Newsfeed
Printer-Friendly ModeProposals would lead to spending cuts elsewhere
submitted by Nicholas Madaj
October 30, 2006 —
In this November's general election, there will be five statewide ballot proposals. Specifically, I wanted to address Proposal 1 and Proposal 5 and encourage everyone to vote "no" on both.
Proposal 1 places constitutional protection on several funds of the Department of Natural Resources. If it were to pass, the money paid for licenses and permits for fishing, snowmobiling, ORV, etc. would be restricted to fund the programs of the DNR and programs that benefit the purchasers of the licenses. The money could not be diverted to any other purpose.
Proposal 5 would require state spending on K-12 and higher education to increase by the rate of inflation year after year. It would shift part of the cost of retirement programs in education to the state and narrow the gaps in spending between school districts.
Both proposals restrict the spending of government, although they do so in slightly different ways. These proposals are the direct response to problems of the moment; in the past, the DNR funds were diverted elsewhere and education spending has not grown sufficiently over the past few years.
However, if these proposals were to pass, it would inevitably mean spending cuts in other areas of government or tax increases. That is because the Legislature would have yet another limitation on its ability to allocate tax revenue and the other programs of the state must have some revenue source in order to operate. Please note that these proposals do not address that situation. They leave it to the Legislature to clean up.
We elect our State Representatives and Senators for a reason; they represent our interests in State government. We should let them be able to do their jobs and not restrict their abilities to make tax and spending priorities. Vote "no" on Proposals 1 and 5.
Nicholas Madaj
Political Science Student