Mullery's Questionnaire
Sunday, August 10, 2008 -North
Minneapolis-Blog
The sitting State
Representative in North Minneapolis, Joe Mullery,
recently sent out a set of questions to everyone in the
district. Here's a set of responses to his questions
that detail my thoughts on the issue.
1. Should the state pay for a portion of a new Vikings stadium?
The answer to this question is of course no. However, bear in mind that the “state” pays for nothing. In order for the state to pay, provide or fund anything, it must first take money from individuals to whom it belongs in an effort to do so. So long as that which the state pays, funds or provides equally benefits all of the individuals for whom the service is meant to provide for, such an act by government is better justified. But, because not all of those paying for a Twins stadium or Vikings stadium are sports fans, it is then virtually impossible to make a sound or logical argument that said individuals are beneficiaries of such an endeavor. What is more, in so much as it is unjust that the state would pay for a portion of a new Vikings stadium; it too is equally unjust that the state would provide funding for any one of a myriad of theatres, or any other such subsidy which benefits one citizen at the expense of another whatever its intention. If I rob a bank but give all of the money to an orphanage, I am a thief. That government ought to have a legal monopoly by the same premise does not the practice make just.
2. Should income taxes on the top one percent by increased so they pay at least 12 percent of their income in state and local taxes like the rest of us?
The purpose of getting ahead in life is predicated on the notion that as your income rises, that which you spend towards necessities (i.e., food, clothing, housing, healthcare, etc.) falls. When one purchases a loaf of bread, an automobile, etc. the cost of said item is not determined based upon the purchaser’s income. The cost of a loaf of bread or a brand new Mercedes is the same for an individual who makes $40,000 a year as it is for an individual who makes $400,000 a year. Why is it the cost of government ought to be any different? It is for no other reason than the fact that government has gotten itself into the business of charity and that individuals who adopt this view want to benefit for something without having to incur a cost. But, be it known, there is nothing “charitable” about spending someone else’s money. Again, if I rob a bank but then give that money to an orphanage or purchase clothing for homeless persons, despite my good intentions I am a thief. And yet, government does this very thing every single day. Whether or not to give charitably is a decision left to the individual. Government’s only role with respect to charitable giving is to protect the property (i.e., wealth) of said individual from theft so that they may give charitably if they so choose.
What is more, those in government and those whom adopt and advocate the notion that “the wealthy should pay their fair share” ignore a fundamental economic truth. While it is indeed true that the state’s top earners do pay a lower percentage or their income in taxes, this illogical argument dismisses the fact that in real dollars, 9% on $350,000 in annual income is much more than is 12% on say $40,000. As such, they do in fact pay more.
It is for this very reason that when it comes to the real burden of state taxation, the top one percent of the state’s earners, those whose incomes exceed $354,758 carry 24 percent of the state’s total tax burden (this according the MN Department of Revenue’s Tax Incidence Study of 2004 data). The study goes on to find, that after crediting the $33.5 billion afforded to the state’s bottom 20 percent of earners through refunds, their income tax contribution amounts to zero. Moreover, the same study finds that the top 10 percent, those raking in an apparently exorbitant $105,450 (a figure which might include a married couple filing jointly), contributed $3.2 billion of the state’s total $5.8 billion income tax collection (forget the calculator it’s 55%) in 2004.
The argument that the “wealthy” should pay more or should pay their “fair” share is an argument without any honest credibility. Dare we inquire if it is fair that individuals or couples earning over $105,000 a year should shoulder 55% of the state’s tax burden? Or, ought we inquire if it is fair that the “uber rich”, those earning $355,000 a year, should shoulder 24% of the state’s tax burden?
When challenged with these facts, proponents who advocate further raising taxes on the “rich”, change the course of the argument by then asserting that the wealthy should pay more because they use more in government services. As they make this claim, it is then worth noting that they have first admitted that the well to do are in fact paying more but secondly, they again ignore factual evidence from a number of studies which have found that higher income earners actually receive less in government services.
A separate special report released by the nonpartisan tax research group the Tax Foundation, which coincided with the Minnesota Department of Revenue’s Tax Incidence Study, fully supported the findings of the Minnesota tax incidence’s statistics, in finding that “America’s lowest-earning one-fifth of households received roughly $8.21 in government spending for each dollar of taxes paid in 2004. Households with middle-incomes received $1.30 per tax dollar (nearly breaking even), while America’s highest-earning households received a mere $.41 in government spending to their tax dollar.” The report further found that “government spending targeted at the lowest-earning 60% of U.S. households is larger than what they paid in federal, state, and local taxes.” Case in point, the wealthy are subsidizing the poor and, as the report indicates, to an estimated tune of between $1.03 and $1.53 trillion dollars which was redistributed from the two highest income quintiles to the three lowest.
As Conservatives, we are not without compassion. Our greatest hope is that each and every individual can and will help their fellow man at a point when they are able to do so for the sake of a more prosperous environment. However, we hold that, as part of living in a free society, such aid and comfort that any individual provides should not be done through force. At present, government has an exclusive monopoly on this force thereby making individuals do something they otherwise may or may not do.
3. Should the state assure that families making $80,000 (for a family of four) or less pay nor more than six percent of their income on health care?
In short, No. It is not the role, duty, or obligation of the state to dictate what an individual wishes to spend on their healthcare or any other such needs. As the state is wont to do, it has already has gone to great lengths to set up a myriad of programs intended to aid citizens; programs which have led to significant red tape, bureaucracy, and overall mismanagement. More importantly, it is worth inquiring as to precisely how the state expects to accomplish this feat. Surely, if a family’s healthcare needs exceed the six percent threshold, the difference will need to be met. One might conclude that this would be done in one of two ways. First, as is currently the case with respect to a number of Medicare payments, reimbursement to the provider would not be paid in full. This practice of not reimbursing the provider for the total market cost of services rendered, instead reimbursing for a cost the government deems appropriate, will lead to a decline in providers willing to provide these services. Secondly, as goes back to our previous response, one might also conclude by Mr. Mullery’s pursuit to keep said families health care costs from exceeding the six percent mandate, any amount over that would be paid for, not by the state as Mr. Mullery contends but rather, by the Minnesota taxpayer. Again, we do not hold it the role, duty, or obligation of the state to levy taxes upon any Minnesotan for the purpose of transferring that money to another individual that Mr. Mullery or the state deems in need of. This transfer of wealth from those who have it to those who need it through state authority is nothing short of Marxism: “From each according his ability to each according to his need.”
4. Should a police or probation officer have the right to pat someone down for a gun if they know the person served time in prison for a violent drug offense involving a gun, and is currently sentenced to supervised release for the purpose of rehabilitation, yet is seen in an area where drug dealers and gangs hang out?
First and foremost, it is worth pointing out here that Mr. Mullery’s opposition to the inalienable right to Life and the subsequent right to “keep and bear arms” is well known. This a Representative who, as chair of the Pubic Safety and Civil Justice Committee, is against expansion of the Castle Doctrine having held it hostage in Committee. This action was a direct trampling upon the right of a person to use deadly force against a violent attacker in and outside of his or her home and vehicle and remove the duty to retreat when outside of the home.
With respect to the question herein, it is necessary before making an assessment on the matter to consider what the provisions of the “supervised release” were. If under the provisions of the release the individual is precluded from being in an area “where drug dealers and gangs hang out” then they have clearly violated the terms of their release. As such, a pat down would likely be justified. However, provided that the terms of the release do not preclude the offender from being in such an area, merely being seen in such an area isn’t a criminal act. For an officer to stop an individual based on that premise and then pat that individual down is nothing short of guilt by mere association. Such an act flies in the face of innocent until proven guilty.
1. Should the state pay for a portion of a new Vikings stadium?
The answer to this question is of course no. However, bear in mind that the “state” pays for nothing. In order for the state to pay, provide or fund anything, it must first take money from individuals to whom it belongs in an effort to do so. So long as that which the state pays, funds or provides equally benefits all of the individuals for whom the service is meant to provide for, such an act by government is better justified. But, because not all of those paying for a Twins stadium or Vikings stadium are sports fans, it is then virtually impossible to make a sound or logical argument that said individuals are beneficiaries of such an endeavor. What is more, in so much as it is unjust that the state would pay for a portion of a new Vikings stadium; it too is equally unjust that the state would provide funding for any one of a myriad of theatres, or any other such subsidy which benefits one citizen at the expense of another whatever its intention. If I rob a bank but give all of the money to an orphanage, I am a thief. That government ought to have a legal monopoly by the same premise does not the practice make just.
2. Should income taxes on the top one percent by increased so they pay at least 12 percent of their income in state and local taxes like the rest of us?
The purpose of getting ahead in life is predicated on the notion that as your income rises, that which you spend towards necessities (i.e., food, clothing, housing, healthcare, etc.) falls. When one purchases a loaf of bread, an automobile, etc. the cost of said item is not determined based upon the purchaser’s income. The cost of a loaf of bread or a brand new Mercedes is the same for an individual who makes $40,000 a year as it is for an individual who makes $400,000 a year. Why is it the cost of government ought to be any different? It is for no other reason than the fact that government has gotten itself into the business of charity and that individuals who adopt this view want to benefit for something without having to incur a cost. But, be it known, there is nothing “charitable” about spending someone else’s money. Again, if I rob a bank but then give that money to an orphanage or purchase clothing for homeless persons, despite my good intentions I am a thief. And yet, government does this very thing every single day. Whether or not to give charitably is a decision left to the individual. Government’s only role with respect to charitable giving is to protect the property (i.e., wealth) of said individual from theft so that they may give charitably if they so choose.
What is more, those in government and those whom adopt and advocate the notion that “the wealthy should pay their fair share” ignore a fundamental economic truth. While it is indeed true that the state’s top earners do pay a lower percentage or their income in taxes, this illogical argument dismisses the fact that in real dollars, 9% on $350,000 in annual income is much more than is 12% on say $40,000. As such, they do in fact pay more.
It is for this very reason that when it comes to the real burden of state taxation, the top one percent of the state’s earners, those whose incomes exceed $354,758 carry 24 percent of the state’s total tax burden (this according the MN Department of Revenue’s Tax Incidence Study of 2004 data). The study goes on to find, that after crediting the $33.5 billion afforded to the state’s bottom 20 percent of earners through refunds, their income tax contribution amounts to zero. Moreover, the same study finds that the top 10 percent, those raking in an apparently exorbitant $105,450 (a figure which might include a married couple filing jointly), contributed $3.2 billion of the state’s total $5.8 billion income tax collection (forget the calculator it’s 55%) in 2004.
The argument that the “wealthy” should pay more or should pay their “fair” share is an argument without any honest credibility. Dare we inquire if it is fair that individuals or couples earning over $105,000 a year should shoulder 55% of the state’s tax burden? Or, ought we inquire if it is fair that the “uber rich”, those earning $355,000 a year, should shoulder 24% of the state’s tax burden?
When challenged with these facts, proponents who advocate further raising taxes on the “rich”, change the course of the argument by then asserting that the wealthy should pay more because they use more in government services. As they make this claim, it is then worth noting that they have first admitted that the well to do are in fact paying more but secondly, they again ignore factual evidence from a number of studies which have found that higher income earners actually receive less in government services.
A separate special report released by the nonpartisan tax research group the Tax Foundation, which coincided with the Minnesota Department of Revenue’s Tax Incidence Study, fully supported the findings of the Minnesota tax incidence’s statistics, in finding that “America’s lowest-earning one-fifth of households received roughly $8.21 in government spending for each dollar of taxes paid in 2004. Households with middle-incomes received $1.30 per tax dollar (nearly breaking even), while America’s highest-earning households received a mere $.41 in government spending to their tax dollar.” The report further found that “government spending targeted at the lowest-earning 60% of U.S. households is larger than what they paid in federal, state, and local taxes.” Case in point, the wealthy are subsidizing the poor and, as the report indicates, to an estimated tune of between $1.03 and $1.53 trillion dollars which was redistributed from the two highest income quintiles to the three lowest.
As Conservatives, we are not without compassion. Our greatest hope is that each and every individual can and will help their fellow man at a point when they are able to do so for the sake of a more prosperous environment. However, we hold that, as part of living in a free society, such aid and comfort that any individual provides should not be done through force. At present, government has an exclusive monopoly on this force thereby making individuals do something they otherwise may or may not do.
3. Should the state assure that families making $80,000 (for a family of four) or less pay nor more than six percent of their income on health care?
In short, No. It is not the role, duty, or obligation of the state to dictate what an individual wishes to spend on their healthcare or any other such needs. As the state is wont to do, it has already has gone to great lengths to set up a myriad of programs intended to aid citizens; programs which have led to significant red tape, bureaucracy, and overall mismanagement. More importantly, it is worth inquiring as to precisely how the state expects to accomplish this feat. Surely, if a family’s healthcare needs exceed the six percent threshold, the difference will need to be met. One might conclude that this would be done in one of two ways. First, as is currently the case with respect to a number of Medicare payments, reimbursement to the provider would not be paid in full. This practice of not reimbursing the provider for the total market cost of services rendered, instead reimbursing for a cost the government deems appropriate, will lead to a decline in providers willing to provide these services. Secondly, as goes back to our previous response, one might also conclude by Mr. Mullery’s pursuit to keep said families health care costs from exceeding the six percent mandate, any amount over that would be paid for, not by the state as Mr. Mullery contends but rather, by the Minnesota taxpayer. Again, we do not hold it the role, duty, or obligation of the state to levy taxes upon any Minnesotan for the purpose of transferring that money to another individual that Mr. Mullery or the state deems in need of. This transfer of wealth from those who have it to those who need it through state authority is nothing short of Marxism: “From each according his ability to each according to his need.”
4. Should a police or probation officer have the right to pat someone down for a gun if they know the person served time in prison for a violent drug offense involving a gun, and is currently sentenced to supervised release for the purpose of rehabilitation, yet is seen in an area where drug dealers and gangs hang out?
First and foremost, it is worth pointing out here that Mr. Mullery’s opposition to the inalienable right to Life and the subsequent right to “keep and bear arms” is well known. This a Representative who, as chair of the Pubic Safety and Civil Justice Committee, is against expansion of the Castle Doctrine having held it hostage in Committee. This action was a direct trampling upon the right of a person to use deadly force against a violent attacker in and outside of his or her home and vehicle and remove the duty to retreat when outside of the home.
With respect to the question herein, it is necessary before making an assessment on the matter to consider what the provisions of the “supervised release” were. If under the provisions of the release the individual is precluded from being in an area “where drug dealers and gangs hang out” then they have clearly violated the terms of their release. As such, a pat down would likely be justified. However, provided that the terms of the release do not preclude the offender from being in such an area, merely being seen in such an area isn’t a criminal act. For an officer to stop an individual based on that premise and then pat that individual down is nothing short of guilt by mere association. Such an act flies in the face of innocent until proven guilty.
Ron Paul Endorsement
Tuesday, July 08, 2008 -Endorsements-Blog
Just in time for the
celebratory weekend of the nation's Independence, Grant
Cermak, Candidate for State Representative in North
Minneapolis, receives word from the Ron Paul campaign
that he has been endorsed.
Ron Paul is the U.S. House of Representatives member representing Texas' 14th District and recently served as a 2008 Republican Candidate for President. His non-interventionist foreign policy and subsequent opposition to the war in Iraq, caused a stir amongst the Republican party establishment. Though the former presidential candidate has recently suspended his bid for the White House, the Constitutional principles and libertarian ideology he espoused spawned a growing movement with like-minded individuals across the nation. This grassroots movement launched the former presidential hopeful to great heights as a political fundraising machine; having surpassed all other Republican contenders with $19.9 million raised in the 4th quarter of 2007. However, with the Paul campaign suspending its presidential aspirations, two fundamental questions remain: where does the energy from the movement's members go and where will Paul's leftover campaign warchest be spent?
Ron Paul's reformulated campaign, known as the "Campaign for Liberty", will carry out its mission through a number of activities including, promoting candidates for public office who share a commitment to freedom and gaining a foothold in the political sphere by expanding the campaign's precinct leader program. As a vocal Ron Paul supporter who fully embraces the Constitutional principles of freedom and liberty, I believe the timing of the endorsement could not have been more fitting or uplifting.
Receiving the endorsement from a politician of Ron Paul's stature is something for which I am truly grateful. Here's a man so politically principled that he has never voted to raise taxes, never voted for an unbalanced budget, never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership, and never voted to raise congressional pay.
There's an unfortunate disconnect amongst some voters that our campaign is working diligently to overcome. When people hear that yoau are a Republican, often they draw conclusions with respect to your positions on public policy or ideology. Having the endorsement from Ron Paul will help us immensely in this regard. He voted against the Patriot Act and he voted against the Iraq war. If it isn't constitutional you'll never see Ron Paul voting in favor of it. Politically, I can hardly think of anything more admirable.
Described as conservative, Constitutionalist, and libertarian, Paul's nickname of "Dr. No" is reflective of his medical background as an Ob/Gyn, having served as a U.S. Air Force flight surgeon outside the Vietnam War zone, coupled with his insistence of not voting for legislation that isn't expressly authorized by the Constitution. Paul also has been a strong vocal opponent of the inflationary measures under the current administration which have led to the erosion of the U.S. dollar and its purchasing power. While Paul asserts himself as "strongly pro-life", "an unshakeable foe of abortion", as a fierce proponent of federalism, he believes regulation or a ban on medical decisions about maternal or fetal health is "best handled at the state level".
Ron Paul is the author of the New York Times bestseller The Revolution: A Manifesto, outlining his 2008 presidential run.
Ron Paul is the U.S. House of Representatives member representing Texas' 14th District and recently served as a 2008 Republican Candidate for President. His non-interventionist foreign policy and subsequent opposition to the war in Iraq, caused a stir amongst the Republican party establishment. Though the former presidential candidate has recently suspended his bid for the White House, the Constitutional principles and libertarian ideology he espoused spawned a growing movement with like-minded individuals across the nation. This grassroots movement launched the former presidential hopeful to great heights as a political fundraising machine; having surpassed all other Republican contenders with $19.9 million raised in the 4th quarter of 2007. However, with the Paul campaign suspending its presidential aspirations, two fundamental questions remain: where does the energy from the movement's members go and where will Paul's leftover campaign warchest be spent?
Ron Paul's reformulated campaign, known as the "Campaign for Liberty", will carry out its mission through a number of activities including, promoting candidates for public office who share a commitment to freedom and gaining a foothold in the political sphere by expanding the campaign's precinct leader program. As a vocal Ron Paul supporter who fully embraces the Constitutional principles of freedom and liberty, I believe the timing of the endorsement could not have been more fitting or uplifting.
Receiving the endorsement from a politician of Ron Paul's stature is something for which I am truly grateful. Here's a man so politically principled that he has never voted to raise taxes, never voted for an unbalanced budget, never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership, and never voted to raise congressional pay.
There's an unfortunate disconnect amongst some voters that our campaign is working diligently to overcome. When people hear that yoau are a Republican, often they draw conclusions with respect to your positions on public policy or ideology. Having the endorsement from Ron Paul will help us immensely in this regard. He voted against the Patriot Act and he voted against the Iraq war. If it isn't constitutional you'll never see Ron Paul voting in favor of it. Politically, I can hardly think of anything more admirable.
Described as conservative, Constitutionalist, and libertarian, Paul's nickname of "Dr. No" is reflective of his medical background as an Ob/Gyn, having served as a U.S. Air Force flight surgeon outside the Vietnam War zone, coupled with his insistence of not voting for legislation that isn't expressly authorized by the Constitution. Paul also has been a strong vocal opponent of the inflationary measures under the current administration which have led to the erosion of the U.S. dollar and its purchasing power. While Paul asserts himself as "strongly pro-life", "an unshakeable foe of abortion", as a fierce proponent of federalism, he believes regulation or a ban on medical decisions about maternal or fetal health is "best handled at the state level".
Ron Paul is the author of the New York Times bestseller The Revolution: A Manifesto, outlining his 2008 presidential run.
Vote Yes? ... No!
Election Day November 4,
2008 , the Minneapolis Public School District will put
forth a levy referendum on the ballot asking area
voters for more money
Minneapolis , MN, November 4 - The Minneapolis Board of Education, at its May 13 regular meeting, approved a $60 million referendum to be placed on the Election Day ballot in November. On Nov. 4, 2008 , voters will have the opportunity to vote on the referendum, aimed at providing funding for improving literacy, preparing students for algebra in eighth grade, providing up-to-date technology and textbooks and managing class size.
Education Minnesota and their union affiliates, most notably through the Strong Schools Strong City campaign whose committee members are largely comprised of education employees, are already ramping up a huge “Vote Yes” campaign appealing for the need of additional funding from area voters. But, the looming question remains, with an increasing decline in enrollment, will voters bite?
Area voters in this community deserve answers from the school district. This request runs roughshod considering the district’s current budget is up over $60 million from their previous 2006-2007 budget despite losing over 3,000 enrollees for current school year. The district has seen a 25.6% decline in enrollment over the past ten and yet their budget has continually gone up. Even the district’s own school board member Tom Madden concluded enrollment would be around 29,500 total enrollees in a mere four years. I’m hopeful that this constant decline in enrollment coupled with nearly a dozen area school closings since 2005, which were then put up for sale at a significant loss, is going to give voters great pause for concern with respect to their pocketbooks. The board members put forth a plan to the parents when they closed these schools; schools whose operating costs the district no longer has to contend with. They were certain their plan would work. And now, merely a year after their plan, they’re coming to voters for more money at a time when families are paying higher food and fuel costs.
With a total enrollment of 37,865 for the 2006-2007 school year, the Minneapolis School District’s 2006-2007 $637 million budget broke down to $16,821 per student. But, while the current budget is up $60 million, total enrollment is down by more than three-thousand students bringing the figure to over $20,000 per student. Moreover, though the school district’s own budget document reports, “Enrollment continues to decline with an anticipated decrease of 1600 students”, it is unclear if the additional decline in enrollment is in addition to what this year’s total enrollment reflects leaving the cost to be potentially higher.
With the “Vote Yes” campaign certain to cite a shortage in state funding for area schools, and its inability to keep pace with inflation, as the argument for putting forth the November levy referendum, Department of Finance figures, for the current biennium, show state funding for K-12 up 3.1% over the previous biennium. Their October 2007 K-12 education report further cites the percentage would have been higher were it not for K-12 accounting shift buy backs in FY 2006-2007 accounting for a total of $1.1 billion between November 2004 and February 2006. The buybacks are a direct result of inflated spending in those years. However, despite the buy backs, additional statistics from the findings reported that, “From 1991 to 2009, district general fund revenue per student (as measured by average daily membership or ADM ) is expected to grow from $4,767 to $9,651 - an increase of 102.4% (28.2% after accounting for inflation).”
Back in August of 2007, the Northside Initiative’s Director Ben Perry, said of the school closing initiative, “In June of 2008, the results will be seen. This will succeed.” The Board of Education’s chairperson Pam Costain, echoed Perry’s optimism by declaring, “I have great confidence that this plan will work. It will work because we have strong leadership in the schools.”
The only “results” the citizens of North Minneapolis are seeing from this “strong leadership in the schools” comes down as a request for $60 million in addition funds. That sounds, to me, like more of a plea than it does leadership.
I have a different idea about strong leadership. Strong leadership means accountability for results and responsibility for actions. Voters have shouldered the burden of good intentions long enough. What the voters deserve are results and I’m committed to holding the district’s leadership accountable when their intended results go unmet.
Minneapolis , MN, November 4 - The Minneapolis Board of Education, at its May 13 regular meeting, approved a $60 million referendum to be placed on the Election Day ballot in November. On Nov. 4, 2008 , voters will have the opportunity to vote on the referendum, aimed at providing funding for improving literacy, preparing students for algebra in eighth grade, providing up-to-date technology and textbooks and managing class size.
Education Minnesota and their union affiliates, most notably through the Strong Schools Strong City campaign whose committee members are largely comprised of education employees, are already ramping up a huge “Vote Yes” campaign appealing for the need of additional funding from area voters. But, the looming question remains, with an increasing decline in enrollment, will voters bite?
Area voters in this community deserve answers from the school district. This request runs roughshod considering the district’s current budget is up over $60 million from their previous 2006-2007 budget despite losing over 3,000 enrollees for current school year. The district has seen a 25.6% decline in enrollment over the past ten and yet their budget has continually gone up. Even the district’s own school board member Tom Madden concluded enrollment would be around 29,500 total enrollees in a mere four years. I’m hopeful that this constant decline in enrollment coupled with nearly a dozen area school closings since 2005, which were then put up for sale at a significant loss, is going to give voters great pause for concern with respect to their pocketbooks. The board members put forth a plan to the parents when they closed these schools; schools whose operating costs the district no longer has to contend with. They were certain their plan would work. And now, merely a year after their plan, they’re coming to voters for more money at a time when families are paying higher food and fuel costs.
With a total enrollment of 37,865 for the 2006-2007 school year, the Minneapolis School District’s 2006-2007 $637 million budget broke down to $16,821 per student. But, while the current budget is up $60 million, total enrollment is down by more than three-thousand students bringing the figure to over $20,000 per student. Moreover, though the school district’s own budget document reports, “Enrollment continues to decline with an anticipated decrease of 1600 students”, it is unclear if the additional decline in enrollment is in addition to what this year’s total enrollment reflects leaving the cost to be potentially higher.
With the “Vote Yes” campaign certain to cite a shortage in state funding for area schools, and its inability to keep pace with inflation, as the argument for putting forth the November levy referendum, Department of Finance figures, for the current biennium, show state funding for K-12 up 3.1% over the previous biennium. Their October 2007 K-12 education report further cites the percentage would have been higher were it not for K-12 accounting shift buy backs in FY 2006-2007 accounting for a total of $1.1 billion between November 2004 and February 2006. The buybacks are a direct result of inflated spending in those years. However, despite the buy backs, additional statistics from the findings reported that, “From 1991 to 2009, district general fund revenue per student (as measured by average daily membership or ADM ) is expected to grow from $4,767 to $9,651 - an increase of 102.4% (28.2% after accounting for inflation).”
Back in August of 2007, the Northside Initiative’s Director Ben Perry, said of the school closing initiative, “In June of 2008, the results will be seen. This will succeed.” The Board of Education’s chairperson Pam Costain, echoed Perry’s optimism by declaring, “I have great confidence that this plan will work. It will work because we have strong leadership in the schools.”
The only “results” the citizens of North Minneapolis are seeing from this “strong leadership in the schools” comes down as a request for $60 million in addition funds. That sounds, to me, like more of a plea than it does leadership.
I have a different idea about strong leadership. Strong leadership means accountability for results and responsibility for actions. Voters have shouldered the burden of good intentions long enough. What the voters deserve are results and I’m committed to holding the district’s leadership accountable when their intended results go unmet.
Second Amendment
Friday, June 27, 2008 -Constitution-Blog
In light of unfortunate
events in Minneapolis and with the United States
Supreme Court soon to weigh in on the Second Amendment;
that being "the right of the people to keep and bear
arms", I think it vital that we as Minnesotans not only
fight to preserve this right but we too are reminded
that there exists no such thing as collective rights
(something opponents of the Second Amendment argue
against). It is only the individual who has rights.
Because, let us be reminded that any collective or
group, be it large or small, is comprised of nothing
more than individuals; each and every one having their
rights as such. Any collective right not extending to
each and every individual only leads the collective to
hold exclusive power over the individual. Be it known,
that such a practice runs counter to what it means to
live in a free society. The framers knew this and it is
for this very reason they preserved Life as the first
of our unalienable rights defined in our nation’s
Declaration of Independence. Our life; it is solely
ours to keep, to own, to preserve, and to protect at
all costs. And, while I may never choose to look to a
gun to protect my life or my property, while
celebrating our nation's Independence, I am again
reminded that I too will never cease in preserving this
right for my fellow countrymen.