Parry makes stop in Owatonna on Owatonna

By: ss_observing on 1/9/10
Not as concerned with who appears more electable as with who has a better chance of being effective once elected. Wish THAT person was running!

Didn't Pawlenty just impose cuts straight across the board? Look where that got him even though he supposedly has the authority to do so... And, no, I don't think he was wrong to do so, it just wasn't the optimal solution. To me it was more a message to "do your job" so I don't have to.

A more pragmatic approach is to cut the programs COMPLETELY that are a joke so the programs of significance can continue to provide adequate services. Our Welfare program, in general, is long overdue for an overhaul. Start there. It's "assistance", not a lifestyle.

1. No increases in the amount of monthly stipend just because you have another child - birth control is free through Planned Parenthood.

2. You WILL get an education while you are on assistance. You're going to need it, because in (insert time-frame) you will no longer be eligible for monthly support. Your assistance: the same as everybody else - a loan (to be repaid).

3. You WILL get a part-time job and your "assistance" will be reduced accordingly to represent a subsidy, not your total income.

4. If you abuse drugs and alcohol - you are disqualified. Urine sampling will be done, same as if you were applying for a job. I'm sure there's a different program available for rehab.

You get the picture -

By: ConsiderThis on 1/9/10
Ok, so Mike Parry will cut 15% across the Board for the current budget cycle. Please go on the record and "list what specifically" Mike Parry will cut to cover the $5 to $6 billion deficit expected in the State's next 2-year budget cycle?

With his "absolute no new taxes pledge" will Minnesota start looking like Mississippi? The State has been cutting waste and non vital services for the past 6 years. At some point, to maintain vital services, a combination of cuts and tax increases may be in the best interest of our State. We need a Senator who can face reality and be open to ALL "ideas" to solve our State's budget challenge.

By: Mike on 1/9/10
No one wants tax increases if they can be avoided in any way. So, what would be the conseqeunces of a 15% "across the board" spending cut? Would we simply increase local and school district taxes by 15% (or more) to make up the difference? Does everything need/warrant a 15% cut? As ss_observing says, there would seem to be a more deliberative way to cut programs of lesser priority rather than simply diminishing every program. The "across the board" approach seems a very simplistic and "shoot from the hip" approach.

By: atlascollapsed on 1/9/10
Srp, from what I've found so far, seems to be nothing more than a pro-life Democrat who got railroaded out of the party for that one specific belief. Hardly makes him the electable option for either the left or the right. My guess is his votes will come from the people who think govt needs to take care of everything but dont like abortion. A bigger vote hit to the Dems than the GOP.

As to his call for a reduction in spending of 15%, ts a good start. 15% from one years $17B spending is $2.5B. for a 2 year biennium you get $5B. Or if you look at it in terms of per capita spending (2007 were the most recent numbers I could find using census beureau #'s) Minnesotas spending would drop from $6,159 per person to $5235 per person. That'll put us on par with those really impoverished states like:
Iowa-$5188 per capita
Wisconsin-$5530
New Hampsire-$4739
Idaho-$4654

And it will put us way ahead of Texas in spending, the one state that is actually growing jobs and their economy, with their bottom of the list $3831 per capita spending.

While I may not agree with him on everything, he's thinking right fiscally.

By: Mike on 1/9/10
I get the math on the bottom line, although the 15% cut only speaks to STATE level costs and does not answer whether or not this is just shifting the taxation burdens to local levels. Again, does Mr. Parry have no priority targets for cutting, or is this just a "slash and burn" approach? I guess I'd like to know what we're losing in those cuts and whether those losses reflect the priorities of real Minnesotans.

By: Mike on 1/9/10
Are there no ways to increase revenues without increasing taxes? Or it may be a question of who is taxed most heavily. I don't think the budget problem is a "single party" issue. In many ways, the parties differ most substantially on what they want to spend money FOR and who they are willing to tax! I just question whether cutting costs cannot be done selectively and reflectively of citizens' priorities rather than "across the board" regardless of consequences.

By: Consider on 1/9/10
How could we possibly increase revenues without increasing taxes? That seems to be Jason E's argument when he says we need to be less dependent on income taxes because of their fluctuation. What he is looking for is a steadier stream, but in no way a decrease in that stream.

I agree that this is not a single party issue. The Republicans in this state, and nationwide, have also overspent. However, of the two parties, it is only the Republican party that ever promotes less government and less spending.

Let's be selective in our cuts, but the last legislative sessions showed us that the Democratic party will not support that. They refused to negotiate anything without a tax increase. Without a Republican governor we would already be paying higher taxes, and our economy would be in even worse shape.

By: Mike on 1/9/10
Several suggestions have already been made for increasing income: What about the racinos argument - or is Dick Day no longer relevant? Are there user fees yet untapped -(that has been a "solution" in the past)? I agree that the Republican party PROMOTES less government during elections, but they certainly don't legislate it when in office any more than Democrats. Maybe I'm looking for a politician who can think beyond "what we've always done" and "the way it's always been." I do agree with Jason E. on one thing, surely: the stream of revenue needs to be more "dependable" and expenditures need to me accompanied by accountability. The question for all candidates is "How?"

By: ss_observing on 1/9/10
As I have previously observed, our tax base should not even be based on Income. When taxes are based on Income they work more like a penalty for earning. Taxes should be assessed when purchases are made. Taxes then become a user fee and don't penalize potential.

If you want to increase your tax base without increasing taxes on the existing tax base you need to increase the tax base.

Make it attractive for businesses to be in MN and increase employment. Convert those who are on the government dole to tax paying instead of taxing (ab)using employees.

Stop outsourcing from overseas our technology, jobs, and future. Stop foreign entities from "buying" our Country. Stop allowing individuals in this Country that are not Citizens to abuse our financial systems/programs.

Any Company that outsources, or "hides" money in off-shore accounts is penalized. Not rewarded.

Stop fighting wars for people/countries that don't appreciate it anyway. Protect our own borders.

Stop wasting taxpayer money/time on passing laws regarding seat belt usage and FOCUS on eliminating wasteful spending. If they can't "identify" wasteful spending. Let me. It's those bills you pay that slap you in the face and say "what the he@@ is this for and we pay how much,and why"?

Make Congress live by the same set of rules that the rest of us do...

1. They get paid while they are in office. Not forever.
2. They don't vote themselves pay increases. We do. After all, we're supposedly their boss.
3. They pay into and collect from the same social security program as the rest of us.
4. They get the same health care benefits and program options as the rest of us - and it will be payroll deducted.
5. No more $90.00 (or more) per day per diem. Bring your own lunch and use the microwave like the rest of us.

That, in itself should balance the budget relatively quickly.

Stop passing laws that include items that couldn't get passed on their own.

Sotp passing laws/mandates that some other entity has to pay for.

No new laws without a corresponding way to pay for them without additional taxes.

Ok, basically I'm tired of typing. If our lawmakers can't "see" what's right in front of them they should go to the eye doctor. Which they need to pay for because most Americans don't have health insurance, let alone vision insurance.

Once again, NOT rocket science.

By: atlascollapsed on 1/9/10
Mike you bring up an interesting point when you bring up "the priorities of real Minnesotans." Is there even such a thing anymore? I think we all agree govt needs to prioritize, but it's doubtful we'll ever all agree on what those priorities actually are. For the most part Minnesotans cant even agree on what the role of govt should actually be, and for me thats is the question that needs to be addressed before anything will ever get fixed.

By: Mike on 1/9/10
Consider,I believe Governor Pawlenty signed the budget expenditure bill. It was the Governor who refused to negotiate the tax and revenue side. He just cut programs whose budgets he had already approved. But that, as they say, is blood under the bridge.

Let's look at what we are NOW being asked to vote for. With the very simple 15% across-the-board spending cut Mr. Parry proposes, I am still asking, what would be the impact? Are all government expenditures equally reasonably cut? For example, which 54 days (15%) will be not have state patrol on the highways? Which 15% (that would amount to 62,645) of the students in public schools should not be funded? Which 15% of the nursing homes shall we close? Which 15% of the government employees should be terminated? How many community coleges (their faculty already took 0% pay increases for the next two years) should we close down? How do we guarantee that costs for local government and schools will not simply be added to LOCAL taxes, making the state budget look better but with little real difference to taxpayers? Streamline welfare will save the money? Mr. Parry did not propose that. He proposed that EVERYTHING be cut 15%.

The fact is, budget balancing IS like rocket science and requires intelligent solutions rather than quick, simplistic fixes.

This election itself is costing taxpayers, and it was not a DFL senator who resigned. Should the GOP be paying the bill for it? I must have missed their offer.

Stop the gratuitous argument that "DFL spends; GOP saves." It is neither factual nor helpful to the discussion.

By: ConsiderThis on 1/9/10
In Friday's Owatonna's Peoples Press Mr Parry is quoted in saying he is the candidate of "ideas"!

His first big "idea" to solve the current State Budget crisis is a 15% across the board cut! Simplistic!

He follows the standard Republican line of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hanity: 1) Just say NO; 2)Cut, cut, cut; 3)No new taxes. It appears Mr. Parry's positions fit into the extreme right-wing of the Party, therefore at best, he will represent about 20% of the people in District 26!

A "thoughtful" Senate candidate would realize not all State program responsibilies are equal - many are vital services!

Consider this - Parry cutting the following 15%: nursing homes (our senior citizens)? our schools which have been frozen for several years already? cut City and County Local Government Aid, which Pawlenty has cut or frozen? cut our Highway 14 expansion?

We need a Senator who will be open to taking input from 100% of the of the people in Senate Dist. 26! A Senator who addresses State challenges in a thoughtful and constructive way.

Jason Engbrecht is my choice for State Senator.

By: Consider on 1/9/10
Mike - It is not gratuitous to say "DFL spends; GOP saves," although I never said that. The GOP is not an anti-government party, but compared to the DFL they are definitely an anti-big government party.

Has the GOP made mistakes? Yes. Am I happy with the party as a whole? No. Are they more fiscally responsible than the DFL? YES.

To take just one of your stupid, rhetorical questions (that are not helpful to the discussion), let's look at public school funding. Cutting 15% from the budget would not demand that 15% of students go without, as you imply. It could involve any number cutbacks, not the least of which could be to remove many of the mandates now in place that require schools to fund specific programs. I have great respect for most teachers, most of whom do the best they can to educate students. Having the government mandate what and how they teach is part of the problem. We have both the state and the federal government taxing us, then telling us (our schools) what they must do in order to get the money back. Get rid of some of those regulations and schools can eliminate costs they should not have to bear. Once again, it comes down to too much government interference.

By: pookah on 1/9/10
If you took input from 100% of the district, you'd have so many different priorities it would make your head spin and EVERYTHING would be funded.

By: kadrmas21 on 1/9/10
Parry overall did well with that speech from what I read, however I do disagree with him on term limits. Term limits are not constitutional. Plus any candidate, Parry or Srp, or anyone else can speak favorably on that issue knowing it will never be passed. But term limits as I said are unconstitutional because they keep otherwise qualified people from holding office. Plus as we have seen in other states, term limits really do not do anything but create a musical chairs type of scenario with the state offices. Oh, reach your term limit on one office, run for another. Now granted in California, their term limit law for statewide office has it so you can only serve 8 years in a statewide elected position your ENTIRE life. However that law is not retroactive, so it only applies to people who ran for office in 1990 or later. Thus former Governor Jerry Brown who was Governor from 1975 to 1983, is running for governor again this year as the law does not apply to him.

I agree consider, it is kind of amusing what the democrats are saying on fiscal responsibility. The democrats lecturing about fiscal responsibility? This would be like Fidel Castro lecturing about capitalism or about Barack Obama lecturing about transparency, I mean it is bogus. The democrats excuse is both amusing and lame. They actually say with a straight face it is okay for them to NOT be fiscally responsible, because the republicans made mistakes. That is outrageous! I mean just because republicans made mistakes (and believe me they did, the democrats should have never got the majority back in congress and a guy who cannot even prove he was born here should never have been president) but that said, this all happened because the republicans abandoned their principles. However that said, just because republicans made mistakes, it does not make it okay for democrats to make those same mistakes except times 5 or times 10.

By: Mike on 1/9/10
Consider. . .read a bit more carefully. The state funds schools on a per pupil basis. I simply asked for which 15% of the students we would NOT provide funding. How the local districts choose to make cuts to accommmodate such funding cuts would be local issues. Forgive me, though. I did not read Mr. Parry's proposing cutting funded or unfunded mandates on schools. He just proposed across the board cutting of state spending.

P.S. Your calling my questions "stupid" does not enhance reasonable discussion.

By: Consider on 1/9/10
Mike - Again, you are saying that 15% of the students would not receive funding. That is different than saying that every pupil would receive funding at 85% of where it is now.

Since Mr. Parry did issue a very simplistic (and I would even agree unrealistic) idea of cutting funding everywhere by 15%, neither of us should expect that he would provide details about how that would take place. In fact, that should not be his or any legislators job. Their job should be to determine a school budget based on input from administrators and knowing what is available to spend. Then that money should be used in the best way possible to teach students. A politician cannot determine that - most have no clue about what actually works in a school or classroom.

P.S. ALL of your questions were stupid because they were all written assuming that a 15% cut demands that 15% of a service or workforce must be eliminated. We would not go 54 days without the state patrol and I assume you really are smart enough to know that. Much more likely would be that government employees would see their total compensation reduced to where it more closely matches that of the general public.

By: Mike on 1/9/10
I get your 15% of the students/85% per student argument. . .but does it not bottom line at the same thing? Mathematically, if current funding for each student were $1000 and a school had 100 students (I know, easy numbers but the point is the same), the school would get $100,000. If you funded only 85% of the students, the school would get $85,000. If you funded all 100 at 85%, the school would still get $85,000. What am I missing?

I also understand your argument: No cut in services for 15% less money. Government employees take a 15% cut to do the same work . . . Would that not require an "unfunded mandate" that services remain at current levels despite pay cuts?

Without details and left to bureaucrats to decide how to implement a 15% cut, I think either (or neither) of our scenarios might be accurate. I don't think questions, by the way, are ever stupid.

By: ss_observing on 1/9/10
No, budgeting is NOT rocket science. It is uneducated people trying to make it appear as complicated as rocket science. Which translates to "if you don't know how to do it, find someone else who does".

Furthermore, if the State can't handle the budgeting process, maybe taxes should stay at the local level and every locality learns to live within their means. That way, things get funded at the local level that are important to that locality. At minimum, there could be prioritzing according to locality.

Yes, I realize that "something" still probably needs to be administered State-wide. Determine what that is and fund it accordingly.

And, yes, I realize that locally we're currently not so great at budgeting, and living within our means, either, but it's easier to manage on a smaller scale when done right.

By: Consider on 1/9/10
Mike, I can finally at least agree with some of what you said. Yes, the bottom-line funding would be 15% less, but your questions implied that 15% of workers or students would get nothing, and the other 85% would stay the same.

A cut in pay is not an unfunded mandate because no one is forced to work for the government. Like all employees, they have the freedom to earn a living somewhere else if they choose. I would bet that even at 85% of what is currently earned most of those jobs would be filled by other equally capable individuals who would be happy to have the job. I am NOT saying that this is what should be done - only that calling it an unfunded mandate is a huge stretch.

By: igor74 on 1/9/10
kadrmas21,

While your point about term limits being unconstitutional is technically correct your logic is off base about being able to do it. Term limits can be imposed through a constitutional amendment. Precisely what was done with the office of the president with the 22nd amendment.

So, why can't the same thing be done on the state or federal levels for other elected office? The fact is, it can.

Your point about it never happening because Congress and the state houses would stand in the way is the real reason. There is no legal impediment to amending either state or the U.S. Constitutions to limit terms.

By: kadrmas21 on 1/10/10
I did not say they could not do it Igor. I said it was unconstitutional on the federal level to do it to congress. That is all I said. Yes Igor, please do not talk to me like I am stupid, I think we all know about how the 22nd amendment was added to the Constitution in the late 1940's, early 1950's, 1951 I believe but I could be mistaken there.

I also never said it could not be added on the state level. There is a difference between state law and federal law. What I was alluding to was that in Minnesota, given liberals control the legislature and given liberals do not believe in any sort of term limit, it will not be getting passed anytime soon. Yes if you want to get technical in a pathetic effort to discredit me, than yes, it can be theoretically possible that term limits could be passed in Minnesota. But it will not happen the way things are set up now. That is all I was pointing out Sir.