Yesterday's Weapons Forums

...wont embrace to make us a communist nation ?


Amendment would fund clean water, parks, art
Not voting for plan an automatic ‘no’
The Associated Press • October 25, 2008

Read Comments(79)Recommend (9)Print this page E-mail this article Share Del.icio.us
Facebook
Digg
Reddit
Newsvine
Buzz up! MINNEAPOLIS — For backers of a proposed constitutional amendment to raise money for outdoors and arts programs, the biggest challenge is to make sure people bother to vote on the question.


Voters who cast ballots in the presidential race and other high-profile contests but skip the other races and issues will, in effect, vote no on the amendment.

That’s why Vote Yes Minnesota figures around 57 percent of the people who do vote on the amendment will need to vote yes to counter “the drop-off vote,” said Ken Martin, the campaign manager.

The Clean Water, Wildlife, Cultural Heritage and Natural Areas Amendment would raise the sales tax by 3/8 of 1 percent. Around 80 percent of the proceeds would be spent on clean water, wildlife habitat, parks and trails, while almost 20 percent would support arts programs and cultural resources. It would generate an estimated $300 million a year in today’s dollars, or around $11 billion over the next 25 years.

“I feel cautiously optimistic that the more people hear about this, the more likely they are to support it,” Martin said.

Supporters like Dave Zentner are working hard to make sure people hear about it. To the 72-year-old Duluth man, the outdoors defines what Minnesota is all about.

“This is a statement about what we in our state value,” Zentner said. “This is a statement about who we are and what’s important to us.”

Zentner spoke from his pickup, which is emblazoned with bright orange “Sportsmen Vote Yes” signs, as he worked the crowd gathered Oct. 16 outside a Gander Mountain store in Duluth for an appearance by outdoorsman Todd Palin, husband of GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin. Zentner is a co-founder of the Duck Rally, a coalition of hunting, fishing, environmental and conservation groups pushing the plan.

The Minnesota Taxpayers League and the affiliated No Sales Tax Increase campaign, chaired by former Sen. Rod Grams, are leading the charge against the amendment. The Minnesota Chamber of Commerce and the Minnesota Farm Bureau also oppose it.

Two statewide polls released around the beginning of the month showed that both sides have some hard work ahead.

A Minnesota Public Radio/Humphrey Institute poll showed that 46 percent of likely voters supported the proposal.

But 36 percent opposed it and 9 percent said they didn’t plan to vote on the question, for a combined 45 percent. A Star Tribune Minnesota Poll showed stronger support — 59 percent planned to vote yes — even though 89 percent had heard “only a little” to “nothing at all” about what the amendment would do.

Vote Yes Minnesota is counting on the more than 350 environmental, hunting and fishing and cultural groups that have joined the coalition get their members and supporters to vote yes, Martin said.

It’s also running television, radio and newspaper ads, and is hoping to raise $5 million.

Phil Krinkie, president of the Taxpayers League, acknowledged they’re way outgunned, but they recently started running their own ads as well.

“We’re spending in the tens of thousands, not in the hundreds of thousands, let alone millions of dollars,” Krinkie said.

Krinkie said their strategy is to make sure voters know they’d be voting to raise their own taxes at a time when many of them are struggling to make ends meet.

Vote Yes Minnesota says the amendment is needed because the Legislature has failed to provide enough funding for conservation — it gets less than 1 percent of the state budget — and it expects that natural resources programs are likely to get further squeezed in the future.

But Krinkie and other opponents contend it’s bad public policy to do an end run around the Legislature and bypass the normal appropriations process, where spending on outdoors and arts programs would be balanced against the needs of education, health care, transportation and public safety.

Using a constitutional amendment to create this dedicated funding source would also open a “Pandora’s box” for other special interests that would want dedicated pots money for their own pet causes, he said.

In a perfect world, Martin said, the Legislature would adequately fund outdoors programs on its own. This amendment is the next-best solution, he said.

“We can’t let the perfect get in the way of the good,” he said.

followup - seems theyve recruited some big names , but if you read the comments i think others feel as i do ---NO MORE TAXES

............................................................................................
Outdoors icons encourage 'yes' votes for amendment
By Lawrence Schumacher • lschumacher@stcloudtimes.com • October 29, 2008


Buzz up! Bud Grant and Ron Schara painted a grim picture Tuesday of what Minnesota's outdoors will be like if a constitutional amendment to raise the state's sales tax doesn't win a majority vote on Nov. 4.


"I'm a Minnesotan. I've lived here just about all my life and I've enjoyed every minute of it," said Grant, the revered former head coach of the Minnesota Vikings. "But I see it diminishing right before my very eyes."

Grant and Schara, host of "Minnesota Bound," stood in front of Scheels Sporting Goods at Crossroads Center on Tuesday to encourage a vote in favor of the amendment, which would dedicate revenue to wildlife habitat, water quality improvement, arts and culture, and regional parks and trails.

Less than 2 percent of the state's budget goes to the environment and natural resources, and legislators can't ever seem to find the money, Schara said. So Minnesotans are going to have to do it themselves, he said.

"Nobody likes to increase their taxes," he told a crowd of about 30 outside the food court entrance to Scheels. "But unless people are willing to step up and say 'I'm willing to tax myself,' it's not going to happen."

The amendment would increase the state's sales tax by three-eighths of a cent for 25 years, with 33 percent going to wildlife habitat, 33 percent to clean water, 19 percent to arts and culture, and 15 percent to regional parks and trails.

A "yes" vote is needed to preserve hunting and fishing in Minnesota for future generations, said Tom Kowal, president of the Tri-County Minnesota Waterfowl Association and a St. Cloud resident.

"These areas need to be rich in habitat to get birds to come here and rest, and to make sure that they do come back and nest here," he said. "Voting yes is the way it can happen."

Politicians have appropriated money from the state lottery so that only 7 cents of every dollar spent on lottery tickets now goes to the environment, Schara said.

But if voters approve the amendment, they will constitutionally dedicate that money so lawmakers can't touch it, he said.

Supporters must vote yes to get the amendment passed, as not voting counts as a no vote on constitutional amendments, Grant reminded the crowd.

In your voice
Read reactions to this story
Newest first Oldest first
FarmLife wrote:

I usually don't comment much here, but nature and land are sensitive to me- I am NOT a developer. As my handle indicates I live on a farm. I am 4th generation on this farm. I pride myself on NEVER taking government subsidies to support the farm. I farm organically - no spray - so I AM preserving land and nature. Half my woods is fenced for my cattle - the other half is left natural - no cattle - all wildlife. I harvest trees for my outdoor wood boiler - I plant new trees in their place. It doesn't take an amendment and taxes or some high profile person to say what we should do - it just takes a little common sense and some hard work. Neither of which it seems people seem to have or practice.
10/29/2008 7:26:27 AM I usually don't comment much here, but nature and land are sensitive to me- I am NOT a developer. As my handle indicates I live on a farm. I am 4th generation on this farm. I pride myself on NEVER taking government subsidies to support the farm. I farm organically - no spray - so I AM preserving land and nature. Half my woods is fenced for my cattle - the other half is left natural - no cattle - all wildlife. I harvest trees for my outdoor wood boiler - I plant new trees in their place. It doesn't take an amendment and taxes or some high profile person to say what we should do - it just takes a little common sense and some hard work. Neither of which it seems people seem to have or practice. FarmLife
Recommend New post Reply to this Post Report Abuse


Sunaj wrote:

"But unless people are willing to step up and say 'I'm willing to tax myself,' it's not going to happen." "legislators can't ever seem to find the money, Schara said. So Minnesotans are going to have to do it themselves, he said."

"Tax yourself"? Not a bad idea. It's called a budget. Have you heard of "donations?" Budget your money and donate it to the environmental group of your choice. What's wrong with that? The big boys in that area, use much of the donated money to lobby to get money from the taxpayers. What's wrong with that? It's no longer budgeting, or "taxing oneself." It's legalized theft.

This amedment gives the taxers a way out from accountability to their constituents for their actions. Let's face it. If the vast majority of the public really wanted the money to go there, we wouldn't need a constitutional amendment. Minority interests are continuing their attempt to rule the majority, thru hook or crook.


VOTE NO!


10/29/2008 7:21:24 AM "But unless people are willing to step up and say '<b>I'm willing to tax myself</b>,' it's not going to happen." "legislators can't ever seem to find the money, Schara said. So Minnesotans are going to have to do it themselves, he said."<br /><br />"Tax yourself"? Not a bad idea. It's called a budget. Have you heard of "donations?" Budget your money and donate it to the environmental group of your choice. What's wrong with that? The big boys in that area, use much of the donated money to lobby to get money from the taxpayers. What's wrong with that? It's no longer budgeting, or "taxing oneself." It's legalized theft.<br /><br />This amedment gives the taxers a way out from accountability to their constituents for their actions. Let's face it. If the vast majority of the public really wanted the money to go there, we wouldn't need a constitutional amendment. Minority interests are continuing their attempt to rule the majority, thru hook or crook.<br /><br /><br />VOTE NO!<br /><br /> Sunaj
Recommend (1) New post Reply to this Post Report Abuse


deminn wrote:

Replying to TiaMia:

Be foresighted and put land away now. Don't you see how important it is? How will that tiny, small sales tax hurt anyone? Think of your grandkids who will want to fish and hunt. The population is growing. Or would you rather see rich McMansions on that land? I can afford 3/8 of a cent on my purchases. Don't be so tight and short sighted. Are any of you land developers? Preserve MN.


This should be funded through other means than the constitution, just like the arts should be funded through other means. The environment is important and it's protection and preservation is part of their job in the legislature. Again, these bad employees think they can decide what their job is. Let's set them straight and send the party boys packing this november.
10/29/2008 7:20:19 AM <p class="replyingto">Replying to <span class="author">TiaMia</span>:</p><blockquote>Be foresighted and put land away now. Don't you see how important it is? How will that tiny, small sales tax hurt anyone? Think of your grandkids who will want to fish and hunt. The population is growing. Or would you rather see rich McMansions on that land? I can afford 3/8 of a cent on my purchases. Don't be so tight and short sighted. Are any of you land developers? Preserve MN.</blockquote><br /><br />This should be funded through other means than the constitution, just like the arts should be funded through other means. The environment is important and it's protection and preservation is part of their job in the legislature. Again, these bad employees think they can decide what their job is. Let's set them straight and send the party boys packing this november. deminn
Recommend (2) New post Reply to this Post Report Abuse


deminn wrote:

Ron Shara is really dangerous for MNs env, and I am so sorry to see BG supporting this pimp move. Vote No and require the MetroDFL and Mr. Pogomiller fund the environment properly through the general and other dedicated funds. Those people need to be removed from our legislature, they are sucha major part of the problems in Minnesota.
10/29/2008 7:16:54 AM Ron Shara is really dangerous for MNs env, and I am so sorry to see BG supporting this pimp move. Vote No and require the MetroDFL and Mr. Pogomiller fund the environment properly through the general and other dedicated funds. Those people need to be removed from our legislature, they are sucha major part of the problems in Minnesota. deminn
Recommend (2) New post Reply to this Post Report Abuse


TheConcerned wrote:

Replying to CMVet:

Replying to TheConcerned:

Hate to disagree with you concerned, but this amendment is needed. It's not just for those who enjoy hunting and fishing but for all of those who enjoy the out of doors. However I do have a concern, "Does this, if it passed, open the doors for all special interest groups?"
Sorry Bud, but



"JUST SAY NO"





We still have a Legislature; have we not? One might think that resource allocation is part of their job.