s still abundant natural resources. Minnesota is too special to miss this investment opportunity for such benefits in every corner of our state. Now is the time to appreciate and focus on our precious water resources before further damage. I urge all voters to learn about the Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment, and then Vote Yes on November 4th.
I have looked into this. I saw a few ads on tv this weekend. It looks like a pretty good idea. I am pumped for pheasant opener on Saturday, and Pheasants Forever is really behind this. My local chapter has endorsed this and is telling all their members that this is really good for habitat.
I like this and will vote for it. Count me as a firm “yes”. I encourage all others to vote for it as well.
“But Dan The Man”, you say, “you are an anti-tax carmudgeon. Why do you want to pay more to the government?”
I like that this will go to a clearly defined purpose, and I like when taxes are decided via referendum. It is no longer two wolves and a bird taking a vote on what to have for dinner. It is everyone having a say on what we want to do.
This bill does not raise taxes, DtM. Big of you, taking the time to be self-congratulatory in order to introduce a logical fallacy. Or is introducing the fallacy the only way you could figure out to slap yourself on the back?
Lord only knows.
“by increasing the sales and use tax rate beginning July 1, 2009, by three-eighths of one percent on taxable sales until the year 2034?”
But it doesn’t raise taxes? Is this another TPaw deal?
It raises taxes. It just doesn’t do it in the way that lojasmo likes.
“…to protect, enhance, and restore our lakes, rivers, steams, and groundwater by increasing the sales and use tax rate beginning July 1, 2009, by three-eighths of one percent on taxable sales until the year 2034?”
Sure sounds like a small tax hike to me - which, as a nature loving person, I strongly support The arts part I am less sold on, as my low salary doesn’t allow me to participate in many events. I’d love to see a concert or play every week rather than the one a year I splurge on.
Also what’s up with the inclination to ridicule people with a different perspective, even at times of agreement - like support for this amendment.
Finally, I disagree with the the opinion that govt spending and policy is best decided by referendum. My capable elected representeives can thoroughly study the issues and vote more wisely than can the busy, less informed public.
It is a 3/8 of 1 percent sales tax increase. We should put it in perspective. This will be an average of five dollars for the average Minnesota family of four per month, admittedly I read that on their website, but the taxpayers league said so also. I think that is a pretty good deal for all the things they are investing in. Clean water, outdoors, etc. All this sounds pretty good to me.
I would also strongly encourage people to vote yes on this. I read the MN Poll that showed good support, but 40% of those polled didn’t know about this. Talk to your friends and neighbors people, a blank vote is voting no!!!
I voted (absentee) against the proposed amendment.
I don’t mind a 3/8% sales tax increase too much, although the sales tax is our most regressive tax.
I support most, if not all, of the proposed uses for the increased sales tax revenue.
However, allocating tax dollars in a biennial budget is the role of our elected legislators and the Governor. It is hugely inappropriate, and potentially very dangerous, for Minnesota to begin budgeting by Constitutional referendum. I cannot support the actions of a legislature so irresponsible that it needs to hide behind a media campaign funded by special interests rather than making the difficult taxing and spending decisions themselves as we’ve elected them to do.
I am really gald that we get to vote on something so positive like this. As a Republican I am happy to see a proposal like this come forward which actually uses my tax dollars for something we all can be proud of like the outdoors. As an avid hunter and fisherman I sincerley hope that my children will have the same opportunities I did growing up in Minnesota. Whil I normally don’t like taxes this one makes a lot of sense to me. Also, it is really refreshing in such a negative campaign season to see an issue which actually can bring Minnesotans together - not as republicans, democrats, or independents, but as Minnesotans!
Count me as a firm “no”. This is one of the reasons I registered to vote in MN. I can’t afford higher taxes. I don’t have the money to dish out.
Sales tax hikes might be the worst. Back home, sales tax recently went up from 6% to 7% - I can’t afford more taxes.
NO
NO
NO
Do we really want to set this as a top priority FOREVER, in ALL financial circumstances? Yes forever, becuase do you really believe a “short term” tax will ever be repealed? Remember, we are still paying for the Spanish American War……
Let the legislature legislate and be held accountable. Let me take a play out of the Dem playbook - do you really want to saddle your children with this debt, without their input or vote? And yes, it is a debt, becuase we will now owe it for 25 years NO MATTER WHAT.
So, do it for the children…….and screw them royally without their vote on the matter for the next 25 years. Prove it to them that you ARE smarter than they are……
This constitutional amendment is a bad idea. A good constitution is a bare bones, rock solid set of principles to create sound government. It should not be changed on a whim, or when legislators - and I include the Governor in that group, since he signs bills - abdicate their responsibilities to appropriate funds for maintaining a high standard and quality of life in Minnesota. Details such as a sales tax to pay for specific expenditures, however well intended, should be kept out of a consitution.
Should the referendum pass, problems will result. When the Governor sets his budget, there will be so much less in it, equal to the amount of tax raised by the sales tax levy. There will be the perception that the arts and environment are fully funded, when the sales tax amount may prove inadequate. This happened when the sales tax from auto was dedicated to transportation. It made a reasonable sounding argument against the much needed transportation bill that was at long last passed over Pawlenty’s veto. The funding levels provided by the sales tax could lock Minnesota to a narrow and moribund range of arts and environment funding. It could take away flexibility needed should environemntal crises arrive, or should there be a desire to provide extra public art funding in a flush economy.
The best thing all around is to vote NO on the amendment and make sure that the Governor and legislators know how critical arts and environmental funding are for maintaining a robust State of Minnesota.
I may change my mind on this, due to agreement that my representatives should be making this decision rather than amending the constitution.
Absolutely not. Budgets should be set by the legislature, not by constitutional amendment.
Mr. Tom: “When the Governor sets his budget, there will be so much less in it, equal to the amount of tax raised by the sales tax levy. There will be the perception that the arts and environment are fully funded, when the sales tax amount may prove inadequate.”
That is the best argument I’ve heard against the amendment so far.
But I see this as critical. We need to protect what make Minnesota special, and a place that can attract future knowledge workers. This would be akin to Colorado protecting the mountains or Miami investing to protect their beaches. We don’t have alot that other people don’t, but these are a couple of them.
Wow, I can’t believe how dumb people are in their analysis. This is just another tax hike that hurts MN, protects the recipients, raises taxes and let’s our lawmakers get by without doing their job.
Think about it. You are stating in the Constitution of our great state that fixed %’s of our purchases must fund lakes, hunting and arts. That is not what a Constitution is for.
Don’t worry though, if it doesn’t pass, they will bring it back in 2 years and instead of 3/8% will make it 5/8% and add increasing teacher’s pay to it. That will bring in the teacher’s union and everyone who believes you should never say no to “the kids”.
If that doesn’t work, raise it to 7/8% and give it to the Mall Builders Association so they can build and expand our malls. Eventually, you can get enough people on the dole to force these taxes higher.
Get the picture?
A little clarification from an earlier post. This isn’t forever. It is for 25 years. This gives some time to reflect and look to see if it worked, or if it didn’t. They can also change it and offer it again if it is popular and effective.
TO the person that said our legislature should do this: They haven’t. I would actually like if our legislature would prioritize our natural resources, but the fact is that they aren’t. SHould we let our state go to hell in a handbag because the legislators aren’t doing their job? I don’t think so. This is a good opportunity for US to say what we value, forget what the legislature does or doesn’t do.
I actually like the person who said it would be like Colorado protecting the rockies. Minnesota is a unique place, and I want to keep it that way. This isn’t going to solve every problem, but it is a good first step towards some of them.
Its not that the legislature should do this - its that the legislature should decide whether or not to do this, and up until this point, the legislature has decided not to do this. We have elections every 2 years (4 for senate) and people haven’t turned out the incumbents and replaced them with other legislators who support this. It doesn’t sound like people think the legislators aren’t doing their job, at least on this issue.
I support spending the money on this, I just don’t want it in the constitution. Maybe this is an important issue, but budgeting by referrendum is what has destroyed California and I don’t want to see Minnesota go the same way.
The teachers’ union hasn’t been inclined to support constitutional amendments that dedicate taxes in the past (they took a position against the transportation amendment and have taken no position on this one) so I don’t expect that Common Sense Rambler’s scenario would really come to pass. School funding used to have a dedicated tax stream and we had exactly the problems Mr. Tom mentioned - people assumed schools were fully funded without comparing actual costs to revenue and the funding amount fluctuated so much that it was extremely hard for districts to budget properly.
Sure, the need is there, but this is not the way to do it.
And South Metro Dem - there are lots of affordable theater opportunities in Minnesota, especially in the metro area. Go to the Fringe Festival website (www.fringefestival.org), sign up for the “Fringe Herald” and you’ll get updates on the small local shows around town. They may not have huge sets or effects, but I have seen tremendous shows for about the same price as going to a movie. Minnesota is second only to New York in number of theater seats per capita, but too often we only think of the broadway shows that swing through and the Guthrie when we think of local theater.
People of all political backgrounds are getting behind this because it makes sense. Dedicating funds for our lakes and natural areas is a sound investment when we see the problem in front of us. It becomes less of a worry when we find out the absolute transparency and the results-based accountability built into this legislation. The fact of the matter is that there is a threat to our natural resources in Minnesota. These threats don’t simply go away if funding sources are deleted. Let’s make sure that we don’t regret saving our waters and land- Vote Yes!
I’m glad to see that everyone likes the environment and is willing to spend money on it. I do as well, but it’s no reason to support a constitutional tax increase forcing everyone to donate.
First off, both the “arts” and the “environment” are things that get a very significant amount of money from the state out of the general fund. The state has a crazy spending problem and needs more money in general, not just for arts and environment. So what do they do? They de-fund something that was already getting funded and ask you to support a tax increase to fund it now. Am I the only one who sees something wrong with this scenario? The money they were previously using to fund “arts and environment” didn’t go back to the taxpayers, it’s now being used to balance out the state’s spending problem in other areas.
Second, “arts” and “environment” are defined so generically that they can get away with spending the money on practically anything they want. Individual spending decisions regarding this new money are not approved by the taxpayers, they are decided by a bunch of bureacrats. It also doesn’t take a lot of imagination to see that it’s going to be helping out some “preferred” companies and people with ties to the government.
If you donate privately to these causes, you get a much better return for your money and you get to hold the recipients accountable for producing results. The government has such a high overhead compared to private charities that it’s not even funny. How many cents on the dollar of this funding will actually make it to the final destination and how much will be wasted on useless bureacrats along the way?
As to the person who said “We don’t know what the results will be, that’s why it’s just a trial and not a permanent tax”… Are you insane? 25 years is not a “trial period, it’s half of my working life! And I can bet you it will be renewed at the end of that period, whether it worked or not.
Finally, let’s consider one last point here. I, along with many other Minnesotans, already avoid paying sales tax on all large consumer purchases by shopping online and buying across state lines. This will only increase that. It’s hard to avoid sales tax on things like toothpaste and toilet paper, but you can bet that I’ll go out of my way and wait an extra three days on UPS delivery to avoid a 7% surcharge on my new TV…
I’m proud to be a part of Minnesotans for Limited Government, the second (and one of the only) groups to take an official stance against this amendment. I can rest somewhat easy knowing that half the state agrees with me, but it’s sad that the supporters of this tax increase are a lot more outspoken.