Local legislators butt heads over budget talk

Perhaps the tax cuts could be allowed as long as the identities of those who benefit most from these cuts are made known. Everyone depends on our system of finance. So I don't think it's unreasonable to want to know just who it is that needs these cuts so badly. I would want to know what these tax cuts actually translate into in the real world. How much money is that? What will they do with that money? What do they need it for?

Most of us need tax cuts just so that we can afford to put food on our tables and gas in our old cars that we need to get to work and apply for cash advance loans rarely. Tax cuts for middle and lower income earners makes sense. Are republicans proposing tax cuts for these individuals who need them most? Or are the republicans demanding tax cuts for those people who have more than enough money to contribute their part?

I know sillygirl.
But using Federal tax dollars to fund it isn't legal. Now that I have been made aware of the distinction between Hyde being applicable to federal dollars but not state dollars, I am wondering if Minnesota does allow state tax dollars to fund abortion. The fact is: I don't know that.

Then it logically follows that by paying insurance premiums, we are all funding abortions indirectly. I submit that we stop insuring people to prevent this activity.

Didn't we cover the whole government-funds-abortion issue a couple of time the other day? Government can't fund abortions. They can fund all other aspects of Planed Parenthood except that. That's what the Hyde amendment is for. We now enjoy a 50% reduction in things to bitch about... well, for this thread anyway. ;-)
Gay marriage has really little to do with anything other than a moral position on what comprises a marriage. Frankly, I don't care if we allowed people to marry goats so long as the goat is willing and able to pay taxes too.
Oddly, most gay couple are comprised of TWO working people. That means TWO times the taxes. The difference is that without benefit of a legal marriage, they pay a higher tax rate. So, to keep everyone happy, I have also come up with another of my perfectly legal and moral solutions/compromises:
Do not allow gay marriage.
Offer a don't tax don't tell clause for anyone willing to submit an affidavit stating that they are clearly gay. They might even print the affidavit on pink floral print parchment paper and add some lilac scent.
That eliminates the gay marriage issue for tightie righties and allows some measure of relief for lefty loosies.
Of course it's not going to be a permanent solution but it could gain some political traction for the next big gay event.
Moving right along....

Nice try Bobo. Senator Parry does preach smaller government regarding abortion and gay marriage. With abortion he argues that government should not fund this practice. Gay marriage proponents are not seeking freedom to live with whom they choose, they are looking to receive government benefits.

While many oppose abortion and/or gay marriage, there would be far less opposition to both if taxpayers were not forced to fund or subsidize them. Remove the taxpayer-financed benefits and then your argument might be valid. And yes - we grant benefits to heterosexual marriages. I'm fine with removing them as well, although there is at least some societal benefit in upholding the traditional family.

Shrug... ya caught me on an off day Stuey. Normally I am mundane as hell and supremely stupid. As a matter of fact, those are the very qualities that make a good politician so there may be a future for me after all.

SPX is a typical, corporate mentality meat grinder with the established social pecking order. Make no waves, only money.
They bring people in to help them identify problems with processes and when the identification includes a change in either management or procedure, the person is let go and no change take place. They too will eventually find themselves against the economic wall and their vanity will bring them down.
They talk lean and walk fat.

...you can stand, Stuey. IJS

Also can you imagine a two day cable interruption due to a speech, a press conference, or just because he wanted to say hey?

The other day my grandson and I were "swimming" in his pool. He randomly says, "Gram, I wish I was a bird, so I could poop in a tree." I'm going to miss the terrible twos.

I see Mr. Parry has a solution to prevent the legislators from drawing excess per diem. I suppose it would be the pay raise he stated he needed because he was underpaid. I would not be bragging about accomplishing nothing during the whole session, of course, I am not Mr. Parry. Perhaps Mr. Parry could ask the legislature to quantify their performance to justify paying them anything at all.

On the tax issue, how many of you folks would hire and pay another worker that you don't need just because the taxes are reduced. If you have any business sense, which Mr Parry claims to have, no a one. If you disagree with this point, call me and explain how more money in your pocket will prompt you to do the altruistic thing and hire another employee. You hire more workers because you have more demand, not more money. Most American corporations are sitting on piles of cash waiting for the opportunity to invest.

I too would like to see a smaller government, but we need to get rid of the pork before we cut into the muscle. I would like to see someone explain the adverse affect that the tax increase that Dayton is calling for, and by the way will also have to pay, on the economy. Trickle down does not work. Constituents willing to settle for less will work, but government welfare affects us all in one way or another. Cut a program, as long as it is not mine.

What you refer to as trickle-down economics is much better understood as limited government, which allows businesses and individuals to prosper. Right now, just the threat of higher taxes and more regulation has people sitting on the sidelines rather than investing and hiring. With massive government debt and the constant talk about higher taxes those who could afford to expand and build are going the safer route and buying hard assets or collecting interest.

And, of course, up until the mortgage meltdown, these economic theories were working. With all of Bush Jr's faults, we were experiencing growth and historically low unemployment before the mortgage bubble burst - caused largely by too much government influence.

Submitted by secretsquirrel on Thu, 06/23/2011 - 16:47.

"...and charge a 50¢ per character user fee on blogs and comments..."

GREAT PLAN!!! According to my word-count utility, YOU, SECRETSQUIRREL, owe the State of Minnesota $1296.50 (or $1569.00 if you include spaces as "characters") for your comments TO JUST THIS ONE ARTICLE.

It is beyond the scope of this author to analyze all secretsquirrel posts (rants?) in all other articles and letters to the editor. However, I am quite certain this one provision of your plan will result in you, SS, eliminating the entire deficit for us.

Thanks!

Are you trying to say that trickle down economics works? The late Ronald Reagan showed us and the rest of the world it doesn't.

But if you want to run a business, you have to find ways to cut costs while generating revenue. Senator Parry, only a couple of Republicans in the House tried going that route by trying to expand gambling. But Speaker Zellers, Senate Majority Leader Koch, and GOP Party Chairman Sutton objected to that idea - creating the impasse.

It makes me happy knowing that you're fine with the idea that you wasted time in the Senate by debating whether gay people should be allowed to marry instead of fixing the budget.

Maybe he feels there is a distinction between having a job and having an income... ijs

andyourpointis, Parry did not answer and say whether he would or not at the meeting either.

When Mr Parry brought up taxing services and removing all sales tax exemptions and was then questioned about that he made the statement "I have to collect sales tax on the food I prepare at my business, why shouldn't everybody have to pay a sales tax."
Didn't he just a week or so ago say that he did not have a job and that is why he needed to collect the per diem????
Was he lying yesterday about having a job or was he lying a couple weeks ago when he said it was his only job???
What else has he lied about to us????

It is too bad the article did not talk about the elimination of the market value credit that a homeowner gets either, Mr Parry was silent about the fact that their budget cuts the market value credit giving homeowners an immediate tax increase.

I asked Sen. Parry via e-mail about the per diem for the Special Session (if one is ever called). He has yet to answer me. I did not see his answer to the question posed during this meeting anywhere in this article. Answer the question Sen. Parry.

They put a space in between the T and the H.

And if they were to physically butt heads, there could be a whole lot of collateral damage. There is a whole lot of forehead between those to gentlemen. Heck more like fivehead if you ask me ;)

It's the other party's fault we're not to blame. blah blah blah blah blah.
The problem is our elected offcials won't compromise, take blame and work for those that elected them. I'm ready to vote against everyone currently in office. We all need to send a messge not just with our vote but with emails and letters and let all those in office know we're fed up.
We voters have been silent to long.
I urge everyone reading this to write those in office and tell them how you feel. It's the only way we have a small chance to see change.