Topic: Taco King was just
started by: DrBombay
Posted by DrBombay on Oct. 08 2004,3:54 am
Ok I started a new thread so no one from the Taco King gang gets offended.If you remember we were having a nice little chat about Taco King, when RepDan beside himself with self-indulgence barges in to complain about some family writing letters to the editor about him. (Which I guess is better than harrassing old ladies over the phone like he did last time.) He posts:
| Quote |
| FYI, and sorry to jump off topic, but if you read the letter in the paper on Sunday, another member of the Dresher family wrote in, this time ripping my vote to let certain non-us citizens buy ag land. In Minnesota before last year, an immigrant could own a resturant in Minnesota, but not ag land. There are farmers from Holland who are coming to this county to dairy, but they have been going to Calf and Idaho where they can set up their farms. I guese for some it's ok to let them work in the fields, just as long as the don't own them. If the laws that are in place now were in place when our area was settled they could not have bought a farm! |
I didn't get that paper but was curious of what the letter said that would cause RepDans close call with a mental breakdown. I finally did get a hold of a Sunday paper. Here is the letter...
| Quote |
| Questions About Dorman's Votes on Agriculture Rep. Dorman helped to pass a bill in favor of foreign ownership of our agriculture land. This is wrong. Bills like these do not address the needs of our family farms. We need ot be more focused on helping homegrown family farms receive good stable commodity prices. We need to be more focused on finding ways to encourage new and beginning local farmers to start in dairy and farming rather than working to allow for foreign investment in MN dairies and farm land. In addition because of the Republican road blocks in our current legislature, a bonding bill did not get passed causing the Conservation Reserve Program, a program designed to conserve our enviromental habitatat, to go unfunded. It is time for a change in this area's voice in the House of Representatives. |
After reading this letter one can see that the writer is speaking of something a bit different than RepDan has lead us to believe with his post. Personally I was under the impression that RepDan was looking out for the poor immigrant farmer or field worker, giving them a chance to get their own plot of land. Not so.....this refers to SF2428. The MN Alien Farm Law (like corporate farm law) this bill amended the law to allow Foriegners with "substantial" investments to enter and own land with E-2 visas. Substantial is hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars. If the Visa applicant is not the principal investor they must have specialized skills, ordinary skilled or unskilled workers do not qualify.
Info about E-2 Visas:
< http://www.us-immigration-attorney.com/e1-treaty-trader-investor.htm >
So RepDan you led us to believe that you were doing a good thing for the little guy, the immigrant with a dream of owning his own farm in the USA. Instead you helped make it harder for the Minnesota Dairy Farmer to stay afloat just to give a break to Foreign Corporations.
Maybe there is some kind of economic opportunity with this E-2 Visa stuff, but that's not my point. You deliberatly mis-led us and you know it.
| Quote |
| I guese for some it's ok to let them work in the fields, just as long as the don't own them. |
No, mis-led is to mild. You lied, and for no reason you went out of your way to do it.
What highly skilled Millionaire works his own fields?
I find your conduct pathetic! Another full of sh-t politician!!
Posted by Paul Harvey on Oct. 08 2004,4:40 am
No he didn't. In one case the people bring their own money to invest. In your case you'd like me(through taxes) pay to start up young farmers! Piss on that! Those fukers already drive around in new F-150's loaded to the gills with assets far exceeding my own. See the difference. To recap-- The foriegn guy brings IN the money and you want government to give money to farmers. Government money comes from me and people like me. Forget it...you'll prolly never understand anyhow.
Posted by repdan on Oct. 08 2004,8:41 am
Once again nice try. If calling someone to discuss a letter they wrote is harresment, I'm guilty. I don't follow all the postings, but I don't believe that was the first time we got off topic. The farmers in question are coming from Holland to the USA, they are going to Idaho and Calf. I would like them here in Freeborn County.
Hows our dairy industry doing?
Help me understand how having more farmers here hurts our dairy industry? As we lose more and more of our cows, we also lose the processing and input business.
Before the law change, an immigrant could not own AG land in Minnesota, now they can. How many farms in this county do you think were started by immigrants?
Posted by repdan on Oct. 08 2004,8:58 am
Here is a link http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/500/221.html There are a few important changes. The farmers/investors must become a resident or permanent resident alien within 5 years.
Foreign Corporations?
Posted by repdan on Oct. 08 2004,10:08 am
http://www.agstar.com/uploads/legupdate042604.pdfInfo on the bill.
Posted by DrBombay on Oct. 08 2004,12:59 pm
We all get off topic all the time, that's no big deal!!!My point was not the dairy industry or whether or not the investor deal was good or bad, my point is that you were deceptive in your explanation.
| Quote |
| Maybe there is some kind of economic opportunity with this E-2 Visa stuff, but that's not my point. You deliberatly mis-led us and you know it. |
Posted by DrBombay on Oct. 08 2004,1:37 pm
Paul Harvey;| Quote |
| Forget it...you'll prolly never understand anyhow. |
Yes I do get it. I never ever would want a farmer to possess more assets than you.
You of all people should admit that RepDans post was mis-leading.
| Quote |
| Good point Dan. I'm surprised...I thought you of all people would be racist and not support ownership. |
Forget it... you'll prolly never understand anyhow.
Good Day!
Posted by hoosier on Oct. 08 2004,1:46 pm
LMAO @ DrBombay. You really caught Repdan off guard when you started using logic to explain your post, thats where you lost him.
Say something stupid that doesnt mean anything, he will understand it then.
Posted by Paul Harvey on Oct. 08 2004,1:48 pm
Rich Europeans! huh?Anyone who can afford to buy a farm is rich you geek. You're racist to the bone that's all.
Posted by hoosier on Oct. 08 2004,2:01 pm
Dont you ever tire of looking like an idiot and calling everyone that talks about something you cant understand a racist?Talking to you Paul Harvey, I mean Minnow!
Sometimes, its the person that sees racism in everything that anyone says or does, that is truely the racist.
Posted by DrBombay on Oct. 08 2004,2:06 pm
Yes, I'm racist to the bone. Especially against Europeans, I think the Sons of Norway should be exposed for who they really are and soon!! 
You just can't admit when you've been duped, because you think you're far to clever for RepDan. In reality he led you down the same grey road he led me. You're just to prideful to admit it.
Posted by repdan on Oct. 08 2004,2:22 pm
In this case, the people that want to come here are from Holland, but they could also be from Mexico or a host of other countries. Do they have to have money to come? Yes. That is the deal with the visas. They already exist, just in Minnesota they could come and buy a cheese plant, but not the dairy to produce the milk, they could open a restraunt, but could not own the land to produce the food. They could however, go to Idaho, open the dairy, process the cheese, and then send it too us. I want the production here.
Posted by DrBombay on Oct. 08 2004,2:47 pm
And that's fine and wonderful. But.........that is not the point!!!I refuse to play your baffle with BullShi_ game. I will say this one more time you were D-e-c-e-p-t-i-v-e.!!!!! Just admit it.
A mexican immigrant with say $20,000 for which he saved from working in the US fields weeding onions, has a "67" pick-up a flock of chickens and a goat can't own land but a Dutch guy with a Million can. So fine that's the way it is. But I was under the impression from your original post that maybe this hardworking Mexican with the chickens and the goat was the one getting the break. I don't think I was the only one who had this line of thinking. And.... this is what you wanted us to believe so STOP trying to weasel out of it.
Posted by Paul Harvey on Oct. 08 2004,4:01 pm
"I was under the impression from your original post that maybe this hardworking Mexican with the chickens and the goat was the one getting the break."And...you can't admit your impression was, in fact, incorrect. I'm impressed with Repdans logic on this issue. To be honest, I wouldn't have expected it.
Posted by DrBombay on Oct. 08 2004,5:04 pm
There was nothing wrong with my impression Paul Harvey. Your impression was the same as mine "correct" I might add. You're just to stubborn to admit it.Yes, I'm sure you were thinking.........Oh, RepDan must be talking about that "Alien Farm Bill", allowing the wealthy Dutch to acquire E-2 Investment Visas in order to buy farmland in Freeborn Co. This would of course explain your logical response to his post......
| Quote |
| Good point Dan. I'm surprised...I thought you of all people would be racist and not support ownership. |
Bullroar I say....You thought he was talking about the hardworking mexican guy with the chickens and the goat just like I did. Otherwise you wouldn't have flung one of your racist inuendos at him.
Hmm...well maybe you would have???
Posted by Paul Harvey on Oct. 08 2004,6:16 pm
I had all foriegners in mind. People who were not currently US citizens. Me thinks you've been driving past Hormel one to many times...
Posted by allergic to bogus on Oct. 08 2004,11:08 pm
Wow! Dr. Bombay, I am impressed keep going.....
Posted by repdan on Oct. 09 2004,12:52 am
What is the break? I don't think anyone could go into the dairy business with $20,000 no matter where they were born.
Posted by DrBombay on Oct. 09 2004,3:39 am
Good God, are you that thick skulled or just plain stupid? Hoosiers absolutely right about you. The scary thing is you've been elected to represent us 3 times. Just admit you're a liar.
Posted by DrBombay on Oct. 09 2004,4:24 am
Hoosier's post from another thread.| Quote |
| My question is this. If Repdan cant understand my post, how the hell we supposed to expect him to understand the legislation he votes on for a living? |
My sentiments exactly! He should be put away in a home for the mentally incompetent, but unfortunately he's responsible for cutting the funding for it.
Posted by Madd Max on Oct. 09 2004,7:50 am
| Quote (repdan @ Oct. 08 2004,2:22:pm) |
| In this case, the people that want to come here are from Holland, but they could also be from Mexico or a host of other countries. Do they have to have money to come? Yes. That is the deal with the visas. They already exist, just in Minnesota they could come and buy a cheese plant, but not the dairy to produce the milk, they could open a restraunt, but could not own the land to produce the food. They could however, go to Idaho, open the dairy, process the cheese, and then send it too us. I want the production here. |
So in your statement repdan are you telling us that you are in favor of corporate farming here in Minnesota? Do we not try and protect the Family Farm here in Minnesota by NOT allowing corporate farming?
Posted by Madd Max on Oct. 09 2004,8:27 am
This from the Websters DictionaryConservative: Person skepical of change, avoiding excesses
Liberal: Generous, Person favoring more civil liberties.
So tell me since when did be a liberal become such a dirty word.
Posted by GEOKARJO on Oct. 09 2004,10:14 am
It becomes shallow just like your post not dirty. Webster Full Definition
Main Entry: 1lib·er·al
Pronunciation: 'li-b(&-)r&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free; perhaps akin to Old English lEodan to grow, Greek eleutheros free
1 a : of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts <liberal education> b archaic : of or befitting a man of free birth
2 a : marked by generosity : OPENHANDED <a liberal giver> b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way <a liberal meal> c : AMPLE, FULL
3 obsolete : lacking moral restraint : LICENTIOUS
4 : not literal or strict : LOOSE <a liberal translation>
5 : BROAD-MINDED; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
6 a : of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism b capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives
Posted by repdan on Oct. 09 2004,10:29 am
Maxx, Corporate farming in Minnesota, the only one's that are allowed are the Minnesota Family Farm Corps. Maxx, can you tell me how we are better off with these farmers going to Idaho?
Funny thing, must of the farm groups in the state supported the measuere?
Posted by repdan on Oct. 09 2004,10:32 am
Look at the words used in the letter "foreign ownership", or Bombay's foreign corporation, these are all buzz words, used knowingly or unknowingly by some to drive votes away.I should point out that the Senate was the first to pass the bill, I would guess but don't know that Senator Sparks voted for it. Maxx have you contacted him?
Posted by DrBombay on Oct. 09 2004,11:55 am
RepDan; You know full well my intent was not to criticize the law, or you for voting for it. It was to point out that you were dishonest and intentionally misled the readers of this forum.You have continued to skirt the issue of your dishonesty by defending your vote that was obviously "NOT" the main point of my criticism.
Not once have you addressed the issue of your intentional deception. You were caught in a "lie" that you can't spin your way out of.
I don't believe you are as stupid as you pretend to be. You are simply just a LIAR!
Posted by DrBombay on Oct. 09 2004,12:09 pm
| Quote |
| Look at the words used in the letter "foreign ownership", or Bombay's foreign corporation, these are all buzz words, used knowingly or unknowingly by some to drive votes away. |
Well it's unknowingly on my part, these "Buzz" words of which you speak. I would assume people knowing how dishonest you are may very well drive votes away!!
Posted by DrBombay on Oct. 09 2004,12:26 pm
Well now that you are pushing the issue. It looks to me like it does open the door for Corporate Farming.House Research Bill Summary
File Number: H.F. 447
Date: March 20, 2003
Version: Second Engrossment
Status: House Floor
Authors: Blaine and Swenson
Subject: Ag land ownership or lease by aliens
OverviewMinnesota alien farm law (like corporate farm law) places restrictions on the persons and entities allowed to have an interest in agricultural land in Minnesota or to engage in the practice of farming. Generally, alien persons or business organizations are allowed to have no more than 20 percent ownership in a farming enterprise. Likewise, a person who is not a citizen of the United States or a "permanent resident alien of the United States" cannot hold an interest in agricultural land, including a leasehold interest. House File 447 amends the alien farm law to allow holders of "E-2" visas to own or lease farm land and engage in farming. The opportunity to acquire or lease land under the bill would last until June 30, 2008. The E-2 visa is issued only to citizens of countries with which the United States has certain treaties. The purpose of an E-2 visa is to allow persons to relocate to a treaty country and make economic investments in the country where they are not citizens.
Section
1
Definitions. For purposes of alien farm law, the definition of "permanent resident alien of the United States" is broadened to include a holder of an E-2 investment visa. As with other permanent resident aliens, holders of the E-2 must actually maintain their principal dwelling place within the United States for at least 6 months of every year.
2
Determination of alien status. A permanent resident alien, including a holder of an E-2 visa, will now be required to report to the commissioner of agriculture within 30 days after purchasing or leasing agricultural property.
3
Aliens and non-American corporations. Creates a permanent grandfathering of farm land purchased or leased by a holder of an E-2 investment visa between the effective date of this act and July 1, 2008, when the new provisions of the law are scheduled to expire.
4
Penalty. Expands an existing penalty (for failure of an alien to register) to cover the act of failing to file a report within 30 days of the purchase or lease of farm property.
5
Report to the Legislature. Requires the commissioner of agriculture to report to the legislature by February 15, 2008, on the number of E-2 aliens who have used the provisions of section 1 to acquire an interest in Minnesota agricultural land. The report will include acreage and location information.
6
Expiration. The amendments to section 1 expire June 30, 2008.
7
Effective date. Sections 1 to 6 are effective the day following final enactment.
NOW If you add to it the E-2 Investor Visa rules..........and BANG........Corporate Farms!!
E-2 Visa stuff
< http://www.us-immigration-attorney.com/e1-treaty-trader-investor.htm >
But that's not the point. You are still a LIAR!
Posted by DrBombay on Oct. 09 2004,12:29 pm
This is where "your" BUZZ words come from. You can give up the conspiracy theory now.
Posted by repdan on Oct. 09 2004,9:38 pm
And the personal attacks do what? At worst, my post is similiar to whet Michael Moore does, and as I recall you seem to favor his work. Ya don't think it might be a party problem. It would appear that bi-partisian to you is when someone aggrees with you, gee it must always be the other guy. So how does the investment going to Idaho and Calf. help our small dairy farms?
I am guilty of not understanding Gabby's posts and darn proud of it. And to the person who sent me the PM, I will of course have the good taste not to mention your name, but there should have been a pie with the PM.
Posted by repdan on Oct. 09 2004,9:51 pm
Feel free to read the law, the section is titled Aliens and non-American corporations (see the word section in the summary) and you are working from a summary from a 2003 House bill that did not pass. The bill that passed was in the Senate. Click on the bill status and you will see that it was returned to committee. While I don't expect you to know all this, before you blast someone you might want to understand it or ask.People with an E2 visa could always incorporate execpt in Minnesota they could not use a corporate structure other than already allowed by state law. Example, they could start a cheese factory and use be a corp but not a farm in Minnesota, that is still the law.
Posted by DrBombay on Oct. 09 2004,10:13 pm
So you do agree then that you intentionally mis-led us with your original post?| Quote |
| While I don't expect you to know all this, before you blast someone you might want to understand it or ask. |
Ya right, ask you? Like I would get a straight "honest" answer!!
Posted by repdan on Oct. 09 2004,11:14 pm
Don't care who you ask, but you do tend to leap and then look, for example the fund raiser that you posted was hosted by Pam Bishop for me, now using a research summary for a bill that did not become law to discuss the law, and the confusing the title of a section of law for a law change.Did I intentionally mis led? No, but I can see why you feel that way, both can be true, when people attack the bill, the letter, by using foriegn owenership, they are playing on peoples fear of people who don't look like "us". The law applies to people from many countries but the folks who are trying to use it are from Holland.
So, even if I did mis led, how is this different than Michale Moore taking parts of 2 speaches in Bowling for Columbine? Why hold me to a different standard?
Posted by repdan on Oct. 09 2004,11:14 pm
So, would you prefer the Dutch farmers in Minnesota or Idaho?If you choose Idaho, help me understand how time helps our small farmers please. Thanks
Posted by Madd Max on Oct. 09 2004,11:17 pm
| Quote (repdan @ Oct. 09 2004,9:38:pm) |
| And the personal attacks do what? |
Wow, repdan I believe I was just asking you a question.
1. Isn't what you were saying comsidered corpert farming here in Minnesota?
2. I thought corpert farming was banned in Minnesota to protect the Small Family Farmer.
From what you wrote it sounds to me like corpert farming is legal in Idaho. So maybe you could at least answer my question again without blowing up please.
Posted by repdan on Oct. 09 2004,11:29 pm
Sorry, I should have been clear about the attack, and for the record, I did not blow up, read Gabby and bombays posts, while you clearly don't support me, which is ok, I don't recall you making a personal attack. So again sorry for not being clear, I hav eto be honest, I am multi tasking, watching Red Green and typing.Minnesota has allowed family farm corporations for years, not sure about Idaho, but what is happening is the farmers from Holland are going to Idaho and setting up dairy farms because they can, in Minnesota, this same group can't form a Minnesota Family Farm Corp or own the operation as an indivdual.
Keep you stick on the ice.
Posted by Madd Max on Oct. 09 2004,11:55 pm
| Quote (GEOKARJO @ Oct. 09 2004,10:14:am) |
| It becomes shallow just like your post not dirty. |
Geo, I took my post right out of the WEBSTER'S New Compact Dictionary for School and Office. Pick up a copy and look at it. Then look up conservative and see what it says in this book. By the way the meaning for dirt is any unclean substance, filth. All I was saying is that a Liberal is not a dirty word. To be generous and to stand up for our civil Liberties is a good thing! If we start giving up our Civil Liberties as the conservatives would like us to do with the Patriot act we will never get our Civil Liberties back.
Posted by Madd Max on Oct. 10 2004,12:14 am
My uncle used to work at Farmstead back in the 90's and he once told me that one of the reasons Seaboard left Albert Lea is because Minnesota does not allow corrupt farming and they wanted to raise and kill there own hogs here. So wouldn't these people from Holland be doing the same type of farming except with milk cows instead of hogs?
Posted by Paul Harvey on Oct. 10 2004,12:20 am
Think about it. Who but a hypocrite and authoritarian would be against "Civil Liberties" LOL Leave it to our tardman Geo...
Posted by DrBombay on Oct. 10 2004,12:35 am
RepDan, Madd Max, Paul Harvey and myself DrBombay all need to get lives. Here we sit on a Saturday night (or Sun. am.) at 12:30 am discussing dairy farms in Idaho and definitions in the dictionary. We are a sad and pathetic lot. We should be out dancing or playing poker or something. 
Geo you too!
Posted by DrBombay on Oct. 10 2004,5:59 am
| Quote |
| Don't care who you ask, but you do tend to leap and then look, for example the fund raiser that you posted was hosted by Pam Bishop for me, now using a research summary for a bill that did not become law to discuss the law, and the confusing the title of a section of law for a law change. |
Guilty as charged about the wrong Bill. It turns out it was a stupid Omnibus Bill (a bunch of Ag stuff all lumped into one bill, which I hate). Named Omnibus Agriculture Bill. When I searched the site I was looking for HF instead of SF which in my own defense would be logical because neither "the letter" or your post was very descriptive with a bill#, date, or title. By searching for Alien Farm, E-2 Visa, or Corporate Farm in the HF's this is what I came up with. Sorry I'm dumb..but the summary gave a good explanation of what was included in the "real" Ag Bill anyway.
| Quote |
| Did I intentionally mis led? No, but I can see why you feel that way, both can be true, when people attack the bill, the letter, by using foriegn owenership, they are playing on peoples fear of people who don't look like "us". The law applies to people from many countries but the folks who are trying to use it are from Holland. |
| Quote |
| I guese for some it's ok to let them work in the fields, just as long as the don't own them. |
And finally....
| Quote |
| So, even if I did mis led, how is this different than Michale Moore taking parts of 2 speaches in Bowling for Columbine? Why hold me to a different standard? |
LOL I hope you were laughing when you wrote this? Well RepDan It's been quite awhile since I saw the movie, and I don't recall exactly what 2 speeches you're refering. But I'd have to say because Michael Moore doesn't represent me in St. Paul and...He's a film maker and your a legislator.
Posted by DrBombay on Oct. 10 2004,7:40 am
| Quote |
| So, would you prefer the Dutch farmers in Minnesota or Idaho? If you choose Idaho, help me understand how time helps our small farmers please. Thanks |
Since you insist on pushing the issue to take the attention off your deceptive nature, I'll give you my opinion. You should've really ask the farmers of your district what they thought before you voted. As for what I think........jeez I don't know I'm a city gal and I'm scared of cows and I never even really cared for milk. But since you made me do all of this hard work, I found out some interesting stuff.
As for the letter criticizing your vote, there are plenty of farmers who would agree with that line of thinking. It's not at all a partisan issue either.
Press release from Rep. Senator
< http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/caucus....rms.htm >
The senate passed this 60-6 (no partisan behavior) the first time around. (But it was well into May and they probably just wanted it to look like they got something done) Sparks did vote for it. But the House vote was pretty close to partisan lines 88-44. (Interesting, huh?)
Posted by DrBombay on Oct. 10 2004,8:15 am
| Quote |
| Foreign Ownership of Dairy Farms Not in Best Interests of Local Farmers By Sen. Paul Koering The Minnesota Legislature is considering changing state law to permit foreigners to own or lease farm land and engage in dairy farming. I have not been convinced that lifting the current restriction is any benefit to the farmers in my senate district. As a dairy farmer for 15 years, I know what a struggle it is to make a go of it, and I can’t think of a single good business reason to pit farmer against farmer. Minnesota farmers are already at a disadvantage among farmers nationally, not because of a lack of competition, but because of an archaic dairy pricing system which has resulted in moving milk production away from the state. Changes to these dairy compacts, which artificially set the price that our farmers can charge for their milk, are all the stimulus we need. That being said, we are all interested in economic development, and maintaining existing farm industries is surely one means to support rural economies. There are more than 7,500 dairy farms in our state. According to a recent Ridgewater College study, the average farmer spent an impressive $319,000 in the community, for livestock, utilities, interest on loans and leases, taxes, food, clothing, home furnishings and other personal needs, labor, and various services. Dairy is a $3 billion business in Minnesota and employs, directly and indirectly, more than 50,000 people. I am normally one who believes that competition benefits everyone because, left alone, the market will find the sustainable price of a product or service. We begin to discourage rather than encourage participation in a market when it is no longer possible to operate at a profit or even to simply make a living. I am not interested in taking any action at this time that would take the competitive edge from our local farmers. Economics aside, I have another reason for opposing this bill. Perhaps most important of all, in my mind, is preserving the tradition of the family farm. It is not simply nostalgia that leads me to believe that we should do all we can to support our existing farm businesses. Since our earliest days as a state, our farm families and farm communities have embodied the most important values that underpin our democracy: hard work, self-reliance, faith, compassion. We cannot afford to let this slip away. I have all the respect in the world for Minnesota farmers. There are no more productive or efficient farmers anywhere in the world than our home-grown variety. As your state senator I intend to do whatever it takes to help them survive and prosper because it is in the best interests of all Minnesotans. |
It seem's I would vote for Rep. Sen. Paul Koering in a minute. At least he stood up for the right thing. He didn't just jump on the bandwagon with his house cronies to make it look like he accomplished something.
Posted by DrBombay on Oct. 10 2004,8:46 am
If animal confinement, excessive antibiotic use, hormone injections or 100,000 tons of manure/per day have anything to do with it then by all means let the Dutch go to Idaho.BTW....
1. Why did you vote for excessive antibiotic use in livestock?
2. Why did you vote against an amend. that would have insured local control of animal feedlots.
3. Why does your enviromental record suck??
Sign up for action alerts...you can act when your scumball legislator plans an assault on the enviroment.
< http://www.landstewardshipproject.org/ >
Posted by repdan on Oct. 10 2004,11:48 am
1. It should be addressed at the federal level and most people know that, but it's great politics for some.2. I believe we should have local contol, at the County level. The have the resourses that townships don't have. In Freeborn County we have a feedlot ordanice that is stronger than required by state law and yet the ag community is ok with it. Interesting note, the folks pushing for township control only want that to be one way, ie if a township wanted to allow and earthern lagon (I don't know of any just giving an example) they would not want them to do so.
3. It "sucks" because of who does the scoring. You mentioned the vote in the House and Senate and one looks more partiasian then the other, that is because folks want to use this in the elections.
The worst example of this was in my first term, a vote for the AG bill was scored against me and not againt Senator Piper.
Posted by DrBombay on Oct. 10 2004,12:13 pm
What is an earthern lagon? And do you mean the Senate Dems. are trying to make the House Republicans look bad?
Posted by DrBombay on Oct. 10 2004,12:35 pm
I find it interesting that this cow-sh_t bill got stuck right into the omnibus AG Bill and passed no problem through the senate. If there's a conspiracy theory here I see it as something like Land O' Lakes greasing someones campaign fund(s). They or something like them just love doors being opened for feed-lots, Corporate Farms and weakened regulations. I'd say Farmers and the rural economy really got screwed in 2004 by the House Republicans and the whole damn Senate. FYI...Sparks enviromental record sucks too!
Posted by repdan on Oct. 11 2004,8:36 pm
1st. I don't know that I have every tried to dis-associte my self with Pam. But the problem I have is that you have posted with out knowing, I know of no social function at the Bishop house or organized by them. So I brought it up again only for an example and you still have it wrong. This is about as bad as the people who thought I had a Kaphers billboard taken down. At least Madd Max asked the second time about our possible owning a billboard.We have done things with them on a socail basis but not sure that is really your business. I would consider her and Kevin friends.
You might want to find a better sourse of info besides the land steward ship crowd. The Minnesota. You stated yourself you are a city girl, which reminds me to point out that the "save the family farm" campaign is trargeted many times at folks who do not live on a farm. FYI most of the runoff in the State does not come from a modern feedlot but rather from older and smaller farms, yet few people talk about this on either side.
Here is another group < http://www.mncenter.org/p.asp?WebPage_ID=7 >
They tend to do policy and not the politics and are one of the largerst groups in the state. I have a very good relationship with them as the director would say, I only vote with them 1/2 the time, but they can get to me with good science.
An earthern lagon is a wasted pit dug in the gound with out a concrete liner. They have been banned for serveral years, but it is a good example to talk about on the township issue. The folks who have lobbied me on the issue are infavor of "local control" but they really mean we want them to have stronger regulations but not weaker. You either believe in the local control or you don't.
What weakend regulations? Corporate farms? You are wrong, there was no change and the only ones allowed are the Minnesota Family Farms Corps of which there are many in Freeborn County.
In Sen Koerings deal, he talks about taking way a competative advantage. What is that advantage in our part of the state. He comes from around Sterns county where they have not seen their dairy farms leave as fast as ours, but it is happening.
So, if this is such great policy, why just farming? Why not tire dealers, restraunts.......?
As for me asking the farmers in the distict, who do you think are members of the MN Corn Growers, Soybean Growers, Pork Producer and so forth are? I would guess that the biggest group of people who donate to me are farmers.
Madd Maxx is right about Seaboard and Corp. farming. But he is wrong about doing the same thing with cows. The Dutch in question would have to live on the farm and work on becoming a permant resident. There is no "corporate farming" in Minnesota other than the family farms corps. But it does make for great politics esp. with people who don't live on the farm.
Dr, the amount of manure you are talking about would be how large of a farm? I don't know if there is any that size anywhere. But you should know, that if you have a feedlot you have to have a manure management plan, you have to have land to be able to apply the manure and don't forget, if you apply manure, you don't have to use as many chemicals.
Posted by Madd Max on Oct. 11 2004,11:25 pm
| Quote (repdan @ Oct. 11 2004,8:36:pm) |
| Madd Maxx is right about Seaboard and Corp. farming. But he is wrong about doing the same thing with cows. |
I believe repdan that as I look back at my post I was asking the question would it be the same as Seaboard. Secondly I grew up on a farm repdan and my parents and grandparents were all farmers so I do know a little about farming, granted farming has changed over the last 50 years but one thing I will tell you is when the hog farmers now empty the pits in there hog buildings and spread it on there fields you really don't want to be down wind. if you can smell what I am talking about.
Posted by DrBombay on Oct. 12 2004,4:44 am
100,000 tons of manure was a sarcastic exageration. I refuse to study up on Manure management and you can't make me.I won't, I won't, I won't.
Besides you're good enough at it,to shovel manure for the both of us!) | Quote |
| An earthern lagon is a wasted pit dug in the gound with out a concrete liner. |
I would have bet money that was a typo! Got me there!
Yes, I'm a city girl and I didn't want to get into the issue in the first place. But noooooooooo! You had to keep it up.
I must say I learned something though and feel I'm all the wiser for it. Now I'll never forgive you for opening up the door for Corporate farms in MN.
Posted by DrBombay on Oct. 12 2004,4:54 am
| Quote |
| We have done things with them on a socail basis but not sure that is really your business. I would consider her and Kevin friends. |
Alright Already, it's not my business and I could care less if you guys are swingers. Let it go for Godsake!
It proves my point you two are in Kahoots anyway.
Posted by repdan on Oct. 12 2004,9:22 am
So, let me see if I undestand this, in you are friends with someone you are in Kahoots. LOLCorporate Farming...I don't care if you don't forgive me I can't help it if you want to create your own facts those are hard to offset. But for the last time, there was no change in the Corportate Farming laws. Are you saying you don't support the Minnesota Family Farm Corporations?
PS I also know Tobby Telles so I suppose I am in Kahoots with him too.
Posted by DrBombay on Oct. 12 2004,12:27 pm
A ha! You knew where the knife was all along didn't you?
Posted by DrBombay on Oct. 12 2004,12:33 pm
I guess I'm in Kahoots with Toby too! He was a friend of my sons from way back in Jr. High. I feel bad about the situation, I don't know what happened but one life is gone and Toby's sure messed his life up. I liked him and he was always very nice and respectful to me. I'm just sad for him and his family.How are you related to Adonis? (Wow that just dawned on me, Toby and Adonis were best friends back then.)
Toby worked at Hanson Tire for awhile, didn't he?
Posted by DrBombay on Oct. 12 2004,4:03 pm
| Quote |
| 3. It "sucks" because of who does the scoring. You mentioned the vote in the House and Senate and one looks more partiasian then the other, that is because folks want to use this in the elections. |
This record is from the League of Conservation Voters. Through 2003 you averaged a whopin 30%. Do you have a problem with the League of Conservation Voters?
I don't see anything wrong with the Land Stewardship Project.
I guess it depends on ideology. I'm in favor of more humane organic type farming. You are more the Corporate Farm and Feed Lot type of guy.
Posted by repdan on Oct. 12 2004,9:33 pm
Organic farming is fine with me. In fact, I think there are going to be more and more opportunitys for this. What corporate farms in Minnesota don't you like? I was pleased to see Seaboard leave, Maxx is right about them wanting to Corp farm. In Oklahoma the own everything. That could not happen here then and still can't now.I have not looked at the League of Conservation voters stuff in a while, but I have more respect for them than the Land Stewardship folks. Modern feedlots cause less polution than the old open lots, you just need to use your head about where you locate them, which is why I like County control. As a side note, the way this works is the Federal Clean Water act is the base, states can take over control but they have to maintain standards as strong as the Feds, many states don't and just let the feds handle it, we allow counties to take the control from the state but the regs have to be as strong, at the county level, you have the resources to have a feedlot officer, they understand the soils and locations much better than some guy in St. Paul or Washington. However, unless a township is prepared to invest in the people and equipment to do a good job I don't think we should push the control down. In that case, who looks out for the land owner who has a good plan but because of the politics and not science can't produce?
Tobby did work with us when he was in high school, he was always very nice and I liked him. He moved to Atlanta for a while and have stayed down there. I have only seen him a few times in the past year or so, and always nice.
I have heard bits and pieces about the Austin deal and am waiting to see what comes out in court. I feel bad for his family and the family of the person who died, they are the people who will pay the price.
Addonis is my nephew. This whole thing remind me of the people here thoght I was posting under another name, they had no clue about my thoughts and ideas. I have watched drugs and booze do lots of damage, but I have no idea what the answer is, at the risk of sounding minnow like, we have spent tons of money on the war on drugs for over 80 years and I don't think we are any better off. If I had the answer to this one, I would not be selling tires.
Posted by DrBombay on Oct. 12 2004,10:09 pm
Toby worked at Rainbow Foods for quite awhile, and then I think at Nelson's when it re-opened. His mom lives near us so we would see him now and then. He played basketball once in awhile with my younger son. Just a few days before this happened, I heard on the scanner that Toby and his brother were in a fight. Their mom called the police. (Alcohol induced!) I too have saw a lot of that kind of thing in my life.For awhile there when they hadn't found the knife and it didn't sound like they were getting any answers out of him, I was kind of hoping he didn't do it and he didn't know where the knife was.
I totally agree about the war on drugs. It doesn't seem like there is anyway to fight a war like that. I havn't heard anything, but I'm sure this incident had something to do with drugs. I know some of the others that were mentioned in that article also. I remember one my boys playing baseball with Derrick Moore when he was about 12. It's pretty sad when you think about them as kids, and now life has turned out so tragic.
Posted by Madd Max on Oct. 12 2004,10:20 pm
I read that you repdan had only a 30% voting record in support of Labor during the last session. As I look back at the votes on these bills it seems to be true. Is this truly how you feel about labor people or is there some arm twisting by Speaker Swiggum going on in St. Paul? Either way this past session was not your best work for labor people.
Posted by repdan on Oct. 13 2004,4:26 pm
Which votes do you have questions on? Did the measure pass in the Senate? Part of the job of the minority is to offer amendments that look good but are offered only to make the other side look bad, the R's did it too. FYI, I did not do to well on the Taxpayers League Score card either.
Posted by DrBombay on Oct. 13 2004,5:45 pm
That's a good thing!!! 
Posted by repdan on Oct. 13 2004,6:38 pm
Maxx, I looked at some of the AFL-CIO stuff, first, thanks for giving me another chance to show my moderate balance, looks like only 3 Republicans had a better record.Second, do you really think it is possible that the differeces are as stark as shown by this or other such rankings? If they are, no wonder we can't get anything done.
FYI...I understand the Minnesota Chamber is not going to endorse me either since I was very vocal about their anti rural policies.
Posted by Madd Max on Oct. 15 2004,1:16 pm
Well you are close repdan as I look at the AFL-CIO literature I see you are fifth last session on Labor issues with a 33% rating. But lifetime their are nine republicans that have a better voting record on labor issues then you do that are in the house now. In fact you are tied for tenth with Steve Sviggun at 29% of the time you side with labor people. I understand that you have done some good thing for labor but 29% in a working town is still low repdan. One question I do have for you is this. I noticed that you did not vote on a bill that would have raised the minimum wage in Minnesota up $1.50 and hour over two years. I understand that thing happen in live and every elected official will miss a vote every once in a while. What I would like to know is if you had been there, how would you have voted if this bill? Also what are your feeling about the minimum wage in Minnesota do you feel it is high enough or it needs to be raised? Or is it to high now?
Posted by repdan on Oct. 15 2004,4:14 pm
I have voted for it in the past, I think their should be a tip credit so we don't have few restraunts going out of the breakfast business, but in general I have no problem with an increase, I would prefer a federal one, but not a big deal. Not sure who I missed the vote, but it happens, most of the votes I missed where when I was home when my wife had eye surgery.You are confusing being on the side of working people with the politics of interst groups. They are 2 different things.
Posted by Frustrated on Oct. 15 2004,4:37 pm
Wrong answer, repdan. Raising the minimum wage does not help the average person as it only causes inflation, higher prices for services and loss of job opportunities for students. Most minimum wage jobs are done by kids for a little spending money - temporary employment. People need to be bright enough to realize that these are not meant to be careers.
Posted by jimhanson on Oct. 15 2004,5:06 pm
The minimum wage law is another example of New Deal social activism. Like so many of the "we've got to do something" laws of the era--its time (if there ever was one) has passed. Even the Supreme Court found against a Federal minimum wage--but allowed State Minimum wages. The 14th Amendment--Due process, prohibits the government from interfering with contracts. | Quote |
| Minimum Wage Laws .--The theory that a law prescribing minimum wages for women and children violates due process by impairing freedom of contract was finally discarded in 1937. 107 The modern theory of the Court, particularly when labor is the beneficiary of legislation, was stated by Justice Douglas for a majority of the Court, in the following terms: ''Our recent decisions make plain that we do not sit as a superlegislature to weigh the wisdom of legislation nor to decide whether the policy which it expresses offends the public welfare. The legislative power has limits. . . . But the state legislatures have constitutional authority to experiment with new techniques; they are entitled to their own standard of the public welfare; they may within extremely broad limits control practices in the business-labor field, so long as specific constitutional prohibitions are not violated and so long as conflicts with valid and controlling federal laws are avoided.'' |
In good times, the minimum wage isn't needed--if you have any skills at all, you will be paid more. In bad times, the marginalized workers--school kids, entry-level workers, etc. are priced out of a job. Government should concentrate on improved education--not artificial enforcement of bad law.
Posted by The Advocate on Oct. 15 2004,6:26 pm
Big disagreement Jim, huge. There has to be some protection for workers. It does not price school kids out of jobs, these jobs are plentyful. People have to have some type of protection or most businesses would not even pay that. Just don't get me started on corporate greed. And by the by, I am having one heck of a time deciding between Bush and Kerry. I'm Independent in voting for the best person. I voted Bush 4 years ago but I have to say it is difficult to see our economy in such a state and only God above knows what we should do in foreign affairs. I have to say, I was not impressed by Kerry concerning Congressional hearings about Viet Nam many years ago.
Posted by DrBombay on Oct. 15 2004,7:16 pm
I had the arguement with RepDan on a thread months ago, as I recall RepDan was against raising the min. wage because of the working family tax credit. It hasn't been raised since 97! I think if we were to look at the overall jobs available and the number of unskilled workers out there all over the country, we'd find that people have to take these jobs to make a go of it. Working students to help with tuition they've been priced out of, and struggling families. Especially with the big loss in Manufacturing jobs.
Posted by jimhanson on Oct. 15 2004,8:21 pm
Advocate--good discussion to have. There is a lot of material out there--a Google search on Minimum Wage showed over 3,000,000 items. You can find and support nearly any position there. Here is one: | Quote |
| The recent 1996 hike in the minimum wage to $5.15 an hour had a similar effect: unemployment among black male teenagers jumped from 37 to 41 percent almost immediately, at a time when the economy was doing well for almost everyone else. That’s why Milton Friedman, the Nobel Prize winning economist, once called the minimum wage "the most anti-black law on the books." Data from President Clinton’s own labor department show that at least 20,000 jobs were eliminated by the 1996 hike. The Employment Policies Institute calculates that the real job loss was closer to 128,000. |
Rather than simply copy Google articles, let's discuss specific issues
| Quote |
| People have to have some type of protection or most businesses would not even pay that. |
I usually ask the question of those who advocate government fiat--like setting a minimum wage--"If raising the minimum wage $1 is good--WHY NOT MAKE IT $2--OR EVEN $3? Why not make it $10 an hour? The answer usually is "because nobody would pay the higher wage". If that is the case, is raising the wage by a smaller amount effective? Will it lead to more or less employment? If the respondent is thinking, they may reply "it would lead to inflation". This is also true.
Government has no place in interfering with wages--that is a contract between the individual (or his/her representative, the labor union) and the employer. Government has as little right to determine minimum wage as it has to set maximum wages--government lets sports stars, entertainers, etc. be paid what the market thinks they are worth.
Raising minimum wages leads to other problems--exporting of jobs. Pay $8 minimum wage, and more and more illegals will cross the border for those jobs--and more and more companies will be taking their business outside the U.S.
Taken to its ultimate conclusion, government would have the power to dictate the maximum and minimum payment for each job. That's roughly equivalent to the thoughts of another famous economist--"Each according to his abilities, each according to his needs"--Karl Marx
Like so many well-intentioned issues, there are UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES to every government action--consequences that usually have the opposite effect of the program the government initiated.
Posted by repdan on Oct. 16 2004,10:12 pm
It's not worth the fight, if you really want to help low income people you do it with the working family tax credit. If you put in a tip credit, there would be very few people who would gain by an increase. If you increase the wage high enought, you lose jobs. So maybe the question should be how high?
Posted by hoosier on Oct. 17 2004,9:27 am
I agree with Jim on this one. How about the government, state and national, just do what they promise every election and fully fund education?
We are helping to build schools in all sorts of undeveloped nations, all the while we have schools falling apart in our own backyards.
Better education, equals better jobs.
Posted by Madd Max on Oct. 17 2004,9:53 am
| Quote (Frustrated @ Oct. 15 2004,4:37:pm) |
| Most minimum wage jobs are done by kids for a little spending money |
Maybe you are right Frustrated to a point, but in a slow economy as we are in now, people have to take theses jobs and a second and third job just to survive. There are people out there that are really struggling that could use help, much of the time they have small children to. Is it right for us to turn our backs on poor people and there children? I know you will say well they should not have had children, Hind site is 20/20 but the fact is the children are here, right here in Albert Lea and there is a problem that needs to be addressed.
Posted by jimhanson on Oct. 17 2004,2:46 pm
Why would you want to punish businesses by mandating how much they should pay? Is it the fault of Business that people make less than they would like? What would happen if you raised the minimum wage to say, $15 an hour? Inflation would be rampant as businesses passed the costs on to consumers--for example--the price of cars, houses (or any other labor-intensive product) would double--and we would all be back in the same relative place.
Government wage controls have never worked anywhere they have been tried--remember the Nixon era? It is not the government's job to say what people are worth--only the marketplace makes that determination. The only people with a "horse in this race"--an interest--is the employer and the employee--everyone else should butt out.
Posted by Paul Harvey on Oct. 17 2004,5:06 pm
So back in the early 1970's when the minimum wage was $1.65 an hour....that was wrong Jim? There really shouldn't have been a minimum wage then...
Posted by jimhanson on Oct. 17 2004,6:18 pm
I don't know what your point is. Is it that the minimum wage isn't keeping up with inflation?My point is that the the government mandating how much people should be paid is not only wrong, but a useless "feel-good" program pandering to a constituency. As several posters have pointed out--education makes the whole thing moot--acquire a skill, and there IS NO SUCH THING AS A MINIMUM WAGE. The idea that government can effectively tell people what they will earn--without consequences of loss of jobs--is ridiculous. Increased minimum wages have an inflationary effect on the whole economy.
Going back to the question of whether minimum wage earners are keeping up with inflation, see the chart, below. Here is the link to the site < http://www.epionline.org/mw_statistics_annual.cfm >
(edited: You'll have to click the link to go back to 1970, the chart will only paste since 1980)
As I read the chart, with the Earned income credit, minimum wage earners are earning the same money as in 1970 (about $7 an hour), and considerably better than in many intervening years. Very few years went ABOVE the $7 mark, in constant 2002 dollars.
Posted by Madd Max on Oct. 17 2004,8:38 pm
So Jim is it right that a person should have to work two or three jobs to care for their family. I will dare say that a person that is doing this does not have Health Insurance either. Last I heard 45 million people do not have Health Insurance in the USA. I believe Minimal wage now is $5.15 an hour. A dollar and a half will bring it up to $6.65 I really don't think that they will be getting rich. I don’t see any owners of the Fast foods restrants on the welfare lines so I think that they can afford to pay a little more. Just for a minute Jim, think about the little children out there that have nothing. Think about the people that are living under the freeway bridges here. Think about the grandparents that are raising there grandchildren because the kids have lost there jobs and can not afford to care for them. Think about the workers that have lost their jobs and now there unemployment has run out before they were able to find a job and have no income coming in and are losing everything they have worked for. These things I am writing are going on right here in Albert Lea today. Jim don’t you have any compassing at all for your fellow man. Just for one minute try and look at the people that are falling through the cracks. Whether you like it or not they are out there.
Posted by jimhanson on Oct. 18 2004,3:11 pm
Max--being opposed to the minimum wage doesn't mean you lack compassion--just that the concept of "minimum wage" is flawed--a "feel good" program that harms the people it purports to help. The point of my posts--and of several others--is that "minimum wage" is an artificial enhancement--for someone with skills, it is irrelevant, because those skills are in demand. For someone without skills, the minimum wage is a barrier--If they take a minimum wage job, they don't get welfare. To make it worth getting off welfare, they need to make more than the minimum wage--it means that the "bottom rung" of the job ladder has been removed.| Quote |
| I don’t see any owners of the Fast foods restrants on the welfare lines so I think that they can afford to pay a little more. |
| Quote |
| I believe Minimal wage now is $5.15 an hour. A dollar and a half will bring it up to $6.65 |
Minimum wage hasn't really helped anywhere it has been tried, and has often been an obstruction to helping the very people it was designed to help. It is another reminder that the government can't really make anything better just because it SAYS so--only the marketplace sets a true value on a commodity. If you want to help people, they need to acquire marketable skills--and THAT is the place to help--leave the marketplace alone.
| Quote |
| Think about the people that are living under the freeway bridges here |
Posted by hoosier on Oct. 18 2004,4:41 pm
Just wanted to add one thing. The 45 million quoted as not being insured is a little decieving.Its not that all of them arent offered insurance. I read about a couple that was married, both postal workers, combined income of 75,000 dollars. They are one of the 45 million, and many more like them that just dont want to pay for it.
Posted by DrBombay on Oct. 18 2004,7:03 pm
I think the number of uninsured is much higher. I agree Hoosier this may be the case, but there are many more people who are offered some type of insurance who can't afford it.Look at the jobs that are out there to replace the manufacturing jobs. In Minnesota the avg. jobs pay atleast 25% less than the ones we lost. A large part of those jobs offered are only part-time and don't offer insurance.
Posted by hoosier on Oct. 18 2004,7:18 pm
Agreed, to bad its so dangerous in Iraq! We could go over there and work for Halliburton, make over 10,000 a month for driving a truck. Speaking of jobs lost or gained, isnt it funny that most of the jobs Bush claims to have created in the past year are jobs like the one at Halliburton I mentioned. Most of them are in Iraq.
But what do we really get out of those jobs if the American tax payer is footing the bill?
I agree DrBombay, just wanted to make sure that people understood that the 45 million uncluded people that choose not to be insured. Unfortunatly, some are uninsured because they cant afford it. Those are the ones that should be counted as uninsured.
Others can afford it, but choose to spend their money in other ways. Thats fine, but those people shouldnt be crying that they dont have insurance. I only mention it because I read or seen on TV the story about the postal workers choosing not to be insured, then bitching about it.
Posted by DrBombay on Oct. 19 2004,1:27 pm
I was just thinking about the privatization of everything. I don't think the majority of American people realize how big of a gig these private contractors got going in Iraq. Meanwhile the wives of the soldiers fighting there are having to rely on foodstamps to get by. Also, do ya think the Iraqi's are a little upset about this? They'd be happy to get $100/month for what the contractors are getting $10k/month to rebuild there own country. That's a big reason the insurgency is growing. Who could blame them, they have no jobs?Funny you should mention that, because I was just thinking about looking up some info. on private contractors in Iraq and what kind of health ins. they have.
Also I read that much of the border patrol is no longer handled by the INS, it too is contracted out.
Posted by Montyman on Oct. 19 2004,7:33 pm
Health insurance in IRAQ???Hasn't Halliburton (sp?) had 50 employees killed over there?
If they cut off your head, health insurance can't put it back...
I wouldn't work over there for $100,000 per month.
AND:
How in the heck do you know if the people over there have jobs or not?
Don't listen to what the freakin' media is saying all the time, people!
Maybe the people over there are scared to go to work to rebuild their own darn country!
Posted by DrBombay on Oct. 19 2004,7:51 pm
I don't hear anything on the "freakin" media about whether or not the Iraqi's have jobs? I for one would like to hear a little more about that kind of thing on the US media. The truth you know, instead of how happy they are to be liberated.As far as the insurance goes, you don't think they have any benefits (the contractors)? How much do you think the life insurance policies cost the tax-payers? I'll bet they pay out a hell of a lot more than the ones the military has.
Posted by DrBombay on Oct. 19 2004,7:56 pm
Unemployment in Iraq is at 70% for lots of reasons........< http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=slv1-&p=Iraq+Unemployment >
Read on......Monty Man.
Posted by repdan on Oct. 22 2004,7:40 pm
Maxx,I went back and looked at the AFL stuff again, not sure why you think I'm wrong when I said only 3 Republicans had a better record last session, what am I missing?
Re: Lifetime numbers, to look at this you would have to look at records since 99. My guess is that before 99 many Republicans had higher percentages, why? They did not have to get the bills passed.
Did you look at what the votes were? Odd amendments offered for political reasons only. I don't worry about this too much since they are going to try to get you anyway. For example Jeff Anderson (R-Austin)voted agaisnt the 2003 tax bill and Greg Davids (R-Preston) voted for the bill. The State DFL party sent a hit piece into their disticts this week, attacking Jeff for voting no and attacking Greg for voting yes. Maxx, what what the correct vote on the 2003 House tax bill? For the record I voted no.
But I appreciate you helping me highlight that I am a moderate.
Posted by DrBombay on Oct. 23 2004,10:48 am
Voting 91% of the time with Steve Sviggum hardly highlights you as a moderate. Why would you even want to put yourself in the same sentence with Greg Davids? Where you planning on burning tires over there or something?
Posted by Madd Max on Oct. 23 2004,12:17 pm
| Quote (repdan @ Oct. 22 2004,7:40:pm) |
| Re: Lifetime numbers, to look at this you would have to look at records since 99. My guess is that before 99 many Republicans had higher percentages, why? They did not have to get the bills passed. |
Repdan then the same thing could be said about your voting record when you side with the democrats, you are doing so knowing full well your party will carry the day. I would think that if you were really worried about the working people here you would at least have a +50% voting record in support of working familys and labor. I just have a hard time believing that if the Governor or the Speaker really wanted your vote in an issue and it was a close vote, you would vote with your party even if it hurt the working people in your district.
Posted by repdan on Oct. 23 2004,4:48 pm
So what was the correct vote on the tax bill Maxx?You are confusing working families and labor with the AFL-CIO score card. They are not one and the same. Did you look at the votes? Do you really think they were meant to do anything but play the game of gotcha?
FYI, I did figure out the only 3 people with a better record v. your 5th. I guess it's a glass half full or empty, there are only 3 people with a better record in the caucus and I am tied for 4th place. So we were saying the same thing.
So, now you are saying that somehow my record would be better if it were 50%? That really would not improve my ranking.
I don't know how to explain any better the difference between voting records in the majority an minority. When the DFL was in the majority, they would not offer the same amendments, or they would at least not have been scored. So Sviggum's record would be better because there were not as many gotcha amendment offered that would show up in the AFL-CIO score card. At the time, the Speaker would be too busy throwing bombs like a decrease in the sales tax, bottom income tax rate and others to use in the next election. You may not like to think that is the way the game is played but it is.
Maxx, you remind me of what one of our caucus staff members keeps claiming, why do anything but support the party line since it won't matter anyway, however, I think he is wrong, but we will see what happens on November 2nd.
Posted by hoosier on Oct. 23 2004,10:15 pm
Keep talkin Repdan, you changin my mind about you.
Posted by repdan on Oct. 24 2004,12:41 pm
Hoosier, Thanks but be carefull, you could get ripped by certain members on this board for saying something positive about me.
Posted by hoosier on Oct. 24 2004,2:14 pm
Repdan, you should know by now, when it comes to politics, I could care less what anyone thinks about me. Except my wife of course, but thats why I dont talk politics with her.
Posted by DrBombay on Oct. 24 2004,2:42 pm
I don't care where you rank. You can consistantly vote against the Union's position. A lifetime record of only 28% voting with the Afl-Cio's position. You've voted against collective bargaining rights and looks like you like the idea of privitization. A vote here a vote there might not look like much damage, but in truth it just chisels away a little at a time of basic workers rights.
Posted by repdan on Oct. 24 2004,3:41 pm
Consistntly? That would mean I would rank at 0. I never confuse the AFL-CIO politics with policy. They are 2 very different things, which is one reason they don't have the political clout that they once had. Think about this, why would I want to chisel at basic workers rights? To be sucsessful in our store, I need customers who earn a good wage. I can't survive on people making $7 or $8 per hour.FYI, I don't expect to convert you Bombay, but your extream positions help me. You and Maxx are the exact opposit of the hard core right wingers that think everyone else is a communist. Most of us are somewhere in the middle.
Posted by repdan on Oct. 24 2004,3:43 pm
Hoosier, you and I have another thing in common, we both have great wifes.
Posted by Montyman on Oct. 24 2004,7:39 pm
So, Bombay...workers have rights?You mean USED to...
Posted by Madd Max on Oct. 24 2004,11:03 pm
| Quote (repdan @ Oct. 23 2004,4:48:pm) |
| So, now you are saying that somehow my record would be better if it were 50%? That really would not improve my ranking. |
No that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is if you truly cared about working families and labor people you would vote more in favor of their issues. 33% is only voting to support their issues 1/3 of the time in the last session. Yet you vote with the chamber 75% to 85% of the time. So while taking your voting record in account we would have to surmise that if the chamber asks you to vote on a issue that was good for business but bad for working families, I believe you will vote would side with the chamber 7 out of ten times. On Education you only voted 30% of the time in support why is that? On a side note I heard we just lost another 60 good paying jobs here in Albert Lea. Your party keeps telling us we are in a recovery well not here in 27a I am sad to say!
Posted by Madd Max on Oct. 24 2004,11:45 pm
| Quote (repdan @ Oct. 24 2004,3:41:pm) |
| I can't survive on people making $7 or $8 per hour. |
Neither can the people making that wage and support a family Repdan. I also heard your ad on Power 96 tonight here is a few questions. You said that you have brought 350 new jobs to town with the New Job zone. How many of these new jobs have people working them today? How long will it be before all of these jobs will be working? How many years will it be before these companies will start paying state taxes? Will companies like QPP and others Hire local or ship in the workforce? Who will pick up the tab for the lost taxes this company will not have to pay for the next 12 years? I still have not heard what the wages will be paid at any of these new jobs so what will QPP pay for a wage? What other companies are coming to town? What are the names of these new companies? How many is each one going to hire? Here is your chance fill us in.
Also Repdan if standing up for the elderly and the children is wrong and make me a liberal, so be it. If wanting my children and grandchildren to get a good quality education is wrong and make me a liberal, so be it. If watching out for working families and wanting them to make a living wage make me a Liberal, so be it. If wanting affordable healthcare for everyone makes me a liberal so be it. If wanting the future to be better for my children and grandchildren then the present is makes me a liberal, so be it. If wanting Albert Lea to grow instead of getting smaller make mea liberal so be it. If wanting to have clean lakes and streams here make me liberal, so be it. Isn’t it right that your own party kind of left you out to dry this spring on the ½ cent sales tax to clean up the lake didn’t they. I don’t believe you got any money for a new dam either did you?
Posted by repdan on Oct. 25 2004,10:38 am
Maxx, What was the correct vote on the tax bill? Liberals don't have the market cornered on education and senior issues, or clean water......There are people on both sides that don't like local options, in the 6 years that I have been in, I would guess there have been about 60 proposed and only one made it, and this is my fault?
You are right about the damn, there was money for the DNR dam replacement fund and we are on of the next on the list, the bill passed the House with over 1/2 of the dems voting for it yet the Senate could not put together a bill that could pass. This is my fault?
Posted by Madd Max on Oct. 25 2004,11:37 pm
Yes, you got blasted on the 1/2 cent sales tax. You didn't get the job done. Albert Lea Lake is the first lake travels see when coming to Minnesota from the south and the first impression people will have of Minnesota’s 10,000 lakes I would think it would be that hard of a sell to get a little help to clean up the lake since all we just wanted to do is tax ourselves. Back to the tax free zones, what are the wages these companies going to pay to their employees when they get there plants running? Since these companies will not have to pay any state taxes for 12 years what will the cost be to us the property owners for these jobs. How many of these jobs have people working in then right now? Looks like you’re talking about jobs that are not here yet but we just lost 60 jobs last week. One other thing more then a few people want to know is how you voted for the Morning dove hunting season last spring. Did you vote for a season or against a season?
Posted by DrBombay on Oct. 25 2004,11:54 pm
So Montyman, were you in some strange way agreeing with me? Or throwing something out there that I would agree with?
Posted by DrBombay on Oct. 26 2004,12:04 am
| Quote |
| You and Maxx are the exact opposit of the hard core right wingers that think everyone else is a communist. |
You ever been called a communist Maxx? Me, oh yeah a few times. Mostly from my republican nephew and then I just call him a Nazi and we leave it at that.
But I really take that as a compliment.....exact opposite of a hard core right winger. Thanks Repdan!
Posted by hoosier on Oct. 26 2004,6:47 am
LMAO @ Repdan, good thing to, cause we both need a good woman to keep us out of trouble.
Posted by Madd Max on Oct. 28 2004,11:42 am
I know that Senator Sparks took some heat for voting in support of a morning dove season but I don't believe there were any letters to the editor coming down on you for your vote for this bill. Just so the people know how you voted on the Morning Dove hunting season on its finial passage here is the bill and your vote!CONCURRENCE AND REPASSAGE
Hoppe moved that the House concur in the Senate amendments to H. F. No. 2368 and that the bill be repassed as amended by the Senate. The motion prevailed.
H. F. No. 2368, A bill for an act relating to game and fish; modifying hunting provisions and fees; modifying restriction on importation of cervidae carcasses; modifying restrictions on the transport of game birds; clarifying validity of firearms safety certificates issued to youth; modifying turtle license requirements; modifying waterfowl refuge provisions; providing for suspension of game and fish license and permit privileges under certain conditions; modifying shooting hours for migratory game birds; authorizing a season on mourning doves; prohibiting taking albino deer; modifying certain hearing provisions; modifying certain tagging requirements; modifying fish house provisions; providing for a live bait retailers license; providing for trapping by certain nonresidents; modifying certain game license provisions; requiring public education efforts regarding lead tackle; authorizing grants; authorizing a special permit for use of a scope when hunting with a muzzleloader; providing for a quality deer management pilot zone; requiring reports; providing criminal penalties; amending Minnesota Statutes 2002, sections 97A.015, subdivision 24; 97A.085, subdivisions 2, 3, 4; 97A.095, subdivisions 1, 2, 4; 97A.420, subdivision 4; 97A.421, by adding a subdivision; 97A.435, subdivision 4, by adding a subdivision; 97A.475, subdivision 20, by adding a subdivision; 97A.545, subdivision 5; 97B.015, subdivision 5; 97B.031, by adding a subdivision; 97B.075; 97B.301, subdivisions 6, 7; 97B.601, subdivision 3, by adding a subdivision; 97B.721; 97B.901; 97C.355, subdivision 7; 97C.605, subdivision 2; Minnesota Statutes 2003 Supplement, sections 97A.475, subdivisions 2, 3; 97A.505, subdivision 8; 97B.311; 97C.605, subdivision 2c; proposing coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 97C; repealing Minnesota Statutes 2002, section 97B.731, subdivision 2.
The bill was read for the third time, as amended by the Senate, and placed upon its repassage
Those who voted in the affirmative were:
Abeler Adolphson Anderson, B. Anderson, I. Anderson, J.
Atkins Beard Blaine Borrell Boudreau
Bradley Brod Buesgens Cornish Cox
Davids DeLaForest Demmer Dempsey Dill
Dorman Dorn Eastlund Eken Erickson
Finstad Fuller Gerlach Gunther Haas
Hackbarth Heidgerken Hoppe Howes Jacobson
Jaros Johnson, J. Juhnke Klinzing Knoblach
Koenen Kohls Kuisle Lanning Larson
Lieder Lindgren Lindner Lipman Magnus
Mahoney Marquart McNamara Meslow Nelson, M.
Nelson, P. Newman Nornes Olsen, S. Olson, M.
Opatz Osterman Otremba Otto Ozment
Paulsen Pelowski Penas Peterson Powell
Rukavina Ruth Samuelson Seifert Sertich
Severson Simpson Slawik Smith Soderstrom
Solberg Stang Strachan Sviggum Swenson
Urdahl Vandeveer Walz Wardlow Wasiluk
Westerberg Westrom Zellers
Those who voted in the negative were:
Abrams Bernardy Biernat Carlson Clark
Davnie Ellison Entenza Erhardt Goodwin
Greiling Hausman Hilstrom Hilty Holberg
Hornstein Huntley Johnson, S. Kahn Kelliher
Krinkie Latz Lenczewski Lesch Mariani
Mullery Murphy Nelson, C. Paymar Pugh
Rhodes Seagren Sieben Sykora Thao
Thissen Wagenius Walker Wilkin
Posted by repdan on Oct. 28 2004,1:17 pm
There were at least 2 letters. Yup, I support hunting and fishing. Only 31 no votes and a quick glance at the list looks like except for one Duluth and one Rocherster vote they no votes were metro area.Any word yet Maxx on what the correct vote was on the 2003 Tax Bill?
Posted by Liberal on Oct. 28 2004,1:20 pm
I must have missed something in that debate, but, what's wrong with killing a dove?
Posted by Madd Max on Oct. 28 2004,2:09 pm
Any figures yet on how much the tax free zones will cost the property owners here over the next twelve years yet repdan
Posted by repdan on Oct. 28 2004,2:14 pm
Not sure, it is the number one game bird in the country, 43 other states allow the hunt, Wisconsin added it last year. There is lots of emotions thinking we are killing the bird of peace (which is the turtle dove and not the mouning dove) and heard about the small amount of meat (however using this standard we would not allow pan fishing either). If I recall, every major hunting group supported it and these are the folks who pump tons of money into our economy and habitat.
Posted by repdan on Oct. 28 2004,2:15 pm
It will cost the tax payers no more of less than a tif district which is already in current law. A plant built in Clear Lake pays no property taxes in Minnesota.
Posted by Truth on Oct. 28 2004,3:36 pm
Blah Blah Blah.Just ignore him.
Posted by Madd Max on Oct. 28 2004,3:36 pm
And a plant built in Albert Lea with this program will pay no taxes in Minnesota either. You say for the most part that you are tiring to grow new business with this program here. Is there anything in the law that says that after their twelve years are up that they have to stay in Minnesota? Who says they will not move to Clear Lake.What will the cost be on the services here. Can we afford to subsidize all of these companies? Are we looking at another billion dollar deficit again?
Posted by repdan on Oct. 28 2004,8:40 pm
No, they can move after 12 years but it's hard to take a plant with them. So, given that I think we all prefer that we did not need a JOBZ program or for that matter TIF, what are your ideas? Just keep losing our manufactoring base? Our rate of loss and net loss of manufactoring jobs had been 2 time greater than that in Iowa. If we loose all of the tax payers who work in and operate the plants, who is it that is going to pay for our programs?Yes, by the time we increase K12 and our nursing homes (which includes those with develpmental disabilities) we could be looking at a billion dollar deficit. I don't know of anyway to recover with out creating jobs, but if you have another solution, please share it with me.
FYI, unless I have missed what Mr. Kaphers is saying, he suppots JOBZ as does Keith Porter but he has some concerns with how the program is being applied locally.
So, now can you tell me what the correct vote on the 2003 tax bill was? I am confused since Jeff Anderson got a hit piece from the State DFL for voting no and Gregg Davids got attacked for voting yes. And yesterday, people we supposed to say no to my extreame agenda, good schools, roads, and reasonable taxation, sure sounds extreame.
Posted by Madd Max on Oct. 29 2004,7:58 am
| Quote (repdan @ Oct. 28 2004,8:40:pm) |
| Yes, by the time we increase K12 and our nursing homes (which includes those with develpmental disabilities) we could be looking at a billion dollar deficit. |
I have a hard time believing that just helping K12 and our nursing homes includes those with developmental disabilities alone, will add up to a billion dollar shortfall. There’s a lot more wrong than just those two cases. On the tax bill is this the same bill that you voted to cut 10 million dollars out of human services and to people with mental disabilities, but in the end voted against it? I haven't seen anything about your extreme agenda but I will have to say that it might be a little off. You at least vote to support working people a third of the time when many in you party never did during the last session.
Posted by repdan on Oct. 29 2004,8:07 am
Maxx, Education and nursing homes are about 60% of the state's budget. A small change there costs lots, which is why when we held the funding for K-12 and nursing homes flat (did I mention the Gov and DFL Senate wanted to cut the homes) flat other areas had to take a larger hit.
What tax bill cut 10 mill out of human services?
Posted by repdan on Oct. 29 2004,9:23 am
Oh, I almost forgot, what about the Albert Lea Select Meats plant, what would you have done?Any thoughts on the vote on the tax bill or should I stop asking?
Posted by Madd Max on Oct. 31 2004,1:13 pm
Yes Hormel is hard up for money now so I suppose they really need a Tax free zone now don't they? Maybe a few old Farmland worker might get a job there ( If they will hire them) but for the most part either they will ship in workers from down south or workers that already work for QPP (Hormel) will work there. So repdan what will be the payrate there? What do you think the rate of pay should be there? If the tax bill is the bill that you said that you were fighting for more state aid for cities in outside the metro area it depends what your and the members of your party were really tiring to do. I see that you and Anderson voted against the bill yet Günter and David’s voted for the bill , so we have 4 members of the house who all live in the southern Minnesota areas at odds on funding for cities outside the metro area. As I look at it more and more you are using this bill as a trap. Your party wanted this bill passed right! You, and the leadership of your party new that you had the votes to pass it. So if a few, Good Old Boys decided to vote against it to make themselves look good back home so be it. All you were doing is playing politics with this bill and you know it!!!
Posted by repdan on Oct. 31 2004,2:01 pm
Maxx, read my posts, I would prefer we not have to use tax free zones or TIF, but given the nature of economic development we need to do it to keep and get new jobs. So are for in favor of the new plant or not given what needed to be done to get it. Don't just whine about what you don't like, take a stand yes or no. I am a yes.You continue to display a lack of understanding of how the game is played.
The Governor wanted the tax bill passed, yup, until the Thursday before the House did the tax bill in commitee we had the votes to change it. That day the Gov and staff leaned on a bunch of rural Republicans and got them to change their vote. His Chief of Staff called a few people in our distict a trying to get me to filp, I would not. Sorry if you don't like the facts but there they are. But none of the cuts would have happened if Sen John Hottinger, the DFL leader in the Senate had not sold out rural Minnesota hoping to win the majority of the House in 04. He was wrong and was tossed out by his own caucus last year. So lets see what we are left with, you think I am playing politics since you don't seem to like Republicans, but your same logic could be applied to Paul Wellstone but since you like him, that's different.
So, I guess what you are saying is there was no correct vote in 2003 for a Republican, how about for the Dems how should they have voted?
Posted by repdan on Oct. 31 2004,3:45 pm
Maxx,I understand what you are saying about taking a safe vote, I have seen it done. But how do you know, well in this case, you could look to the Mayor of Austin who was active in the fight, she was at the Capital and watched the first LGA vote and a former Mayor from Moorehead went from red (against us) to green when he knew there was enough room. I can tell you people who were with me the whole time, Howard Swenson from Mankato, Jeff Anderson from Austin, and others.
So then when someone says I will work from people from all parties, how should people judge that?
On LGA you could look at people who co-authored the bill with me and Sen Langseth and then voted against the amendment, but there are others who may have taken the safe vote, most city officals in the districts should know who these folks are because you ask them long before the vote, the folks who are your heros are those who commit and don't move off the mark. Rep's who try to "keep their powder dry" are the ones you have to watch.
Posted by Madd Max on Oct. 31 2004,7:10 pm
repdan Yes you might be right that In some ways I do not fully understand how the game is played. At one time I was in favor of the tax free zones. But as you see I am not so sure about it now. With the state looking at another Billion dollar deficit and giving profitable companies a tax free zones just doesn't seem right. I can understand where we are helping companies that are starting out or are small and tiring to grow but to give Hormel a piece of the pie when they can afford to pay the taxes anyway. Just seem to me like we the taxpayers are being had. You sir as well as I know that if in twelve year’s Iowa give them a sweetheart deal to move the plant to Iowa they will. My biggest problem with the governor and your party is they worry to much about big business and the wealthy and not the little guy. When you will give tax breaks to the richest people and raise taxes on the middle class and cut programs to the poor, just seems to me as cruel.
I would like to ask again, what are the wage rates the companies have to pay when getting a tax free zone to put their business on?
Posted by repdan on Oct. 31 2004,7:44 pm
The wage rates are up to the cities that use them, and cities are not forced to use them. They would have to be over $9 per hour and I understand these are going to be greater than $10 to start. Would I prefer that we were able to create jobs without the program sure. And no, in 12 years I don't think they would move the plant or you would see more companies coming in from out of state. I think to date, the best thing about the programs is that we are not losing expansions out of state.When did we raise taxes on the middle class? Who is the middle class?
How do you pay for programs if you don't create taxpayers? In Minnesota, something like 1/2 the income tax is paid by the top 10% of wage earners, how much should they pay? Lots of people pay a top federal rate of 28% (except John Kerry who paid 12%) how much do you want them to pay?
You are confusing caring about people with taking wealth from one group and giving it to another even if the result is we all have less. Cruel? If wanting people to be able to have a job that they can live on, good roads and schools and taking care of the folks who really need it is cruel, I'm guilty.
Posted by Madd Max on Oct. 31 2004,8:44 pm
So when taxes are raised on a person making $30,000 a year but taxes are cut to a person make $500,000 a year and you believe is good, then yes you are guilty. You are having the $30,000 people pay for your roads Schools ect. ( You know there are many more people making 30,000 then 500,000 ) How many Representatives who sit in a house seats make $30,000 or less a year?I have also been wondering why you have not been endorsed by education. I was told that you have only a 30% voting record in favor of education is this true? I know that you voted not to cut K-12 but you haven’t voted to give them more money either. Didn’t you vote to cut funding a couple years ago to Higher Education?
Posted by repdan on Oct. 31 2004,11:06 pm
ZeroI was not endorsed by education minnesota because when I showed up to interview, there were only 3 people to endorse, one of them was the guy I beat in 98, when I was endoresed even though he was a member of the union. You might want to ask why they did not endorse my opponet, he is a retried educator and they did not endorse him and he interviewed.
I have no idea what the 30% deal of which you speak. Could be some AFL-CIO deal again but don't know. But then if were to believe what at least one letter writter this year said, Republicans hate education, which is odd since my wife is a teacher and I have 2 sons in the district. But then this is the same guy who at an Eggs and Issues once said the Senate voted to increase the K-12 budget and the House voted to cut it, which would really be a neat trick since the same bill has to pass both the House and Senate to become law.
Depending on if we are talking before or after tax income, and a family or single wage earner a $30,000 wage earner pays more in indirect taxes than income or poperty tax. Meaning taxes that are passed on to them in high prices. This group would pay a smaller % of their income in state and local taxes then every group making more money except the very highest income earners because of the sales tax.
So in Minnesota, when we decreased income tax for example, we decreased the 3 brackets by .05, .075. and .05. The result of decreasing the middle bracket more than the other 2 was to drive the majority of the cuts to the middle class.
But when you reduce taxes, the people who pay more of them are going to get more of the reduction in total dollars so then you get the tax cut for the rich mantra. But when taxes are increased in the same way, this same group will pay more.
Posted by repdan on Oct. 31 2004,11:19 pm
In Minnesota the are about 800,000 families making a federal adj income of under $30,000 and fewer than 24,000 making more than $500,000. The first group pays about $115 million in state income tax the 24000 pay almost $1.4 billion. But the first group pays almost 4 times as much in taxes on business that are passed on to them in higher prices and lower wages.
Posted by Nose for News on Nov. 01 2004,4:12 am
Comparing the 50 States' Combined State/Local Tax Burdens in 2003(posted April 2004, to be revised April 2005)
Each state’s total tax burden (taxes as a percentage of income) is a combination of federal, state, and local taxes. Total tax burdens in each state are shown in the turquoise portion of the table (columns 5, 6 & 7). It can be instructive, however, to strip out the federal tax burden and compare just the tax burdens of states and localities. This is the yellow portion of the table on the left (columns 1, 2 & 3).
Follow each row to see how a state's ranking changes when federal taxes are added back in. Generally, high-income states rise because, with their high costs of living and commensurately higher salaries, they are hit harder by the progressive federal income tax. Low-income states that have high state-local tax burdens fall in the ranking when federal taxes are added in.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tax Burdens by State in 2003
(Measuring Taxes as a Percentage of Income)
Combined State and Local
Tax Burdens by Rank
Tax
Burden Rank Tax Burden Rank Adding Federal
U.S. Average 10.1% U.S. Average 28.5%
New York 12.8% 1 New York 32.8% 2 -1
Maine 12.4% 2 Maine 29.6% 7 -5
Hawaii 11.3% 3 Hawaii 27.5% 27 -24
Wisconsin 11.3% 4 Wisconsin 29.0% 11 -7
Rhode Island 11.2% 5 Rhode Island 29.8% 5 0
Ohio 11.2% 6 Ohio 28.0% 22 -16
Utah 10.9% 7 Utah 27.8% 23 -16
Minnesota 10.6% 8 Minnesota 28.9% 12 -4
Vermont 10.6% 9 Vermont 28.4% 16 -7
West Virginia 10.6% 10 West Virginia 26.5% 40 -30
Connecticut 10.5% 11 Connecticut 33.0% 1 10
Idaho 10.3% 12 Idaho 26.7% 35 -23
Nebraska 10.3% 13 Nebraska 26.9% 33 -20
Michigan 10.2% 14 Michigan 28.1% 19 -5
New Jersey 10.2% 15 New Jersey 30.7% 3 12
Indiana 10.2% 16 Indiana 27.4% 28 -12
Arizona 10.1% 17 Arizona 28.1% 18 -1
Washington 10.1% 18 Washington 29.6% 6 12
Georgia 10.1% 19 Georgia 28.0% 20 -1
Kentucky 10.1% 20 Kentucky 26.8% 34 -14
Mississippi 10.1% 21 Mississippi 25.9% 45 -24
Kansas 10.0% 22 Kansas 27.2% 30 -8
Maryland 10.0% 23 Maryland 28.4% 15 8
California 10.0% 24 California 29.1% 10 14
Louisiana 10.0% 25 Louisiana 26.0% 44 -19
Iowa 9.9% 26 Iowa 26.3% 41 -15
Arkansas 9.9% 27 Arkansas 26.5% 39 -12
North Carolina 9.8% 28 North Carolina 27.2% 31 -3
Illinois 9.8% 29 Illinois 28.6% 14 15
North Dakota 9.7% 30 North Dakota 26.1% 42 -12
New Mexico 9.7% 31 New Mexico 28.0% 21 10
Montana 9.7% 32 Montana 26.6% 38 -6
Nevada 9.7% 33 Nevada 29.1% 9 24
Massachusetts 9.6% 34 Massachusetts 30.4% 4 30
Pennsylvania 9.5% 35 Pennsylvania 27.2% 29 6
Virginia 9.5% 36 Virginia 28.2% 17 19
Oregon 9.5% 37 Oregon 27.1% 32 5
Missouri 9.4% 38 Missouri 26.6% 37 1
Oklahoma 9.3% 39 Oklahoma 25.9% 46 -7
Colorado 9.3% 40 Colorado 28.7% 13 27
Alabama 9.1% 41 Alabama 25.7% 49 -8
South Carolina 9.1% 42 South Carolina 25.8% 48 -6
South Dakota 9.1% 43 South Dakota 26.0% 43 0
Wyoming 9.1% 44 Wyoming 29.4% 8 36
Florida 9.0% 45 Florida 27.7% 24 21
Texas 8.9% 46 Texas 27.6% 26 20
Tennessee 8.5% 47 Tennessee 25.8% 47 0
Delaware 8.0% 48 Delaware 26.6% 36 12
New Hampshire 7.7% 49 New Hampshire 27.6% 25 24
Alaska 6.4% 50 Alaska 24.2% 50 0
District of Columbia 12.9% - District of Columbia 32.5% - -
< http://www.taxfoundation.org/statelocal03.html >