Lets assume a billion dollars of taxpayer money could have saved 3,300 to 4,700 jobs. For the sake of easy math, let’s say that’s an even 4000 jobs. The basic equation would then look like 1,000,000,000/ 4000, right? That result (product, factor, whatever) would be $250,000.

Now you tell me which it is.
a.) Each state funded employee to be cut makes $250,000 dollars/year.
b.) All of the state funded employees to be cut make an average $250,000 dollars/year.
c.) The state needs to invest in $250,000 per year, for every job it creates.

Be honest and tell us any fourth option. Don’t try to twist this into rep vs dem, lib vs con. Just tell me what else this could be.

Now look at a billion dollars - $1,000,000,000. That doesn’t look like a lot compared to the $262,000,000,000 state GDP. (1/262s) But the state’s per capita gdp is $42,000.

Now if you’ve read this far without being distracted by Keith Olberman, tell me how many private sector jobs that 1,000,000,000 equates to, if we use the numbers you’ve been citing. 1,000,000,000/42,000 we come up with 23,809, right?

Now you tell me, is that
a.) 23,809 jobs being taxed out of the private sector every year in order to employ 4000 people.

b.) 23,809 potential jobs being taxed out of the private sector every year in order to employ 4000 people.

c.) the equivalent of 23,809 jobs being taxed out of the private sector every year in order to employ 4000 people.
d.) 23,809 the number of average minnesotans that would have to lose their jobs every year to pay for the proposed tax increase in order to employ 4000 people.
e.) the number of rich people that we would have to tax $42,000 every year in order to employ 4000 people.
d.) Just an extra $588 dollars per person in minnesota per year in order to employ 4000 people.

It doesn’t matter. 4000 jobs being directed by people that could potentially abuse their powers of oversight just isn’t worth a billion dollars left in the private sector to me. And frankly, I have to question why it’s worth it to you.

You might be misplacing your anger. You’re talking to a guy who voted for the sales tax amendment (I favor funding thing through sales tax) and has voted for every local school board referendum that I can recall. The more local the money is being spent, the better I feel about its impact and its transparency. My gripe is largely with the black hole of federal government and the slightly smaller black hole of state government.

I still don’t buy that our governments need a larger slice of the pie (there I go again) to operate than they used to. Sure, you have to fund cell phones, but those cell phones alleviate the need for old fashioned switchboards and a few receptionists to track people down. Gas, even at $4, is cheaper on an adjusted basis than it was for our parents generation. Same with food.

This is a zero sum game — using more of our community’s production to fund taxes will reduce the amount that can go somewhere else.

Using the logic of so many here, we shouldn’t critique the size of our government’s budget. If it consumes 20% of our production today, should it consume 25% in ten years, and is it ok if it consumes 30% in twenty years, and so on?

We need to live within our means. You, me, our government. Everyone.

One example: 20 years ago, before the age of the intertubes, governments didn’t have to budget for building, enhancing and maintaining a website. They also didh’t have a cell phone budget. As technology improves, so do the costs of supporting it.

I have an amuseinc “personal observation” (above) about this too:

It seems that when it comes to taxes, republicans and conservatives (and some moderates) generally make a blanket assumption that the tax revenue is being wasted. It’s as if, when presented with a request for a tax increase, they say, “My tax money is being wasted. If you want more, prove me wrong.”

Taking a school district property tax increase proposal as an example, the district has townhall meetings, to attempt to explain the need for the increase. But most of the district residents don’t go. Even if they did, the focus of the meeting is on a new revenue, not the existing ones, which are what the residents are ticked off about.

The point I’m making is that constituents want full justification for taxes spoon-fed to them. They won’t take their own time and do their own research, they expect the district to come to them. The districts try to do this: They put out information in the local papers, they start phone banks to get to the residents directly, They put up lawn signs. In short, they put on a political campaign.

Where do they get the money for this? Tax revenue. That’s one reason why they need more: To convince lazy assholes who won’t do their own investigating, to vote for their proposal. In the end, some of those people will STILL vote against it.

You want accountability? Then accept the fact that if you don’t have the time to do it yourself, accountability needs funding, like anything else.

http://www.mn2020.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={DA8BEF89-CDA3-43FE-9ECC-5A6B4235EE39}

adjusted percentage of
gross households in
income range
==================== =============
$0-$10,000: 23.7
$10,000-$20,000 16.6
$20,000-$30,000 13.3
$30,000-$40,000 09.7
$40,000-$50,000 07.6
$50,000-$75,000 13.0
$75,000-$100,000 06.8
$100,000-$200,000 06.6
$200,000-$500,000 01.6
$500,000-$1,000,000 00.3
more than $1,000,000 00.1
 [/pre]

2002 adjusted gross incomes ranges returned in April 2003 to US government

adjusted percentage of
gross households in
income range
==================== =============
less than $10,000 23.7
$10,000-$20,000 16.6
$20,000-$30,000 13.3
$30,000-$40,000 9.7
$40,000-$50,000 7.6
$50,000-$75,000 13.0
$75,000-$100,000 6.8
$100,000-$200,000 6.6
$200,000-$500,000 1.6
$500,000-$1,000,000 0.3
more than $1,000,000 0.1

So if you are at $75,000 how long will it take for you to get into the top 0.1% bracket????