« MN GOP PRESS RELEASE: “STATEMENT ON GOVERNOR PAWLENTY’S BUDGET PROPOSAL” | Home | COLEMAN CAMPAIGN UNVEILS NEW WEBSITE: “IS THE FRANKEN CAMPAIGN PREVENTING YOUR VOTE FROM BEING COUNTED?” »
MN SRC PRESS RELEASE: “SENATE REPUBLICAN LEADER CALLS ON SENATE DFL CAUCUS TO PRODUCE BUDGET PROPOSAL TO SOLVE DEFICIT – WITHOUT RAISING TAXES”
By Michael B. Brodkorb | January 28, 2009
(St. Paul) – In response to the release of Governor Tim Pawlenty’s proposed budget recommendations, Senate Republican Leader David Senjem (R-Rochester) today called on the Senate DFL Caucus to produce a budget
proposal that solves Minnesota growing budget deficit without raising taxes.
“Governor Pawlenty’s budget proposal is a starting point in the process of solving a budget deficit that is getting larger and larger by the minute,” said Senjem. “Rather than complaining about the budget
offered by Governor Pawlenty, the Senate DFL Caucus should turn their criticism into a solution that doesn’t further burden Minnesota taxpayers.”
Governor Pawlenty’s proposed budget reduces Minnesota’s notoriously high business tax rate, increases K-12 funding, with future education funding increases linked to improved classroom performance, preserves
health care coverage for children, and provides incentives for the consolidation and sharing of county services.
Senator Senjem emphasized, “now is the worst time in state history to raise taxes on Minnesota families and businesses. Even the Obama administration is proposing tax cuts – not tax increases. Minnesota
Democrats are out of touch with their legislative proposals to increase taxes.”
“Helping create a business friendly environment that will stimulate the creation of private sector jobs is the best solution to solving this budget deficit,” said Senjem.
“Governor Pawlenty has produced a budget proposal that solves the budget deficit without increasing the tax burden on families and businesses,” added Senjem. “The Senate DFL Caucus should now produce
their alternative budget proposal — one that doesn’t raise taxes — so the work of solving the growing budget deficit can be completed.”
###
This is a reminder that I work for the Minnesota Senate Republican Caucus. Minnesota Democrats Exposed is my personal blog and it is not created, endorsed, sponsored, or authorized by any political party, candidate, or candidate’s committee.
Tags: Uncategorized
Topics: Uncategorized | 33 Comments »
33 Responses to “MN SRC PRESS RELEASE: “SENATE REPUBLICAN LEADER CALLS ON SENATE DFL CAUCUS TO PRODUCE BUDGET PROPOSAL TO SOLVE DEFICIT – WITHOUT RAISING TAXES””
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
January 28th, 2009 at 8:34 AM
“In response to the release of Governor Tim Pawlenty’s proposed budget recommendations, Senate Republican Leader David Senjem (R-Rochester) today called on the Senate DFL Caucus to produce a budget
proposal that solves Minnesota growing budget deficit without raising taxes.”
Why? There are perfectly good reasons for considering certain new taxes. I’ve never gotten the stone-headedness of Republicans that their ONLY solution to dramatic reductions in revenue is to dramatically cut expenditures.
The problem is, they can never find enough spending to cut. And, it is likely that safety nets are going to be increasingly strained in a bad economy (unemployment, medicare/medicaid, etc.)
There are plenty of people who are doing just fine. It’s not unreasonable to ask them to help those around them that are struggling in what could be one of the darkest economic times in our country’s history.
Republican’s refusal to compromise on issues like this is ridiculous.
January 28th, 2009 at 8:35 AM
I am curious to see if the Senate Republican Caucus has a plan for fixing the deficit that is built on sound economic principle, and not smoke and mirrors like the Governor’s budget.
The tobacco thing is a non-starter. You can ask our neighbors to the south why that won’t work. And depending heavily on a federal bailout seems unwise for anyone who isn’t a bank.
It is easy to assail the opponents. And, quite honestly, it is what most people expect the Senate Minority Caucus will be doing more and more of as a result of their communications hire. It is much harder to actually provide some form of leadership in the form of an idea.
You want to know why the republican party is on life support in this state? It is because of press releases like this. Attack, and provide no vision for how things would change if a republican were in charge.
January 28th, 2009 at 9:34 AM
Plydumb
“There are plenty of people who are doing just fine. It’s not unreasonable to ask them to help those around them that are struggling in what could be one of the darkest economic times in our country’s history.”
Go ahead and ask. Ask your rich liberal buddies to donate to the state coffers.
The people who still have jobs are fortunate. They’ve done nothing wrong so why punish them with more taxes? What the state needs is jobs. Tax increases would not accomplish this.
January 28th, 2009 at 9:58 AM
PD- typical lib response- hey lets raise taxes- you are a moron –why don’t you send in all your money in since you think it’s is such a great ideal – oh that’s right you only want everyone else to pay more except you-
You are pathetic – Hey PD -DU called they are missing there site idiot, time for you to go.
January 28th, 2009 at 9:59 AM
The people who no longer have jobs are unfortunate. They’ve done nothing wrong so why punish them by cutting their safety net so you can afford tax breaks to corporations? What good are a whole bunch of new jobs if we have no skilled workforce left to do the work?
Minnesotans are growing increasingly tired of Tim Pawlenty’s eternal presidential campaign. If he were to try and do what is right for the people rather than what is right for Grover Norquist, perhaps he would have a chance at winning his next statewide election, be it for governor OR President.
January 28th, 2009 at 10:32 AM
Leroy, you jackass, the safety net for those who’ve been laid off is called unemployment insurance. MN still has plenty in reserve.
“Tax break of corportation.” Whose talking about this. Corporation create jobs. Raising taxes on corporations kills jobs.
So Plydumb and Leroy the Jackass think you can tax your way out of a recession. Any more brilliant ideas? Should we negotiate with terrorists?
January 28th, 2009 at 10:34 AM
Does anyone find it interesting that the liberals here have already ruled out any cuts and will only accept more taxes? They realize that the people they elected are incapable of making tough decisions or coming up with innovative ways of changing how the goverment spends money.
Go ahead guys and have your handlers raise taxes. All the taxes, lots of new taxes, increased taxes as far as the eye can see.
Can’t wait for the next election.
January 28th, 2009 at 10:53 AM
“Does anyone find it interesting that the liberals here have already ruled out any cuts and will only accept more taxes?”
Total BS. When did anyone say we need to rule out spending cuts? My argument is it is stone-headed to merely say “nope, zero new taxes or fees.” The only one ruling out part of the “increase revenues decrease expenses” part of any successful business strategy is republicans.
Corporations who see a reduction in revenue don’t just say, “well, let’s just cut costs.” They also say, “let’s figure out how to increase revenues as well.”
As for all of you “taxes kill the economy” types, tell me, how have the tax cuts we’ve had in place the last 8 years been working out to stimulate the economy? The last time we had tax bumps happened to result in economy prosperity during the Clinton years.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:00 AM
Pete..
Both sides realize that a solution will require a combination of spending cuts and increased revenue.
If either side suggests that the solution is all spending cuts or all revenue increases, they are nuts.
Your contention that “liberals here have already ruled out any cuts and will only accept more taxes” is patently ridiculous.
It’s also funny that you label anybody who disagrees with you as liberal. I mean, we don’t agree on much, but I’m a moderate Democrat.
Both sides need to negotiate a solution that incorporates spending cuts and increased revenues. Any other approach will be futile, and frankly stupid.
I think raising taxes is dangerous in this environment, but increased revenue will be required. It didn’t take my degree in Mathematics to figure this out.
Can’t we stop the name calling, and discuss how we can work together to resolve this crisis?
January 28th, 2009 at 11:06 AM
“Pay as you go” works for my family, and IMHO should be implemented in State government.
The Clinton prosperity was the result of various factors, but “PayGo” was undeniably important to the equation.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:23 AM
“The Clinton prosperity was the result of various factors” = Ronald Reagan
January 28th, 2009 at 11:28 AM
A moderate Democrat is a liberal to me. Ones further left are radical left wing tools (see Leroy, Tommy).
My comment was based on the immediate response by the first two posters here. Please point out where in their posts they said anything about cutting spending being acceptable? I see increasing taxes but nothing about cutting spending.
My opinion is that we should not be bailing any company out that would not have a direct impact on national security.
How many trillions of dollars of consumer debt is there in this country? Anybody know? What would happen if we bailed those people out instead of the corportations? Just a thought…
January 28th, 2009 at 11:32 AM
So Reagan managed to create prosperity that skipped over George the first?
That is some talent…
January 28th, 2009 at 12:18 PM
“My comment was based on the immediate response by the first two posters here. Please point out where in their posts they said anything about cutting spending being acceptable? I see increasing taxes but nothing about cutting spending.”
I fail to see how either of those first two posts could be construed as indicating an unwillingness to accept spending cuts any more than they could be construed as indicating the posters (one of them me) want to shoot all gays (the posts, after all, didn’t say they DON’T want to shoot gays!)
January 28th, 2009 at 12:26 PM
I have been over this ground before here, but..
Pete’s proof that something is true is based on insufficient evidence that it is not true. Seems like PlymouthDem is onto this now.
Sickening really… but this approach is rampant among all Karl Rove disciples. It’s very close to being dishonest.. but I’ll save that for later.
January 28th, 2009 at 12:51 PM
What? You people reading from a script? Booms and bust cycles determine appropriate finance policy. When in recession you increase deficit spending and cut taxes to open up demand for buying and investing. During war countries always run up debt. Now the political solution is to stimulate the economy with debt spending and tax cuts. Hopefully when the economy expands the Fed will increase rates as to slow growth of inflation, but something tells me this will not happen.
Tax cuts are the best way usually to stimulate the economy but debt spending during times of economic employment technology upgrades as in the depression and the huge shift from farm to city work may be what is needed now. Today we have a major shift in energy tech sector and are on the verge of a bio medical boom as we had in the personal computer and software boom. These could be the new leading industries for the new economy. Democrats would like us to implode as a country as the Soviets did. President Obama knows better and has better sense than most ignorant Dems. That is why he will not increase taxes (sorry, capital gains will not be touched). He will not take all our troops out and lose a war that we are winning in Iraq. A residual force of 70,000 to 90,000 will remain and more added if need be. This is no different than the latest plan Bush had in place. He has imposed the same surge strategy in Afghanistan as was opposed by Dems in Iraq as well. He is a smart Democrat and emotionally stable. A large portion of the far left is actually getting in the way of his policies which are not overall conservative but practical.
This country needs to eventually in the not so distant future slow the growth of supply of money since injecting huge amounts causes only short term gains followed by an increase in prices (inflation) that balances the money supply with goods and services. Only if the fed can ratchet up rates so we grow at a slow pace out of this mess then only long term positive results from much of the raw stimulus (omitting upgrade costs) could happen. The question is does the Obama administration have the political courage to raise rates when the economy appears to be booming? Or does he do what most Presidents would do and keep his hands off. If President Obama has that kind of steel will then he will in certain ways be a great president.
Also, births and average age greatly affects the economy. When Social Security was first enacted we had 16 workers to every retired person. This is down to 3 to 1 and will hit close to 2-1 eventually. Medicare was only past as recent as 1967 or 1968. A contractions in births after the Boom regeneration increased longevity and standard of living as well as higher expectations of the standard of living (much a farce appearing true due to false inflated projected benefits). President Obama will have to reform entitlements just to save them these entitlements. It’s ironic that a Democrat is at this stage in history where he is forced to deal with these ballooning costs. The Democrats will have a love hate relationship with this President. The center of the party isn’t the real problem it’s the huge wing of socialist dope-heads the Dems have to constantly try to appease. After all they need all of you for winning elections.
January 28th, 2009 at 12:58 PM
“As for all of you “taxes kill the economy†types, tell me, how have the tax cuts we’ve had in place the last 8 years been working out to stimulate the economy? The last time we had tax bumps happened to result in economy prosperity during the Clinton years.”
You mean the false properity under Clinton like the Tech bubble, that crashed?
If a company has less expenses via taxes, they have more to spend on research, development, and producing, as well as actually hiring employees. All of this is related to productivity and increased revenue. If revenue goes up, so does the amount they pay in taxes. If you raise the tax rate, the amount their their profits gone down and they have less to spend on the research, development, production, and less funds to hire more employees. When the cost of doing business, and so revenue goes down, then the amount they pay in taxes goes down. So you might increase the tax rate, but you’ll end up getting less because the companies will have less revenue to reinvest.
January 28th, 2009 at 1:01 PM
Excellent post.
Obama is no lefty.
January 28th, 2009 at 1:02 PM
I meant to compliment Proud, not this other Bozo.
January 28th, 2009 at 1:19 PM
Pete is becoming increasingly unreadable.
For a while he tried to make valid points. Now he seems to have become resigned to the traditional republican mantra of blaming all others and tossing the occasional bomb.
Like Swiftee, Chestnut and even Michael Brodkorb, his interest in this site will soon wane, and I predict he will go out with some sort of expletive laden flourish, threatening to never come back again, only to re-appear in a few months with a new moniker.
January 28th, 2009 at 2:28 PM
Leroy, you are giving Scott a very bad name. What post of yours actually contributes to any conversation? None of course.
Did you notice one of your buddies claims he wants to kill gays above? I’d watch out if I were you – he sounds sincere.
As always none of you liberals can respond to my post so you turn to personal attacks. Sad really but not unexpected.
One thing about liberals, they are very bad losers.
Tax & Spend, Tax & Spend, Tax & Spend.
I can’t wait until the next election.
January 28th, 2009 at 3:42 PM
Pete (Timmy) –
“I can’t wait for the next election”
Mike Bredeck was saying that after he lost to Aaron Peterson the first time.
Then, the next election came, and he lost to a kid who has only been old enough to vote for about 20 minutes.
I don’t know what election y’all think is coming, but I will continue to laugh as the day after every election you have to say the same thing all over again.
Here is a novel idea. Give the voters a reason to vote for a republican. No new taxes has gotten us way behind in infrastructure and general state upkeep. Maybe it is time you admit that to buy stuff, credit cards aren’t always the answer. Sometimes you have to spend real cash.
January 28th, 2009 at 4:59 PM
Why would a tax cut cause corporations to hire more people when they can’t sell what they produce already? If they had enough customers to make expanding make sense, then a tax cut might make sense.
Besides, the state doesn’t have the federal option of deficit spending. There will have to be both spending cuts that hurt and tax cuts that hurt. No, I don’t want my taxes raised either, or cuts to spending that benefits me, but I accept the necessity.
January 28th, 2009 at 5:27 PM
Won’t have to Leroy boy. The Democrats are going to take care of that for us.
As far as you boy Andrew Falk, he had to lie and cheat to win. He (and you) told false stories about Mr. Bredeck. Mr. Bredeck ran a good, clean, honest campaign.
Personally I would rather lose with honor than win with lies. I know you just want to win and don’t care about anything else but I do. From what I understand so does Mr. Bredeck.
Now me and Lassie are going to go save some kid that fell down a old well. Timmy? That’s the best you got?
Here is a hint. I’ve only been involved in district politics here since Aaron’s old man screwed me over. Stay tuned for future hints Scott.
January 28th, 2009 at 7:35 PM
The problem (one of), is people aren`t buying enough shit. If we tax them more, they`ll buy even less shit. So, don`t raise taxes. Simple.
January 29th, 2009 at 12:26 AM
danbrome better watch out for Plymouthdem. She talking about shooting all the gays. (Couldn’t we just deport them to France?)
January 29th, 2009 at 6:40 PM
Plymouth:
I don’t know what your income is. Obviously it’s something like a million dollars a year. so if your revenues drop off to let say nine hundred thousand your immediate response is to increase your budget from one million dollars to one point three million dollars.
A rational person (problem there for you) will look at their budget and see how to take their budget from one million dollars to the nine hundred thousand which they will get.
Also keep in mind the state budget hasn’t been cut. It has gone from something like 24 billion in the year 2000 to 35 billion now. We spend more money than the state of the Wisconsin. We have room to cut!
As for making fun of the Republican approach it was projected two years we were going to have a 2 billion dollar surplus. The DFL tried to spend more than 2 billion dollars. The only reason why the budget deficit was only like 400 million for this budget cycle was because Tim limited the DFL to increasing spending at 9% instead of the 17% they wanted.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
January 29th, 2009 at 6:45 PM
Leroy:
Basic economics here.
Business wants to make a reasonable profit. If the state taxes a large part of their profit (over 40% or more when combined with their federal taxes) there is no incentive to employ somebody in Minnesota.
They move their business to another state or country where they can make their reasonable profit.
So what you’re saying is that businesses should stay in Minnesota allow the DFL to tax them to death and still employ people. In your dream world that works. In the real world those businesses don’t employ the people.
If you really care about the unemployed you’ll want to encourage businesses to stay here by reducing their taxes.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
January 29th, 2009 at 6:54 PM
Plymouth:
check the revenue figures during the Bush adminstration. Revenues went up dramatically. The only reason why you still had deficits (and I will blame the Republican controlled congress and President Bush for this) they didn’t restrain spending. They spent more than the revenue surge created.
Keep in mind the tax cuts over the last eight years helped the economy survive:
* The Clinton recession which Bush inherited.
* The impact of 9-11 which was creating an economic panic almost as bad as today’s
* The tech stock market bubble blowing up.
* The impact of hurricane Katrina.
The only reason why we had the financial crisis was despite proposals by President Bush and people like John Mccain the Democrats blocked real reform of fannie mae. The fannie mae mortage mess (which was predicted with negative consequences by people who said if no action took place) took place in 2008. The Democrats caused that.
As for the Clinton prosperity you point to the stock market exploded and the deficit shrank when the Republicans took controlled put in restrained spending, made the private sector confident no bad programs were coming, and did a capital gains tax cut that fueled the stock market and US revenues because of dramatic increases in capital gains.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
January 29th, 2009 at 6:58 PM
Danbourne:
Obama is a far left communist lefty! His economic team believes that the reason why the New Deal fainled to cure the great depression fast was because FDR slowed federal spending the first couple of years in his administration.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
January 29th, 2009 at 10:53 PM
Pete… I agree with you again.
“Personally I would rather lose with honor than win with lies. I know you just want to win and don’t care about anything else but I do. From what I understand so does Mr. Madia.”
January 30th, 2009 at 10:59 PM
I wonder why Leroy never responds to my posts about his boy Andrew Falk. Is it because he is to ashamed? Hard to believe but maybe…
February 2nd, 2009 at 8:02 AM
Guess I was right. Leroy, you should be ashamed.