Monday, October 27, 2008

Vote NO on Minnesota Clean Water, Land, and Legacy Amendment

Here in the Democratic stronghold of Minnesota, we voters are presented with a slew of interesting senatorial races and initiatives, notably the Minnesota Clean Water, Land, and Legacy Act.

According to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, "The current general sales and use tax rate is 6.5%. Sales tax revenue is deposited in the state General Fund. If the ballot question passes, it would increase the general sales and use tax rate by three-eighths of one percentage point (0.375%) to 6.875%."

We're witnessing these sorts of environmental initiatives dictate dominate our lives, when things like the economy, national security, energy, border security, social security, health insurance, supersede these trivial environmental matters. The environmentalists, if given tacit approval, will tax us to death 1.) to impose these draconian measures; 2.) send us, economically and developmentally, back to the Stone Age; 3.) lower our productivity (and thus our GDP) through bogus global warming claims.

Furthermore, as Paul Gilje, coordinator of the Civic Cause think-thank states, enacting this store of legislation could open a proverbial pandora's box: "Gilje likes the outdoors, the environment, and the arts but doesn't like the precedent. He said a vote for the amendment would open the door to California-style government by referendum.

'What we've got to do is get the legislators to remain on the hook for their decisions,' he said. 'They've got to make the decisions, rather than passing them off on you and me.'"

Is this worth a constitutional amendment? Hell no. Furthermore, it typifies the brazen arrogance of the environmentalists when, as the WCCO story above reports, it will "only" cost us a dollar a week. That's $52 a week, perhaps to some, a mere pittance.

Moreover, the wording of the act itself is ambiguous. It seems to create a slush fund of sorts; how will this money be spent? Where will the proceeds of the tax itself be used?

Finally, we've heard, ad nauseum, that Republicans like Norm Coleman, Erik Paulsen, and Michelle Bachmann, have take large sums of money from lobbyists (big oil, Wall Street, etc.). But what about those that have lobbied FOR this bill? These same elected officials (*cough* Democrat) have decided to heed to special interest groups that keep them in power and have affectively endorsed a misleading campaign that is telling people if they vote YES they will be helping to fund clean up of our water.

This is NOT the economic climate to be enacting these sorts of measures.

Personally, I can think of several other things that I can use the $52 for.

5 comments:

Hunter007 said...

First of all get your math straight. A dollar a week doesn't magically equal 52 dollars a week, it'd equal 52 dollars a year. .375% in additional taxes will go unnoticed, and In the midst of economic disaster we cannot forget about our environment.

Justin Carlson said...

Hunter, even though ".375% in additional taxes will go unnoticed" when it happens every 2 years OUR money is taken from us at an alarming rate. WAKE UP

simp0075 said...

Hunter actually had TWO counter-arguments...and yet i only see a response to ONE of them.

math error #2 i guess.

ThePete said...

This is something that should be left to groups who want to donate to their favorite cause, not forced upon everyone. If Environmental is your Religion, fine, but don't force that religion on me.

dwentzel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.