Here we go again... Somehow this post side tracked into the old rural vs urban tax and spend discussion. G2A Policy vs Money Personally I think things are pretty equitable, however others insist that the metro folk are subsidizing the rural folk. Thoughts welcome.
Star Tribune Urban Rural Split
Hometown More Than Dollars
Left MN Dear Rural Friends
MinnPost Metro vs Rural
Map of the Day
MinnPost What Rural MN Got
I wonder what the metro folk would do on weekends if the rural areas closed up shop. Since I am a Plymouth resident who spends a lot of time in rural MN, I am happy they are still open for business and that those state highways are in great shape...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
34 comments:
Food for thought. Explore MN
Now, who are we maintaining the State Highways for? That is a great question.
Do we think the folks in Brainerd need all that highway for local traffic? Or on the North shore?
I wonder what the metro folk would do on weekends if the rural areas closed up shop.
It would take a while for me to notice. But the fact is, I am not the one who has the problem supporting regions of the state where I don't live. The Republicans accused us of neglecting Greater Minnesota, but I was never quite sure what they meant by that. And after reading some of the comments here, I am getting the impression that Greater Minnesota is doing just fine, despite the DFL neglect. This has been something of a revelation to me.
--Hiram
I know I am always puzzled regarding the neglect sentiment. Though I think they would be happier if their taxes were lower.
To pay taxes endlessly without seeing any big changes in your area must be frustrating. I mean we keep giving them bigger tourist roads that they don't really need... Then to see the metro getting stadiums, government buildings, light rail, etc. I could see how they would feel slighted.
Of course, I am pretty sure the rural DFL folks got booted for voting for gay marriage against the clearly stated will of their constituents.
Tourism on the North Shore and Brainerd lakes area is big business, I would presume. Roads are good for business, or so we hear from Republicans. While the roads may have been built and expanded for us (broadly-speaking) city slickers, that's sort of the point.
Perhaps the areas that see a lot of tourism dollars are not the best examples for you to use?
Joel
"Who gives, who gets?
Perception aside, the numbers show the Twin Cities metro counties are the state’s economic engine, generating tax dollars that flow outward to every corner of the state. A June 2014 report by nonpartisan House Research shows the seven metro counties of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott and Washington generate considerably more tax revenue than the other 80 counties combined.
In 2010, the latest year comprehensive numbers were available, those metro counties contained 53.7 percent of the state’s population but accounted for 63.8 percent of all state tax receipts. For spending, the split reversed, with 52.8 percent of state spending goes to the metro, while the remainder went to outstate Minnesota."
I think they are excellent examples of where the state's expenditures helped both groups.
Whereas I am not sure funding light rail, metro bike path bridges, etc is going to help out the rural folks at all.
Though many of them do enjoy coming to the cities for museums, sports, shopping, etc.
Laurie,
Just curious, what do you think enables Cargill, General Mills, Schwans, Pillsbury, Land O'Lakes, Hormel, etc and all of our other food related industries in the metro.
My point is that anyone who tries to draw a line in the sand is kidding themselves.
Just look at all these farm based companies that are thriving in the metro.
Wiki MN Economy
This article helps to explain a little about wealth creation vs renting.
NYT Finance
"Whereas I am not sure funding light rail, metro bike path bridges, etc is going to help out the rural folks at all."
I think the whole metro/rural discussion has gotten disgustingly parochial and quite separated from the feelings of most Minnesotans. My rural relatives actually quite like riding the light rail when they come into town. They understand that metro areas and rural areas have different needs. What they're concerned about is specific rural needs (broadband, for instance) which have gone chronically underfunded by BOTH parties. They would prefer not to be pandered to, but rather responded to.
I am puzzled by this broadband discussion.
My parents near Canby / Ivanhoe have Frontier DSL at their farm, and my friend uses an antenna based system.
How fast is fast enough?
Blandin on Broadband
Your link shows there are still some pretty serious gaps -- and that's counting speeds that are pretty much bottom-of-the-barrel at the low end of what's available in the metro area. What rural Minnesota really needs is an ability to diversify its economy, and broadband access is key to making that happen. Mining, timber, and agriculture are all industries that require less and less labor to produce the same output, so people are either going to have to be able to do other things or they're going to have to leave.
We need a better map then... We really need to know which towns have high speed internet. Since most businesses would be near a town. It isn't a big deal if my friend or parents who are in the middle of farm fields need to wait 30 seconds longer for something to download.
For example.
Frontier Canby
On what basis do you determine that rural folks have lesser internet needs than folks in the metro?
"Needs..." Do we need high speed internet? Should wealthy people be taxed higher so that everyone everywhere has high speed internet?
Now I can understand taxing the rich so poor folk don't stave, but for faster internet for people who choose to live in the sticks? Come now.
I would argue high-speed internet is essentially the rural electrification of today. It's essential to business.
Again... Businesses are usually in towns...
How fast is required to be online in the sticks?
How many tax dollars should be used to attain that speed?
4G LTE is available pretty much everywhere through Verizon, ATT, etc. (except the black out zone where my Parents live...
Why do businesses have to be in towns? What industries are going to be able to grow and expand in rural Minnesota without reliable broadband access?
Legislative proposals to expand broadband were -- overall -- pretty inexpensive. Most were hoping for a $50M investment to expand grants that required matching funds from either a local government or ISP.
4G LTE is not available pretty much everywhere. Your Blandin link includes Mobile access to broadband speeds in its maps.
It's the typical Conservative mindset...why progress? Why innovate? What we have is fine the way it is.
And apparently farms aren't businesses anymore...according to John.
Joel
Progress and innovation is excellent as long as the people paying for it are getting some benefit from the expenditure. Saying that the guy at the end of the Gun Flint Trail needs the same internet speed as the guy living in Bloomington, and making the tax payers cover the costs seems somewhat excessive.
$50,000,000 is relatively inexpensive? I need a bigger household income like yours...
Interesting Link
From MP...
"I think there is an important concept and philosophical difference here. A vote for one's self interest can vary greatly.
If one believes that letting the State and Federal government decide how one's money is best spent, how the land in their community is to be used, what is socially acceptable behavior in your neighborhood, who deserves charity payments from your hard work, etc, then Paul is correct that a vote for DFL politicians is in one's self interest. They definitely do believe in government intervention and that they know better than you.
If one wants Local communities and oneself to determine how one's money is best spent, how the land in their community is to be used, what is socially acceptable behavior in your neighborhood, who deserves charity payments from your hard work, etc, then a vote for DFL politicians is probably not in one's self interest..
" G2A
From Mp:
"That is a fine point I will need to give some thought to:
one's best interest does not equal one's self interest...
Does this mean that someone else is more capable of determining what is in one's best interest than the individual (ie self) or those that live closest to them?
Who is best suited to define and prioritize maintained roads, decent public schools, the correct healthcare system, safe neighborhoods, etc, and self govern? People from the community, people from 300 miles away, or people from 1500 miles away?
I always find it interesting when Democrats say they know what is in the best Interest of others..." G2A
"Who is best suited to define and prioritize maintained roads, decent public schools, the correct healthcare system, safe neighborhoods, etc, and self govern? People from the community, people from 300 miles away, or people from 1500 miles away?"
That's a very hard question to answer. But perhaps fortunately, or perhaps not, that's not a question we reach much in our political system. Best suited or not, those who get to prioritize and define stuff are the people who have the political, economic and financial, power to do so.
--Hiram
On that we can agree...
From MP Link
"RB has a good point, I need to clarify my view. America is very different from smaller countries and for good reason. In many countries a slight majority of citizens in the country can overwhelm the slight minority, which can cause instability and big problems. (ie Iraq) In the USA, the cities, counties and states have powers that allow them to self govern. This allows one region/ group of people to spend, tax, regulate, enforce, etc differently within certain bounds.
From my view, most Conservatives would like to keep the power closer to the citizen. Where as the Democrats envision "ideal policies" that shall be adopted at the State, or preferably Federal level. Thus forcing the country to adopt and conform with their views.
So there are 2 very different democracies... The National Democracy where everyone must conform across the country, and Republic Democracy where citizens in Wyoming can adopt different taxes, spending, laws, etc than California." G2A
From my view, most Conservatives would like to keep the power closer to the citizen.
Like a lot of things with conservatives, this may be something they want, but it isn't something that they are willing to make happen. We saw this in the recent session where greater Minnesota legislators wanted better roads for their constituents but weren't willing to exercise the power needed to make that happen. The fact is, this emphasis on localism is something conservatives pay lip service to, but is not a principle they adhere to in any broad or consistent way.
Please explain further.
Too me anything that reduces Federal and State taxes and programs will free up communities to do as they wish, not as the state or feds wish. And the GOP fights for this everyday.
The GOP fought the silly state wide anti-bullying law last year, because they trust local school boards and administrators to do what it right. Where as the DFL demand statewide compliance to their views.
The GOP wants to leave gay marriage, voter laws, human services, education, welfare, etc, etc, etc to the states whereas the Democrats demand federal tax collections and commonality.
Now, I agree that the GOP tries to drive a few thing at the national level (ie abortion law, DOMA, etc) But no where near as often as the Democrats.
MP comment:
""Good ideas are good and bad ideas are bad regardless of the distance they travel."
So who should be the final arbiter of good or bad?
Daily we argue good / bad policy to no resolution. Socialism vs Pure Capitalism and everywhere in between. Global warming, causes, actions, etc. Personal freedoms of various people.
I am not saying to get rid of State and Federal controls and oversight, but I think we should be aware that as taxes, controls, etc go up the chain, local cash and freedom is reduced. Is that really your goal? To force other Americans to your view of good against their will.
" G2A
Too me anything that reduces Federal and State taxes and programs will free up communities to do as they wish, not as the state or feds wish
What about communities that don't pay federal and state taxes or pay them at a low rate? Or individuals for that matter. And what about this idea of localism? How local are the plutocrats who have such tremendous impact on our politics? Have Alida Messinger or the Koch Brothers ever knocked on your door asking for your political support? Have they ever conducted a town hall meeting in your community?
--Hiram
No, neither have they passed anti-bullying laws that over ride local school boards, administrators, teachers, etc. And they have not passed welfare laws that require payment to people who lack ambition to learn and work. Nor have they passed laws to limit where farmers can and can not farm.
It is an interesting topic.
Why do you think your local school board member is more local than your local legislator. My state senator conducts weekly public meetings at a local restaurant. You can meet with her easily by appointment either here or at the state capitol at least when the building is open. Her number is in the book for those of you who still have phone books.
Ever tried to call up the Koch brothers?
--Hiram
I think to the people of Greater MN, your local legislator is just as distant as the Koch Brothers... And please remember that the Koch Brothers pass no laws that bind US citizens to do anything.
Post a Comment