@ Davea,

Actually the OWS movement seems to be working out pretty good, Thank You very much.

How do you like THIS fact today that I received in email from Robby Mook:

"Polls released today in 12 Republican districts show voters want to throw out their Tea Party Members of Congress. In every single poll, less than 50% of voters want to see their incumbent Republican re-elected."

Tea Partyers Kieffer and Lohmer ran on a bogus Tea Party Agenda.

That Agenda is being exposed to the world as a fraud, and they will lose their seats in 2012.

Bye, bye, Kathy & Andrea!!

What Martin forgot to mention is that his governor supported the Market Value Homestead Tax Credit change. The change was needed. The past idea, which I believe came from the DFL, of relying on the legislature to appropriate money every year to this program was a bad idea. It provides no consistency regardless of who is in power. Everyone should be behind this change.

LGA has become a welfare for cities program. No need to adjust services in the community because the welfare check from the state will cover stupid spending. Cities have no incentive to do anything when their own residents are not directly paying the bill. The same philosophy applies to my small children.

The governor's plan to ask the richest to pay a little more was more like asking the richest to may a lot more. But regardless, the fact is that once the governor was elected, his own people pointed out that he could not tax the rich enough to fix the deficit. The governor would have had to increase taxes on this small group to a rate that would have not only been the highest in the nation, but probably twice as high as the next highest state. Not even the DFL endorsed candidate for governor was supporting that.

Keep in mind that property taxes are set by your local units of government like your city and county. Washington County has been very responsible. How about Woodbury?

Publicizing a open public meeting would not go well for GOP, and they know it. They need time to pass from this last summer for peoples memoirs to fade.

Renee,
I couldn't make the whole meeting because I had to work, but the time I was there it appeared that our cabal of local state legislators were interested only in protecting their own jobs, not helping others.

Mark,

They need to realize that partisanship is an issue THEY create by holding "open" town hall meetings that are not a forum for public debate but a platform for the party monologue.

What do you propose? Should the legislators spend $5000 of taxpayer dollars to do a mailing? That would have created a riot when people find out about that. How do you propose they get the message out there? You can send out press releases all you want but it is up to the paper to report it.

Seems like damned if you do, damned if you don't.

DFLers cherish transparency in the process? I guess you must have forgotten about Irv Anderson and Dee Long. A few DFL speakers who didn't get the message. How about Doug Johnson and his secret DFL tax conference committee meetings?

John, the local papers ALWAYS publish press releases about town hall meetings.

How about sending an email to the head of the local DFL unit, say, two weeks in advance? That costs nothing, and their contact info is right on the district website.

The Republicans clearly were trying to limit participation. This is the digital age. It's easy to notify the community.

So the GOP is supposed to send notices of their meetings to the DFL? Sounds odd and discriminatory to me. What about the Green Party? Libertarians? How about League of Women Voters? Chamber of commerce? Lions Club? Rotary? Need I say more. You send to one group and you are ethically obligated to send to everyone else. Otherwise if you don't, then you will get blamed for excluding someone.

As a side note, do you really believe that DFL legislators send meeting notices to the GOP? Come on...

Yes, send the townhall meeting notice to "all interested parties in the community". Include DFL, LWV, city and county officials (don't you do that now?), Green party, Libertarian party, etc.

All you need is an address list (set up in your email) and you can send the notice with one click.

@ John K, this wasn't billed as a GOP meeting. It was billed as a listening session. At listening sessions, you listen to your constituents, so Yeah the Repubs should have invited a broad range of people to the meeting. Of course they didn't do that....

Sure thing Paul.

Isn't it a representative's job (we pay them) to know who the interested parties are in their community? Shouldn't they be engaged in a dialogue with the community on the issues?

Did the 56 legislators send out a notice in their email newsletters? The people I know who regularly receive these emails did NOT get a notice about this listening session.

The issue here is due diligence in communications, and this time, for whatever reasons, the GOP legislators did not do it. Yes, common sense has to be used, and they did not use it. A simple email (emails are free -- no mailing costs) to several of the major community players (the ones you listed -- head of DFL district and other parties, city, county, and school officials, Chamber of Commerce, Rotary, LWV) would have been sufficient.

Let this be a lesson to our local reps to do this in the future. I'm sure they'll be more diligent in including a broader cross section of community when scheduling these community listening sessions in the future.

On another point, many of the meeting attendees (seemed like the majority) supported a higher tax on millionaires (Dayton's original plan). A new poll of the rich shows they support it, too (Wall Street Journal). I just looked at an interview with Frank, and he said the overwhelming sentiment of the millionaires polled was "Look, I can afford a higher tax without it affecting my lifestyle. The middle and lower classes cannot, and we need to do something to get rid of the deficit/end the recession."

Interesting piece ("Millionaires Support Warren Buffet's Tax on the Rich"):

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/

Dayton's final proposal, which the Republicans refused, was to increase tax on the top 1%, which was those earning over $447,889 a year.

Current effective tax rates mean that the bulk of state taxes are paid by middle-income households, or those making between 23,000 and 86,000 a year.

The proposals made yesterday by Republicans at the meeting included lowering corporate taxes and implementing a "consumption" (euphemism for sales) tax. Sales taxes tend to be regressive, hitting the middle and lower classes the hardest. Ventura floated that balloon (extending sales tax to clothing and services), and the people said no. I don't think it will get a warmer reception this time around.

The final proposal (tax the 1%) did not solve the entire deficit, 1/2 to 2/3 of it. A very good start, and maybe we wouldn't have to squeeze the schools. Filling half the hole is significant, by my standards.

More info on MN effective tax rates (a good table in this article):

http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2011/02/15/25833/daytons_budget_offers_a_chance_to_explore_the_rationale_for_collecting_more_taxes

When a small group of people earn the lion's share of the money, yes, they'll pay most of the taxes under a progressive system. That's how it works, and that's how most Americans want it to work. It's why we have the system we have.

The wealthy make most of the money, that's why they pay most of the taxes. Duh. The only problem is, as a percentage of income, they pay MUCH less than the poorest group. Look at the effective rates table. People making $9,872 a year or less are paying 22% in taxes. Those in the top 1% (making over $447,889 a year) pay 8.8% in taxes in Minnesota. How is that fair?

They are too poor. Do you expect someone who lives below poverty level to pay taxes vs. feeding their kids? I thought the Republican party was pro-family, but maybe not (?)

These people, the working poor, do pay taxes. They pay payroll taxes, sales taxes, local taxes, property taxes, etc. To point to one specific tax (federal income) and say, "Oh My God, these people aren't paying taxes!") in disingenuous.

Look at the effective tax rate study in the article I referenced. People making less than $10,000 a year are paying 22% of their income in taxes, while those making over $447,000 are paying 8.8%.

This is shameful. John, you can cherry-pick your stats to present to the "low information" voters all you want, but the facts are the facts. High income taxpayers have capacity to pay without literally starving. Who would Jesus ask to pay more taxes? The poor? Yeah, right.

In fact, the rich now recognize they have a role to play (and a responsibility to pay their fair share of taxes). Take a look at the latest poll and WSJ article.

"Millionaires Support Warren Buffet's Tax on the Rich"

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/

Point missed.

First, if they do pay payroll taxes and file their taxes, they get all the money back. Apparently you must not know that.

Sales tax is a state tax. Did I say Minnesota? No, I said federal. And let's not forget all the items in Minnesota that we don't pay sales tax on. Important to note because it is one of the most generous policies in the country.

Property taxes? Again, a state tax, not federal. Also don't forget the property tax relief programs.

So exactly what do you want out of the rich? What percentage of citizens do you want to forgive taxes for? As I said, at the federal level, it is 47%. Would you consider it fair if maybe 65% paid nothing? How about 80%. Tell us your number of what you think is fair and then go do the math work.

I have read the WSJ articles. This isn't the first one. There is this blurring between millionaires and tax the rich. The problem in this state is that some people can't figure out that these aren't the same group of people. They overlap only slightly.

The tax the rich supporters are supporting taxes that kick in around $125,000 for a married couple. That isn't the Warren Buffet category.

Let's be clear, is it tax the millionaires? Or is it tax the rich? What is your definition of rich?

John, I don't write the federal or state tax codes.

All I ask is that they be fair. The analysis is showing that they are not fair. The rich are paying, historically, the lowest rates they've ever seen. 35% top tax rate down from 91%. An incredible deal for the rich, who are amassing wealth at four times the rate of the other 99%. The gap in wealth today is as great as it was in 1929.

We all know what happened then.

It wasn't unproductive. People were at a forum to voice their concerns about "Reform 2.0", and that's what they did. A lot of good ideas were presented (and documented, were you there?). It wasn't a circus, not at all.

Tina,

Clearly you weren't there, or you would know that Mr. Gillespie is MS. Gillespie. OOPS!

lotus lady,
No, I was not there. The point of my comment was the tone of the e-mail sent out by DFL Chair Ms. Gillespie. In the Woodbury patch article the event was reported to be a "generally combative atmosphere throughout" and even Ms, Gillespie herself stated she wished it could have been more constuctive. If this were true Ms. Gillespie than why were you calling on DFL supporters to "Occupy Woodbury"???? Sounds to me like you were hoping the listening session would be more like a protest instead of a constuctive way for business owners and residents to talk to their legislators.

John, were you at the meeting? People were respectful. There was no civil disobedience, OK, maybe one heated exchange. Everyone was exercising their first amendment rights (to speak and share ideas). Isn't this what democracy is about? It was billed as a "listening session", and our reps did just that. Kudos to Kieffer, Lillie, and Lohmer for listening to constituents.

I wasn't there, but I have met Ms. Gillespie, and I highly doubt she would ever be disrespectful to anyone.

She is a very respectful person.

Were you there, John? I would not characterize it as civil disobedience. There were no riots, no bombings. A simple argument that got a little amped. I've seen it happen in dozens of these townhall meetings, on both sides (I've attended meetings hosted by Republicans and Democrats over many years, and I've seen Republicans engage in the same behavior, and no one called it "civil disobedience"). Get a grip.

Yes, a bit contentious, but the format of the meeting was poor to begin with, as they were seeking to validate their politics from the get-go. That is not "listening", it is telling and expecting your audience to agree with you. NOT a good way to organize a meeting.

But, in the end, it was ok. People's ideas were expressed, and in a productive way.

Regardless of what is "realistic", we must expect each other, as citizens, to respect each other, and keep a certain level of decorum. Bad behavior is bad behavior, and needs to be condemned.

I have been involved in wooing people into attending this sort of event, and it is only easy for those who don't have to do it. If meetings are held in the evening, you get people who have to have to work day shift, but don't have small children who have to be tended in the evening. If you hold the meeting in the daytime, you get retirees, people who work nights, etc. It's just a different crowd. There is no ideal time. The best thing to do is hold multiple meetings, at different times, but there are only so many hours in the day.

The only people who will reliably attend these meetings tend to be those who dedicate their lives to agitation - the "professionally offended". Those people often add little to the dialog, but manage to prevent others from either learning or speaking.

"The only people who will reliably attend these meetings tend to be those who dedicate their lives to agitation - the "professionally offended". "

There were a lot of Republicans in the room, too. Were they "professionally offended", or are they ok because they are on your side?

My experience is that Republicans schedule them during the day, and Democrats schedule them in the evening. Not sure why that is, but that's the way it works.

I did attend a session with the reps recently that was scheduled in the evening, but it was set up by labor organizations (not the Republicans), and only Kieffer showed up (Lillie and Lohmer begged off). Kieffer, to her credit, shows up.

I've been to several events where Lillie didn't show (two were candidate debates, he must not like doing those), so I saw him for the first time yesterday. He came late, near the end of the meeting.

Yes, this is true. They are paid around $31,000. Many legislators are able to work full time at being a legislator, at least during the session, and some are able to do it full time (Kieffer?), year-round. Julie Bunn did, and it was a steal for the taxpayers to get a PhD economist, with her extensive public policy experience, at 31K a year.

I don't think you should comment on Julie Bunn if you don't know her. Check her record of accomplishment in the leg, and what she got done for her district. Some of the nation's biggest success stories are people who graduated from college (and beyond). Don't dismiss them out of hand.

I'm not ripping on Lillie for working another job. It is what it is, and obviously the citizens of his district are confident in his ability to represent them regardless of hours he spends on other endeavors.

John K.

I've met Julie, she has plenty of common sense. She lives in the real world. Julie is a very accomplished individual.

You shouldn't cast aspersions on people you don't know.

PS - I don't believe that Lille "is working another job", he is actually a business owner, which to my mind means he is self-employed, which is a FINE thing to be. One of the benefits of working for yourself, is that you own your time and schedule. Congrats to Ted for that.......

Paul, reread my comment, I didn't cast aspersions on her. In fact I stated that I would not comment on her because I don't know her personally.

Apparently you have never went over to Lillie News to get a copy of the paper. I have done this several times over the last few years when I have wanted extra copies of the paper from my area or want the paper from a different area. I have seen Ted in the offices. He actually works the job from what I have seen. He isn't one of those business owners who hires someone else to run the place. Also if I am not mistaken, it is a family business.

In my experience, as a "business owner", you don't necessarily get more flexibility with your time, you get less. Customers are seldom as flexible and understanding as employers are.

@ John K,

I did read your comment. I read it very clearly, apparently you did not.

Going from "I don't know Julie Bunn personally, but I do know a lot of people with big degrees that can't tie their own shoes." - absolutely is a slam against her. A little veiled, I'll admit, but definitely a slam.

@ Donald Lee,

You're making a good point. It's also true that many people go into business for themselves, to get control over their lives. That's why I did.

Paul, some friendly advice. Don't go into politics. You have way too thin of skin.

Reread my post. I didn't slight Ted Lillie.

It seems narrow minded and short sighted to increase the regressivity of the tax system . . .

We don't need higher taxes to discourage people from buying massive homes . . . the increasing cost of energy, coupled with home value deflation and return to less than 2% increase in value/year (making homes a bad investment) will take care of the mini-mansion mania.

Property taxes are a big issue vis a vis affordability, especially for those who own their homes outright and maintain their lives on a fixed income. That segment of the population is growing rapidly (aging baby boomers).

Since property taxes are a Big Deal, I presume that Renee is going to vote no on the levy tomorrow to protect the homeowners on fixed incomes?

In 622 the voting is to simply renew (maintain) the same level of funding; maintaining quality of schools is the most important thing I can do to protect property values.

The legislature, OTOH, voted to essentially force counties to increase taxes to maintain the SAME level of spending and services we have today. This is wrong.

There is nothing "wrong" about changing what is spent on education, nor in the legislature declining to fund local governments. There is absolutely nothing wrong with asking local taxpayers to pay for what local governments choose to spend.

It's wrong because these people signed "no new taxes" pledges, and then turned around and forced the locals to raise new taxes to provide same level of services as they have in the past. This is the same old shifts and gimmicks shell game we saw under Pawlenty admin . . . he magically didn't raise taxes at the state level (great claim to make when he tried to run for President), but instead pushed it off onto the locals.

The locals are then forced to raise taxes to keep the snow plows running, and the blame is shifted to them (they didn't have to raise taxes! they could cut services!).

Quite frankly, I'm tired of this shifting and finger pointing.

More on this issue of shifting and blaming strategy of state GOP

http://mnpublius.com/post/12475297357/gop-increases-property-taxes-blames-counties

We practice self government. The citizens make the decisions, through their elected representatives. We all have a duty to be responsible citizens. The shrill commentary, heavy with words like "victim" and "sacrifice" do not promote responsible stewardship of our shared resources. We all pay taxes, and have no right to demand that others pay for our political choices.

Successful, productive citizens often start and grow businesses, and are the engines of our prosperity, not some blight to be cured. These citizens have higher incomes because in a free economy, their efforts are valuable to those they serve. This is to be admired, not condemned.

The finger pointing is indeed unhelpful, but is not coming from those who are trying control public spending to keep taxes down. It is coming from those who believe that government is the solution to every problem, and whose appetites for public spending appears to have no limit.

Mobility and wealth creation is hurt most by the policies that make it hard, and expensive, to start and run a business. Because larger businesses can absorb these costs more easily, and generally have more political clout, larger businesses gain the most. Translation: measures that try to "spread the wealth" end up doing the opposite.

It is foolish in the extreme to condemn those who are productive. What do you propose instead? Remember that government has little power beyond taxing away what productive people produce and giving it to someone else. Do you really want government to decide who is successful and who not? Isn't that essentially the problem today? The solution is to restore markets, not destroy them.

Those who are truly greedy are those who demand to be given what they have not earned. Shrill appeals to envy are not helpful.

"Is a United Healthcare CEO, who receives over $100 million a year in compensation, more productive and valuable to society than the doctor at a local hospital?"

Apparently so, because United Healthcare freely paid that money to the CEO rather than hiring someone else who would certainly have done the job for less. (I'd do it for a paltry $2 million. ;->)

Obviously there was something in that CEO's performance that made it worth $100 million to those who made the payment. I don't know why, but it's not my money, and not my call.

To the extent governments decide who gets big payoffs, and who doesn't, we have a "system". To the extent markets decide, we have freedom.

The core question here is "who gets to decide?". The answer needs to be "me".

Be careful what you wish for, and understand the consequences. Self government requires private property, a Rule of Law and personal responsibility. We destroy any of those three at our peril.

Bailouts are enormously destructive on multiple levels. Remember that the "1%" has little actual power unless they manage to harness the power of government AND government has the power to choose who wins and who loses (who gets a bailout).

Stop the bailouts. All of them - big and small. Expect people, at all levels to honor their commitments and pay their debts. That's no radical. It's simple honor, and justice.

Politics is easy to "rig". Markets are very difficult. Who do you want in charge? a few human beings, or markets?

Agitating to increase government power in the hope of using that power to make things "fair" always results in "fair" getting lost, and the power captured by those who benefit most.

" Remember that the "1%" has little actual power unless they manage to harness the power of government "

Yes, they've done it through campaign contributions (bribes) and lobbyists. The Citizens United decision makes it worse (corporations giving massive amounts to campaigns).

"Agitating to increase government power" -- it is not agitating to increase government power, but to DECREASE the power of the 1%, and to give the government back to the people. This is what constitutes good representative government . . . government of the people, by the people, for the people, and not feudal government by the 1%.

Davea,

If government should not determine or control who is successful in society, then why does government continue to give tax breaks to the rich? Why are capital gains taxed at a lower rate than money earned by the sweat of a worker? How is this fair? If productivity and performance are valued over "entitlement", why is the first $5,000,000 of estate passed to heirs tax-free? Isn't that an entitlement that they did not work to gain themselves? Intragenerational wealth transfer creates lazy kids -- I've seen it first hand, many times. How is this promoting productivity over entitlement?

In any case, it appears your ideology is in retreat, as is evidenced by voters who decided to repeal anti-worker initiatives in Ohio. Good luck!

I value the rational discussions I manage to have with people on these vital issues. I find that there is some common ground, if people will persist long enough to find it. Even in those cases where the conversation devolves into rants and name calling, I have an opportunity to stand up for foundational concepts that seems to have been lost.

In this case, there is a core principle that needs to be made clear. All the "solutions" that involve giving government yet more power to pick winners and losers have the net effect of reducing the power of "we, the people". Those on the left tend to believe that government "regulation" can be bent to the will of "the people". It's a nice idea, but history and logic tell us that it just does not work.

We forget that the solutions of the left have been tried - recently. Various flavors of socialism have been implemented in the old Soviet Union, Cuba, Venezuela, and China. In every case, the experiment has resulted in the same end - the destruction of personal incentive and the collapse of the economy. In all these cases, the collapse has been followed by the realization that free markets and private property are far, far better for "the people".

(P.S. western europe, sadly, is next on this list.)