Dayton vetoes budget-busting MNGOP tax bill

Here’s some good news to end the week: Governor Dayton has vetoed a GOP tax bill that would have increased Minnesota’s budget deficit. The bill would have used fraudulent accounting maneuvers to make the budget appear balanced on paper, a practice which deserved a veto even if the bill itself were good policy.

In his veto message [PDF], the Governor specifically cited the bill’s fiscal irresponsibility:


This bill would not pay for the business property tax levy freeze and other tax breaks. It would reduce the Budget Reserve for the current biennium and add another $145 million to the deficit projected for the next biennium, which is already projected to be $1.1 billion. Freezing the state business levy would reduce state revenues by a total of $2.3 billion between 2013 and 2026.

My biggest concern was that the Governor might relent on the GOP tax bill to get a Vikings stadium passed, so I’m very happy about this report from MPR:


Dayton said he’s willing to negotiate an alternative tax bill with Republicans, as long as it doesn’t add future debt.[Emphasis added]

Great news! Thank you once again, Governor Dayton, for standing for fiscal responsibility and against the GOP’s irresponsible tax giveaways

http://mnpublius.com/

Jeff Rosenberg wrote:

Here’s some good news to end the week: Governor Dayton has vetoed a GOP tax bill that would have increased Minnesota’s budget deficit. The bill would have used fraudulent accounting maneuvers to make the budget appear balanced on paper, a practice which deserved a veto even if the bill itself were good policy.
In his veto message [PDF], the Governor specifically cited the bill’s fiscal irresponsibility:
This bill would not pay for the business property tax levy freeze and other tax breaks. It would reduce the Budget Reserve for the current biennium and add another $145 million to the deficit projected for the next biennium, which is already projected to be $1.1 billion. Freezing the state business levy would reduce state revenues by a total of $2.3 billion between 2013 and 2026.
My biggest concern was that the Governor might relent on the GOP tax bill to get a Vikings stadium passed, so I’m very happy about this report from MPR:
Dayton said he’s willing to negotiate an alternative tax bill with Republicans, as long as it doesn’t add future debt.[Emphasis added]
Great news! Thank you once again, Governor Dayton, for standing for fiscal responsibility and against the GOP’s irresponsible tax giveaways
http://mnpublius.com/

Well, at least the no-nothing Republican legislature finally passed SOMETHING.

Watching the Republicans on TV yesterday, I can see why their party is broke and getting evicted from their headquarters.

Hopefully they won`t be able to run many TV adds this election season.

Snake Dr wrote:

Hopefully they won`t be able to run many TV adds this election season.

Yes....that whole "Free Speech" thing is scary for the Collectivists.

Did you read that your Messiah is "Auctioning off" to the highest bidder.....a "shout out" from the Teleprompter for the high bidder?

I like Demokrats, you are so consistent and values based in your world view.......not ignorant, envious, or greedy.

The "K" stands for "Ku Klux Klan"

Consistent wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes....that whole "Free Speech" thing is scary for the Collectivists.
Did you read that your Messiah is "Auctioning off" to the highest bidder.....a "shout out" from the Teleprompter for the high bidder?
I like Demokrats, you are so consistent and values based in your world view.......not ignorant, envious, or greedy.

Since when are TV adds free speech teabagger??

Snake Dr wrote:

<quoted text>
Since when are TV adds free speech teabagger??

WOW!....and you get a vote!

Since when? Since about 1776, and since Television, Radio, the written word, and Teleprompters were invented.

Snake Dr wrote:

<quoted text>
Since when are TV adds free speech teabagger??

Advertisements are protected speech under the 1st Amendment.

JTY wrote:

<quoted text>
Advertisements are protected speech under the 1st Amendment.

And TV stations have the right to decline any advertisement for any reason, AND there are MANY restrictions on free speech on broadcast television.

Consistent wrote:

<quoted text> WOW!....and you get a vote!
Since when? Since about 1776, and since Television, Radio, the written word, and Teleprompters were invented.

not even close. A TV station does not have to sell any adds.

Shannon wrote:

<quoted text>
... AND there are MANY restrictions on free speech on broadcast television.

LOL. Remember when Bert said the F bomb during a Twins telecast.

What kind of 'restrictions' are you referring to?

Snake Dr wrote:

<quoted text>
not even close. A TV station does not have to sell any adds.

Tell that to a TV station.. LMAO. What keeps a TV station in business in your world?

Aint My America wrote:

<quoted text>
Tell that to a TV station.. LMAO. What keeps a TV station in business in your world?

next time your KKK club wants to buy a TV addlet me know how that works out for you.

Snake Dr wrote:

<quoted text>
next time your KKK club wants to buy a TV addlet me know how that works out for you.

That is not the same thing as political adds. The stations have to air the political adds (except under a narrow set of guidelines).

P.S. Section 315 of the Communications Act.

JTY wrote:

<quoted text>
That is not the same thing as political adds. The stations have to air the political adds (except under a narrow set of guidelines).
P.S. Section 315 of the Communications Act.

you are making my point a TV station does not HAVE to sell any political adds at all. If they do sell adds to one party they have to sell to both but they do not have to sell to anybody. Also if one party has 50 million dollars to buy TV adds and the other party only 20 million they do not have to give them both the same amount of time.

Snake Dr wrote:

<quoted text>
you are making my point a TV station does not HAVE to sell any political adds at all. If they do sell adds to one party they have to sell to both but they do not have to sell to anybody. Also if one party has 50 million dollars to buy TV adds and the other party only 20 million they do not have to give them both the same amount of time.

I would once again like to direct you to Section 315 of the Communications Act.

JTY wrote:

<quoted text>
I would once again like to direct you to Section 315 of the Communications Act.

i read it have you?? it does NOT require any station to sell political adds. IF they do they have to sell to both parties equally. But if one party has alot more money they can buy more adds.

Dayton wants all new jobs to be created in Government or by the Government expenditures.

Net result of that mentality is Socialism. Socialism fails.

Ralph wrote:

Dayton wants all new jobs to be created in Government or by the Government expenditures.
Net result of that mentality is Socialism. Socialism fails.

yes he wants ALL jobs to be created by the government. Every single job. Not one job is allowed to be created by the private sector.