Posted by mccain08 (anonymous) on October 9, 2008 at 12:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

if you want clean water you should buy it in eight ounce bottles and not recycle them. if the wildlife wants habitat they should get a job or borrow money that they can't afford from the bank. that's the american way.

Posted by eripsni (anonymous) on October 9, 2008 at 1:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Funny how they failed to mention that voting yes will also increase the sales tax 3/8 of a percent...

Posted by eripsni (anonymous) on October 9, 2008 at 3:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Do you really think that we should amend the constitution for something like this? That's my other objection to this whole thing - we don't need to amend the constitution in order to gain funding for fresh water, habitats, and wildlife...maybe it's just a matter of doing a better job of spending the money the state has...and doing it through legislative action instead of constitutional amendments.

Posted by Callie25 (anonymous) on October 9, 2008 at 4:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I believe this is the measure to increase our sales tax. Please vote "no" for the following reasons:

10 Reasons Why You Should Vote No

1. It’s $11 billion out of Minnesotan’s pockets. The almost half percent sales tax increase will generate $11 billion over 25 years, paid for by you, the taxpayer, and given into the hands of government.

2. It’s a Constitutional Amendment. If passed, the question on the ballot will be an amendment to the state Constitution, which will never go away. The Constitution is a document formed for the purposes of giving rights to the people and limiting the rights of government. A mandated tax increase and a mandated way to spend that money is an abuse of the state Constitution.

3. It mandates where $300 million each year will be spent. If passed, $300 million each year will be dedicated solely for the purposes of the arts and outdoors. Although these things are important, the role of the state legislature is to decide where taxpayer dollars are spent each 2-year budget cycle. We elect representatives to the legislature to prioritize spending. This amendment would allow $300 million of taxpayer money to bypass the legislative process and force them to spend it on the arts and outdoors, even if that year there were higher-priority needs for other things, like roads and education.

4. There’s no lack of current funds. Although few know it, millions of taxpayer dollars already go to fund environmental projects. The Department of Natural Resources has a 2-year budget of $1.5 billion. A portion of the state lottery proceeds goes to the Environmental and Natural Resources Trust Fund. The market value of this fund is currently at $415 million. Clearly, there is no lack of funding for environmental projects.

Posted by Callie25 (anonymous) on October 9, 2008 at 4:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

5. We can’t follow the money. If this tax increase passes, hundreds of non-profit organizations will lobby to get their hands on these government grants. As opposed to government departments, non-profits do not have to report where and how they spend their money. Once these non-profits receive government grants from the dedicated funding, taxpayers will never see where their money is spent.

6. It creates a scary precedent. This will be a precedent-setting amendment if it passes. Once our Constitution begins to dedicate money to specific spending projects, there will be no end in sight of coalitions and special interests enticed to seek constitutionally dedicated funding for their own pet projects. Just in September, Speaker Anderson-Kelliher (D-Minneapolis) mentioned she can now start planning a constitutionally dedicated gas tax. If this $11 billion ballot question passes, we can guarantee we’ll see many more and many higher tax increases on future ballots.

7. The first version of the bill was better. The tax increase on the ballot didn’t start out as a tax increase at all. Initially the idea was a bill to dedicate a portion of the existing sales tax to environmental conservation programs only. But that plan proved unpopular with liberal legislators who didn’t want to divert current sales tax revenue to rural environmental programs. So instead they are asking voters to increase the state’s sales tax by an additional almost half a percent and direct billions of those dollars to arts and cultural heritage.

Posted by Callie25 (anonymous) on October 9, 2008 at 4:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

8. Look who’s supporting this tax increase. Just looking at the 200+ groups supporting this tax increase shows that this is nothing more than a slush fund for special interest groups. Over half of the groups are arts and theater organizations. The only reason they are supporting this and are willing to give large donations to the vote yes campaign is because they know they will receive free taxpayer dollars if it passes. Don’t let them tell you this is for Minnesota’s outdoor heritage alone; billions of dollars will go to art and theater organizations.

9. The government is not a charity. We’re all supporters of the outdoors and we all love beautiful Minnesota. But that doesn’t mean the government should mandate a tax on Minnesotans so that non-profit organizations can get funding. Thousands of non-profits exist strictly off of charitable donations from people who support their causes. There’s no reason that these organizations should be any different. For infrastructure and environmental projects that benefit all of Minnesota, there’s plenty of money available through the DNR and the lottery.

10. We already pay enough taxes. Minnesota is home to one of the highest sales tax rates (6.5%) in the country, plus we have a high income tax rate too. If the ballot question passes, the sales tax will increase to 6.875%. Next add county and city sales taxes already implemented, and in Hennepin County alone, we’re looking at almost an 8% sales tax.

Posted by 89Heritage (anonymous) on October 9, 2008 at 8:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

callie25 Is right on. I could add another 10 reasons to that list. If our resorces meant anything, the clowns in the cities would have already done something about it. After all, hunting, fishing, outdoor activities & everything associated with them is ,I believe, this states largest revenue source. If you want to save our natural resorces, call your representatives. Tell them to pull there heads out & do something about it, with the money they're collecting from it. If you want to help the arts? You send them money. This was polled to the voters already. Over 90% said no. This shouldn't even be on a ballot.

Posted by eripsni (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 9:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

better that than the constitution - look, the legislature is supposed to be doing their jobs and allocating money for "art", environment, etc. There is NO need for a constitutional amendment for something like this. It's a dangerous precedent to set...

Posted by robbie (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 12:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If Callie and 98 are correct-shame on you Corinee for being so misleading. Maybe I should know this but what is PHCT? We are blasted with so much vague information that this process of being an informed voter is just mind boggling. Advertizing and articles like this one helps me none on making a good decision. I just get offended that the canidates and people like Corinee think I should beable to.

Posted by kmiles (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 12:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I know the environment is important, but with all the funds going to it already, why isn't this bill for education funds? You can't miss a week where there's a news story about some school in Minnesota that needs new facilities, is laying off teachers, etc. Somehow we can have an amendment to increase our taxes for arts and to make hunting better, but we can't get an amendment that will help our weakening education system. It's a pity. In the future, we'll have beautiful lakes and lots of venues for hearing concerts etc, but our children won't be able to read, write, or do simple math.

Posted by bornhere (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 3:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"if the wildlife wants habitat they should get a job or borrow money that they can't afford from the bank. that's the american way."

The total ignorance is unbelievable and Amazing.

I already voted Yes.

mccain08, you might want to capitalize American if you think you are so patriotic.

Posted by Newshound (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 3:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The people of MN have been driven to this measure because their ELECTED representatives will NOT appropriate the money in the usual manner. They will NOT do so because the people are not forceful enough to TELL them to do so. That is the REAL and SIMPLE reason for this approach. The sickening DOWNSIDE to this amendment is that the ARTS people, who already gather money by the ton, BLACKMAILKD the outdooes groups into ADDING them to the amendment to gain their support. The ARTS have plenty of money and will always do well. Minn. Public Radio is a GIANT corporation. Check the financial reports. Now, I must add that I am a supporter of the arts, and public radio, and always have been. A Constitutional amendment to accomplish this is very POOR public policy. But if the people of MN don't do SOMETHING you are going to lose natural resources that are the envy of other states. If your politicians were truly representing you the natural resources of this state should be GENERATING sufficient revenues to sustain them.
I will vote YES on this. I don't like it, but it is the only thing I can do. One final note, a public group, made up of outdoors people and arts folks will DECIDE where the money will be spent. The Legislature (the body that has been letting you down for the past 25 years) will HAVE to follow their blue print.
Go vote. Vote for it, because its the RIGHT thing to do.

Posted by neocon (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 3:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

we should drill in these parks, that would generate all the monies needed to preserve the environment.

Posted by konedog4 (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 4:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The government already taxes us for perserving the great outdoors, unfortunately, they do not manage the spending of such funds appropriately. Tell your elected representatives to spend the funds they already have in a judicious manner, and we would not need any new sales taxes. This tax will raise 11 billion dollars in the 25-year span it is being proposed for. Do you trust your government to manage another 11 billion dollars when they routinely mismanage the funds they already have???

And why do we need to sponsor goverment-funded arts programs? And who decides which art projects get the monies? Again, I do not trust government oversight to dish out money to art projects. This is a waste of money at a time we should be tightening our belts, not loosening them.

Say a big "NO" to this tax proposal.

Posted by Rob_is_bored (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 4:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Look at a map - how many oportunities do you see to enjoy the outdoors, if you don't own your own land? I think we need to vote yes - that way the government can not cut the funding - what do you think they will cut first with the economy going south?

Posted by Mel (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 5:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Tell me just what this bill would do. When I was a kid there were NO taxes that went to this stuff. But the wildlife took care of itself very well. The only thing that had to be done was have limits on the hunting, fishing,& etc. VOTE NO!

Posted by 1125thmp (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 6:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm still reading to find where it doesn't say this money won't simply go straight into general revenue. Like the supposed money's to be spent on the environment as an excuse to get the lottery and now less then 1% of that revenue is, I'm sure the taxes here will always be on the minds of our politicians when it comes to reckless, oops I mean environmental spending. Not some parking lot, fat pork largesse or other committee ordered boondoggle.

Posted by 89Heritage (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 7:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pub... The lotto was started to save our natural resorces. The site above will show you what they took in & how much is NOT going to our resorces. This does not include the millions in Hunting & Fishing related sales tax. This is 1 of the reasons why I will vote no.

Posted by Mel (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 12:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why is it that so many people think that if you throw money at something that it will take care of it, I have noticed the the opposite is often the case. vote NO.

Posted by 1125thmp (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 3:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I found a few weeks ago an overview of the last 10 years spending in concern to actual money's put to the environment as shown dedicated to the environment, but indeed still went into the general revenue fund through a creative account slight of hand out of I believe it was the Banking Subcommittee. The percentage was below 5% as a high. The original funding amounts were to be no less then 47%. Unless of course an emergency was necessitated or approved by the House. I guess since I was in High School then and didn't pay attention to hearings as I should of, I'm sure it slipped by sometime there, as politicians are apt to do, from time to time.

Posted by Newshound (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 5:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Look, let me cleaer something up. The "fishing and hunting sales tax" referred to by 89 Heritage is a FEDERAL tax on fishing tackle and hunting gear-of all kinds. This money is then allocated back to the States by a formula. They are known as Dingell-Johnson and Pittman Robertson funds, named for the fellas that passed the bills in Washington You will pay this tax regardless of the tiny state increase called for by this measure.
Your problem here in MN is that YOUR elected representatives have been screwing you people for years and you've been too dumb to do anything about it. They take money supposedly to fund "fish and game and conservation" and spend it on their pet projects. And you Boneheads have sat here year after year and let them get away with it.
When some groups TRIED to get some money specifically for Fish and Game they were put off year after year until they were able to cobble together this initiative.
I don't care whether you like it, but if you want something done about the situation you'd better vote FOR it.
Personally I've had my lifetime of great fishing and hunting so the only affect it will have on me is the satisfaction of seeing that YOU finally get some of what you SHOULD have been getting all along.
Thats all.

Posted by rodentboy (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 10:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

newshound, if we are a bunch of boneheads that let our leaders screw us over what makes you think we are dumb enough to give them more money so they can do more of the same?

Posted by FFSSG (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 11:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This must be a NO vote. The damb DNR and other wildlife orgs get half the lottery why the hell do they need more money.

Posted by retiredteacher (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 5:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If you want to see towns such as Fergus Falls dry up and blow away, don't worry about the water quality of all the surrounding lakes that bring in millions and millions of dollars each year to your businesses. Of course, it won't happen in our day, just as the McCain-Bush half trillion dollar deficit won't end up in our lap. Our parents were the Greatest Generation and we are the Most Selfish Generation. Our consistent slogan seems to be: Me First and the Hell with Everyone Else. Some of these same people yip and yap about "patriotism." There's more than one way of taking care of America. Our soldiers are doing more than their share but when it comes to a few bucks out of pockets, it's the same reply from some of you all the time: "Don't ask me to make any big sacrifices." My parents and grand parents would ask just what has become of us. What's happened to an American that had citizens that can see just a bit farther into the future than the beer they want to drink tonight and the pleasures they want for themselves? There can't be many hunters and fishermen on this post. If there are, you need to be ashamed of yourselves.