Category: Economy

by Dave Mindeman

Deficits. The Tea Party wants them fixed and yet, there is a part of the budget that seems to be off limits -- at least to the part of the Tea Party that is loyal to the GOP.

The Defense budget.

Sarah Palin is the person who bridges the divide on this question. Recently she criticized Defense Secretary Robert Gates for even talking about small defense cuts.

"Secretary Gates recently spoke about the future of the U.S. Navy. He said we have to 'ask whether the nation can really afford a Navy that relies on $3 [billion] to $6 billion destroyers, $7 billion submarines, and $11 billion carriers.' He went on to ask, 'Do we really need . . . more strike groups for another 30 years when no other country has more than one?' " Palin said. "Well, my answer is pretty simple: Yes, we can, and, yes, we do, because we must."

The Pentagon (just the Pentagon) has a budget of around $700 billion. That's like having a TARP payment each and every year. How can we possibly solve the budget deficit without discussing Defense reductions? I mean seriously, how can we?

How many $11 billion carriers does Iran have? North Korea? or even China? How many submarines do we need? How many missile silos....how many nuclear warheads?

Who is really examining what we need for today's defense, rather than stockpiling weapons for 20th century fighting?

What say you Tea Partiers? How dedicated to deficit reduction are you?

Category: Tom Emmer

by Dave Mindeman

There is an old adage in politics that if you have to be explaining what you say, then you're losing.

Well, Emmer is doing a lot of 'splaining these days. His position on the tip credit (he's for it) has generated some backlash. So, he's explaining:

Emmer: When a reporter asked if I supported the concept of a tip credit, I answered yes. I want the wait staff at a restaurant to be successful and make as much as they can, and a recent study published in Applied Economics Letters shows that tip credits have essentially no negative impact on wages for tipped employees. So contrary to what some people are saying, I have no interest in “cutting wages.”

"Essentially". No negative impact, "essentially". What it would do is take away the minimum wage base currently in state law and allow an employer to duck below it and allow customers to make up the difference. A service worker would still be guaranteed a minimum wage -- but only because if tips didn't reach that minimum wage threshold, then the server's employer would make up the difference.

The business owner potentially gains some wage reduction. The employee loses the tip money excess that normally would be above the server's minimum wage but that now is required to be part of the base of his or her minimum wage.

Since this is a decidedly pro-business stance, Emmer decided to 'splain why this is a good thing for everybody.....

Emmer: Tip credits can impact jobs, and in a good way. Tip credits can help employers hire more people, or pay other employees higher wages. In today’s economy, we have to do everything we can to grow jobs, including hospitality jobs.

A good way. Hmmm. So what he seems to be saying is that because a worker gets some of his tips moved into his regular hourly wage that his employer can get him some help? And that guy in the kitchen.... maybe some of the money the server would have been getting can get him a raise?

Yes, let's grow jobs. Let's protect the taxes of those million dollar CEO's and take those low end wages and split them into clone like jobs. Just like an amoeba.... divide the wages.... use the tip credit to produce more low paying jobs that have no benefits and that you can't live on or have a family.

Thanks, Mr. Emmer, for 'splaining it to us.

Category: Education

by Dave Mindeman

This fall, we may see a host of school districts asking for levy increases. Lakeville is going to be no exception.

The Lakeville school board went so far as to hire a pollster (our recent newsmaker, Decison Resources, by the way) to see what the voters of the Lakeville District might tolerate.

The response?

...what Dr. Bill Morris, of Decision Resources Ltd., told the board may be good news for the district. While tax tolerance is pretty low, Morris said education seems to be an exception.

“The reason people are making an exception is because of state legislative action,” Morris said. “Across the metro, people seem to think the state has balanced (the) budget over last biennium on the back of education.”

He said nearly 70 percent of respondents to his company’s surveys agree.

“A window has opened up. It’s breathtaking,” he said.

But are they willing to shoulder that burden themselves? Will they pass a levy increase? That is the vexing question that Lakeville schools will have to figure out. There is no question they have a need -- a huge shortfall is in the offing. The situation looks like this:

In March, the board looked at the tax impacts the community would face under three different scenarios: (1)a renewal of the existing levy, which wouldn’t result in any tax increase; (2) the renewal and a new $400 per pupil levy that would generate an additional $5.25 million annually and add $236 to the property tax bill of a $250,000 property; or (3) a less likely option that would call for a renewal and a new levy for $681 per pupil – the maximum the district could ask for under state statute – that would generate just under $9 million annually and cost a $250,000 property $397 a year.

Well, if I were the Lakeville school board, I would kiss option 3 goodbye. I doubt that has a chance....even though going with the lesser scenarios will still leave a budget deficit that will cause some painful budget cuts.

What makes this all even more painful is that Lakeville still has not taken on a much needed technology upgrade. They are still using very old computers. The board wants to support one more issue:

There’s also talk by the board of asking a third question, calling for a new capital levy to fund technology over a 10-year span. With that new levy, Superintendent Gary Amoroso said it could be possible to include technology personnel salaries, as well as actual computer hardware, in the fund, thereby reducing general fund expenditures to a degree.

The survey said that people do get the need for new technology for students, but can the property tax owners withstand all of it?

This is typical of school districts across the state. They all are putting school boards on the spot. Choosing adequate over superior. Choosing getting by over funding completely.

What exactly are we telling our kids? Are we saying that we can't afford to equip them for their future?

I don't believe that we want to say that, yet when we have a governor making unilateral decisions on what the state will contribute, then I guess it forces local districts into the painful and inadequate.

Not fair and not right.