« MN GOP STATEMENT ON STATE BUDGET FORECAST | Home | COMING SOON: NEW COMMITTEE CREATED BY DFL RAISING CONCERNS »
SEIFERT DESCRIBES UPCOMING BUDGET BATTLE IN CLEAR LANGUAGE
By Michael B. Brodkorb | November 29, 2006
"'When you have a boatload of money, your job is to keep the drunken sailors off the ship,' said Rep. Marty Seifert, R-Marshall and the incoming House minority leader." Source: Associated Press, November 29, 2006
Tags: Uncategorized
Topics: Uncategorized | 35 Comments »
35 Responses to “SEIFERT DESCRIBES UPCOMING BUDGET BATTLE IN CLEAR LANGUAGE”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
November 29th, 2006 at 9:46 PM
And leave them on shore, with money, with hookers and all of the vices of shore leave?
Methinks that the new MINORITY leader has horrible analogies, and is clearly nothing more than a divisive partisan hack.
And stupid, but thats neither here nor there.
Sean
November 29th, 2006 at 11:13 PM
actually the new minority leader has been watching too much daily show when John McCain referred to the current bush administration’s spending habits as follows: “Their spending like drunekn sailors except more creatively”
November 29th, 2006 at 11:20 PM
Seifert is about as quick witted as Sviggy. Thank goodness nobody has to listen to either of them for anytime in the near future.
November 30th, 2006 at 12:42 AM
I see the Republicans have put forward another acolyte of greed.
After years of this “taxes are evil” talk, Minnesota schools, police, and roads are hurting.
November 30th, 2006 at 2:35 AM
Nobody asked you, Sean.
November 30th, 2006 at 6:35 AM
Speaking of stupid, has anyone read what Sean wrote?
November 30th, 2006 at 8:58 AM
Yes, leave the DRUNKEN sailors on shore WITHOUT money. The money is ON THE BOAT, you moron, along with the sober sailors who have a clear head and will make sober decisions as to handling it.
An excellant analogy. Unfortunately, we appear to have some Republicans on the drunken sailor end of the pier also.
November 30th, 2006 at 9:34 AM
“And leave them on shore, with money, with hookers and all of the vices of shore leave?”
Typical mind set of the left.
“Methinks that the new MINORITY leader has horrible analogies, and is clearly nothing more than a divisive partisan hack.”
Typical of the left to grasp the identification of people as clearly stated in Seifert’s Conceptual metaphor.
“And stupid, but thats neither here nor there.”
So is your whole comment.
November 30th, 2006 at 9:51 AM
Methinks that Sean does not understand the purpose of soundbite, or does not care to understand the purpose of this soundbite.
Marty’s stuff is always good. I look forward to more of it. Enjoy.
November 30th, 2006 at 10:14 AM
The Democrats are basically hypocrites.
It’s OK for Ann Richards, Chuck Schumer or Ted Kennedy to use soundbites and cheap political cliches.
But when a Republican uses one, it suddenly becomes a bad thing.
Brian Hanna, Sean, et al. are hypocrites. Nothing more, nothing less. The key is whether they’ll ever choose to admit it. I’m leaning towards NO.
November 30th, 2006 at 10:39 AM
All I’m saying is he mixed his metaphors, and is clearly lacking the grasp of cogent thought I’d hope for out of one of the 5 most important politicians in the state…
Oh… well… with the DFL’s majority he’s not quite that important… well at least top 10. Or 15. Top 15 def.
You can say all you want about me being dumb etc. but 1. I am not the (really really) minority leader of the Minnesota State House, 2. I didn’t botch that analogy 3. you can’t talk shit about Pogie being some partisan hack and then rally ’round the goober when your guy says something that has no purpose other than to get you wingnuts good and frothing.
And Mike– that was a nice job of changing the title on the post.
Just goes to show the lows to which you’ll stoop– not as though you had much credibility anyway.
Sean
November 30th, 2006 at 11:10 AM
Brian Hanna
How are the schools hurting? We spend $12B on them every 2 years. How are they hurting? please tell me how more money will improve them?
November 30th, 2006 at 11:13 AM
Sean, sorry you have a real problem with understanding the message of this post, but I am not Michael (always happy to point out yet another –as you put it- dumb comment on your part).
November 30th, 2006 at 11:33 AM
Sean, you are an idiot and I have read many posts you have written over some time now both here and the Red Star. You are a political hack and funny how your side seems to never do anything wrong and the conservatives can do nothing right.
Also odd how you have claimed many, many times how this site has no credibility yet here you are day after day.
Fact is you and the other liberals who post here come to this site and others to try and keep the word from spreading how God awful liberals are with public policies. One needs to look no further than the great liberal experiment called Minneapolis! Poor schools, high crime, rising taxes and the are what people get when they allow liberals and the DFL to run anything.
November 30th, 2006 at 11:52 AM
Dear Right On– I’m rubber and you’re glue, what ever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you.
PS. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot are you talking about?
Sean
November 30th, 2006 at 12:22 PM
Dear Big Kahuna–
I do not post nor write for the Red Star– dementia has to be a bummer.
And I don’t think I said anything about policy in this post– or many others recently. I don’t think that MDE is a real good forum for policy discussions. So I don’t know what you’re talking about. Again, the slow journey to the sunset has got to be heavy, but we’re here for you.
Hugs and Kisses,
Sean
November 30th, 2006 at 12:33 PM
I was anxiously awaiting the hugs and kisses line Sean! Spot on with the Seifert comments…he’s in over his head right now!
November 30th, 2006 at 1:03 PM
Look at all the negative comments the Dems are throwing at Marty. This surely means they are very concerned about his power and influence. Otherwise, why bother? Typical, typical, and once again, typical. Marty, keep up the good work!!
November 30th, 2006 at 1:04 PM
Sean, as the saying goes “sticks and stones my brake my bones but (Note to Sean, I am about to ad-lib now) but my comments must really bug you.
Regarding funny, this site-attached is hilarious:
http://thepeoplescube.com/
November 30th, 2006 at 1:06 PM
Brian Hanna, Sean, et al. are hypocrites. Nothing more, nothing less.
No – definitely more, but certainly no less.
November 30th, 2006 at 2:09 PM
Brian Hanna, fat ass ignoramus, is back? Oh goody! Must be a slow day at the U of M. Dont’cha got any frivolous law suits it file Brian?
November 30th, 2006 at 3:13 PM
Nevermind the House DFL had absolutely nothing to do with the surplus, what a difference. 4 yrs ago multi-billion dollar budgetary deficit, now $2B projected surplus. Christmas came twice for DFL this yr, Election Day and Budget Announcement
November 30th, 2006 at 3:53 PM
Even if the State gives the money back as local government aid, the local governments will spend it on new things rather than offering tax relief…therefore the surplus is not coming back to us I fear.
November 30th, 2006 at 4:35 PM
I read the whole Siefert piece. Well, those are nice words, but color me skeptical. Yes, Dems spend like drunken sailors, but all too often we’ve seen Republicans sneak over and join them in their drinking binge as well.
I use the following analogy — what if you went to Target and bought a shirt for $16. You hand the clerk a $20 bill. But instead of giving you $4 change, she smiles at you and tells you they have better things to spend the money on.
As Jason Lewis pointed out on his radio show yesterday, the surplus was not created as a result of excess property tax collections. Property taxes are high because of unfettered spending by schools and local governments. The surplus was created because our INCOME taxes are too high. Pawlenty and Republicans ought to create a united front and demand the entire $2.2 billion — every penny of it — be returned to the taxpayers in the form of income tax reductions.
From the GOP state platform: “We support … requiring that all state surpluses be returned to the taxpayers in proportion to the taxes paid.”
The meaning of that is clear: Give the money back. Using the money for more school spending or building trains or pouring it into more LGA or fiscal disparities funding and falsely calling it “property tax relief” just doesn’t cut it.
This is their big opportunity for Republicans to finally take a united, principled position. The window of opportunity (to regain credibility) is closing fast.
November 30th, 2006 at 4:43 PM
I’m sorry, I’m still laughing at the suggestion that Marty Seifert can describe anything clearly! This is the same man who was given the job to stand and talk about NOTHING so that his caucus could have time to meet! Maybe Marty should put down HIS whiskey bottle before the drunken Governor starts to believe he is the drunk and stoned Ventura and dreams up little rebate checks for everyone!
November 30th, 2006 at 4:52 PM
sd42′s comment, Property taxes are high because of unfettered spending by schools and local governments.
I’m sorry I just don’t see the unfettered spending by the schools in our area. Of the eight rural districts around us, ALL have been cutting their budgets over the past three years. Five of these districts either are currently or just recently came out of S.O.D. and the other three districts that haven’t experienced it are just about on the brink.
To put the blame for property tax increases on local government without acknowledging the tax shifts that occured really is not fair. The state expects these local units to do what they have been, but with less state dollars. In the case of schools the state tells them that if they will levy more dollars they can get more state dollars, then T-paw and crew turn around and blame the schools for raising property taxes!
November 30th, 2006 at 6:32 PM
If rural schools were to get their fair share of funding I would agree with you. As things stand today the metro schools get thousands of dollars more then rural schools. I live near the SD border and out here we are about $3000 less then Minneapolis. We supply many of the best workers that go to the metro with the least amount of spending. Just think of what we could do if the money was shared evenly on a per student basis. Guess there are just more demorcats in the metro so they send the money where the votes are, not where there is a chance of success.
December 1st, 2006 at 1:30 AM
First of all, that’s ridiculous. Education has NOT been cut — not even close. But don’t believe me — see the numbers for yourself at http://education.state.mn.us/mde/static/12yrGeneralRevenue.xls
I repeat: Unfettered increases. How much is enough? $10,000 per student? $12,000? Maybe $20,000?
Hopkins school district is one of the best funded school districts in the state. In fact their superintendent was the #1 best paid in the state. The teachers were among the highest paid as well. Year after year, taxpayers gave generously. Every school referendum that was presented passed easily. But yet, even with all that funding, they went into SOD — they went broke. Now one of the best funded districts in Minnesota is talking about cuts — even about closing down one of their schools.
One parent recently wrote that they also spent money on a multi-million dollar expansion, enjoying things like a new theater, lunchroom, and commons area with, I kid you not, a new fireplace. Now I’m all for allowing the school to produce these things, but at what cost? A fireplace and million-dollar proscenium theater are great, but when books aren’t available and schools start shutting down, we have to start wondering – do our school districts have any sense of fiscal responsibility?
Now a school is closing and teachers are losing their jobs, proving once again that, for the DFL, all that matters is the AMOUNT of money going to schools, not how the money is spent.
Meanwhile Minnesota ranks #6 in overall taxes (U.S. Census). Only 4 states have a worse climate for small business (Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council). And we rank 41st in overall business climate (Tax Foundation) — down from 39 last year.
Squandering the surplus isn’t going to solve any of those problems.
December 1st, 2006 at 9:01 AM
So, if you have a property wealthy districts that can pass voter approved referendums to build these places that you mention, this means that education spending is unfettered? Schools can not build these things without voter approval, and the money has to come from the referendums, it doesn’t come from the general fund. When you lump every district in Minnesota in with these districts you are not comparing apples to apples. We have serious issues facing district in rural Minnesota where schools are not building these great structures. These schools are trying to simply educate kids.
Its not an issue of metro democrates sending money to their areas, frankly the schools that are often mentioned as “wasteful” have many republican representing them. What hurts education is when the Governor paints all schools with such a broad brush when suggesting that they are spending too much money on administration. What hurts is when a choice school in Minneapolis, that advertises that they embrace diversity, talks about diversity and includes discussion on same sex families and it offends families that CHOSE to send their child to the school. Then you get a radical groups like Ed Watch and Minnesota Citizens in Defense of Marriage out telling everyone that ALL public school are teaching kids how to be gay! Even Seifert himself has often used this rhetoric, while not seeing the damage that is causes the rural schools that he represents.
December 1st, 2006 at 10:17 AM
The state budget was $24 Billion just before Republicans took over the governor’s mansion in 2002. It will be $32 Billion next year (with approximately half going to education). That is a 33% jump in the burden of government during a time when many Minnesota families were experiencing a recession. Question: Did your income go up 33%?
Pawlenty is NOT cutting anything.
December 1st, 2006 at 11:00 AM
Things thay you may want to consider when you look at education funding are:
1. State take over of education funding in ’01-’02. They took control of 80% of the general operating funding for school districts. 90% of the district in Minnesota have additional referendums in place since this take over. And in rural districts these referendums are not for new buildings, but instead for general opperating expenses.
2. Following the take over there were 0% increases in the formula for two years, while during this same time the jump in areas such has health insurance took historic leaps.
3. Continued mandates in areas of Special Education have increased but without funding to support them. It is projected that this will be at $633 million by FY ’09. Those are dollars that come out of general instruction where the Governor is now promoting increases in Math, Science and Engineering type programs be taught.
Rep. Ho pointed it out earlier that there is no equity in school funding in Minnesota. When that took over happened it benefited the suburban districts, but did harm to all the rural districts in Minnesota. You would think that Rep. Seifert who is from rural Minnesota, was educated in a consolidated rural school district, is an educator by degree would step up and speakout on behalf education. Instead he is more concerned with sound bytes and rhetoric that will endear him to the party leadership.
December 1st, 2006 at 12:14 PM
Titus,
Things you need to consider when looking at education funding:
1) The number of students enrolled in public schools will continue to remain flat or decline because of demographic trends. Thus, schools will need to adjust to the resulting economies of scale and should not need to return to the taxpayers every year, demanding more money for fewer students.
2) The take-over that occurred in 2000-01 resulted in decreased property taxes. Many school districts passed levy referenda at that time, not because they needed to fill operating expenses, but because they could pass a levy without increasing property taxes. In other words, the net tax burden remained the same even though the state had reduced it. Go back and look at the stats for this time period and you will see that many referenda passed because voters did not have to worry about a net property tax increase if they passed a levy.
3) Yes, health insurance costs in education have increased, but they have increased in every other sector of society, public and private.
December 1st, 2006 at 3:55 PM
WTM I understand but it seems that most of you in the metro don’t understand what is happening in rural Minnesota. Property tax went down, BUT the state came out with levy match dollars and told districts that if you levy this much you will get this much more state funding. Case in point, look at the Q-Comp. There was an incentive in the package the encouraged school districts to levy extra dollars and the state would give more to help fund Q-Comp.
You can’t continue to measure public schools based on what happens in the 7 county area. For Rural schools to get the same dollars per student as some of the metro districts in order to provide quality education, our rural property taxes have had to go up because of the lack of funding equity. We simply don’t have the same industrial and retail tax base as you do, BUT we are expected to have schools that perform at an equal level. Districts in rural Minnesota have not been adding the fluff that so many believe public schools are doing. They HAVE been forced to make major cuts in their budgets, but are still expected to perform at the same level as the metro distrcts with regards to test scores and the like. Now with the new focus on Math, Science and Engineering that the Governor is pushing, where are these districts going to get the dollars to provide it? We need Seifert to not be a “Party Man” but instead take a look around and see the challenges that his rural schools are facing. He needs to go back to Morgan and walk around Cedar Mountain Schools and listen to his former teachers tell him how they are expected to do more with less, and with equipment and materials that are sub-par.
December 1st, 2006 at 4:16 PM
Last time I checked the government still took checks right?
If the dems are so concerned about a tax rebate, I’m sure the state would take a check from you. That way people who actually might need a little break on their taxes can get one.
As a loan officer I see how much teachers, admin, and even janitors are paid. I wish I got that much for a 9 month out of the year job.
It really pisses me off when I have to buy school supplies for “community use”, when I know the admin is making over 6 figure.
December 4th, 2006 at 8:59 AM
Anyone watch At Issue yesterday? Seifert had to read this statement he didn’t make it up. I wonder who is speech writer is?