1. On a scale of (0) most disagreement, to (5) neutral, to (10) most
agreement, what is your view on whether significant efforts need to be
undertaken to improve accountability of state and local government to
2. On a scale of (0) most disagreement, to (5) neutral, to (10) most
agreement, what is your view on whether one high-priority strategy for
improving government accountability should be restructuring of
government institutions and organizations?
3. On a scale of (0) most disagreement, to (5) neutral, to (10) most
agreement, what is your view on whether a need to increase Minnesota
income taxes on wealthy individuals overshadows a risk that many such
individuals would choose to move to lower-tax states?
Schwarzkopf (9) (10) (3)
Donald H. Anderson (8) (8) (10)
People, today, are
more interested in electronic gadgets than government and their own
ability to sort out fact from fiction - which opens the door to the
lack of accountability in government.
Slocum (10) (10) (5)
I find Dane Smith
and his work at Growth & Justice very interesting and often
persuasive. He is correct about the need to recognize the importance
and mutual self-reliance of both government and the private sector.
Mr. Smith appears to be open to looking at all things public and is
optimistic and upbeat in doing so; he seems less interested in
defining the role of private institutions and the public good.
I re-read the Ted
Kolderie speech of eight years ago in which he talked of leadership
requirements necessary in Minnesota in 2001 to face the future and
that politics was all about the “art of making possible what is
I think, too, that
the five foundation sponsorship of the “Bridges to a Better Bottom
Line” this year was enlightening, noting that many of the short term
recommendations concerned health care costs (and quality).
In my view, we
have not made much progress—and have retreated on some fronts—
concerning the government and private marketplace roles in our future
in the last decade; let’s hope that enlightened leadership will forge
a consensus in the next ten years about “making possible what is
Schmitz (10) (10) (10)
Stone (10) (3) (0)
The metric for
justifying taxation should not be “tax them until they leave in
quantity; then back off a bit.” The rich should not be taxed for a
number of reasons among which are that they use less government than
any others in Minnesota and their capital should be used to create
jobs with the incentive to create more capital left intact.
Jennings (5) (7) (8)
One valuable part
of this interview was the mention of MinnPost and Growth and Justice.
I’d heard of them but hadn’t bothered to look into their work.
(10) (10) (9)
Question 2: Reduce
the number of legislators by 40%. Reduce the number of cities in the
Twin cities metro area so communities in the developed area have a
minimum population of 75,000 and the school district boundaries are
the same as the city. Schools and transportation services shall be
shared to obtain better usage.
Utz (10) (3) (1)
Question 1: We do
have an accountable document setting forth the power, authority of
government, our state constitution. I continue seeking opportunities
to engage dialogue around restoring adherence to that document.
Our country is
only 225 years or so old, thus I find his historical perspective
In addition he
of things are obsolete. Two chambers of the Legislature, given
one-person, one-vote. The Electoral College. County governments with a
courthouse that’s one day’s horse travel away from every resident”
This comment disturbs me greatly as media, political groups, think
tanks, policy groups and others continue bashing constitutional truths
set forth by our forefathers as archaic, old fashioned, out dated, to
the point few citizens know the power of our country or states
foundation “the constitution”. We need political leaders willing to
defend our constitution from all foes including the afore mentioned
groups, and preserve such law for our citizens.
Thus, I run for
office in Minnesota, and win I win in 2010, then protect and enforce
constitutional rule of law over government. Perhaps we should provide
opportunity to transport unhappy American citizens to other government
locations around the world, where their personal views of “The State”
are more reflected.
Question 3: I see
the issues of revenue shortages largely on government overstepping the
authorities appropriated within our constitution. Government growth
continues exceeding the legal authority, imposing will, lording over
the citizen with threats of stealing additional personal revenue to
satisfy government power and growth. The underlying issue is not
increasing taxes, but government spending and loss of liberty. Folks
leave for those two reasons, the increased taxes are a symptom not
Hively (6) (6) (8)
Strengthen the role of the legislative auditor.
Question 2: Bring
back the state planning agency.
Fraser (4)(6) (9)
Oshiro (6) (6) (10)
Charles Lutz (6) (7) (9)
Bishop (8) (5) (0
Miller (8) (6) (2)
Press (10) (10) (0)
Robert J. Brown (10) (0) (0)
It is great to
have two think tanks in Minnesota headed by responsible individuals
who understand the need for reasonable discourse on public policy -
Dane Smith and Mitch Pearlstein.
Question 1: Part of the accountability problems relates to the fact
that state and local governments have become too dependent on transfer
payments (federal and state aids to lower levels of government.) This
separates the responsibility of raising government revenue from the
privilege of spending public monies. It would be better if we
restructured the tax system by doing such things as creating a local
income tax so local government could be responsible for raising its
own taxes and then be better held accountable for its expenditures. It
is laughable to hear local governments cry about cuts in local
government aid as though it has always been there. The fact is that
aid existed only since the passage of the sales tax in 1967. We are
going to see some more whining after the locals spend the new pork
from Washington and then moan a year later as that money dries up.
Some of these people are the worst kind of addicts, always needing a
fix whether it be state LGA or "free money" form Washington.
Question 2: I believe it is a saying of architects that "form
follows function." If we followed that concept in government we should
regularly look at the structures of government as the functions change
to meet the needs of society.
Question 3: The wealthiest people are the ones best able to relocate
so if they feel they are getting picked on they can easily change
their tax home. Then we get nothing which is worse than having them
pay a slightly lower rate than the ideologues of the left want them to
Cox (8) (8) (10)
Hamm (7) (5) (5)
I am not greatly
impressed with the strongly Socialist and pro metro leanings of this
group in the last few months, what the heck.
Question 1: Yes
but not in the direction Dane Smith believes. When I first became
involved in political things about 35 years ago I could attend a
public meeting of a School Board, a City, or a County Board and give
input on agenda items. In most cases I could even speak to non agenda
items at the end of the meeting. Starting in the 80s the progressive
shift toward the concept of these meeting becoming meetings before the
public rather than "Public Meetings". I have watched this trend
encompass virtually every public body in the State undermining the
greatest thing we had going, real public input. Elected Boards and
bodies have become more afraid of public input as they have became
progressively more about rubber stamping the one size fits all outside
solution and less about thinking toward creative new local solutions.
A solid movement toward the central planning model and away from local
control and creativity has undermined the greatness that was
Question 2: In the
context of my first answer, yes we need to restructure, backwards,
away from progressiveness that has undermined local control and
involvement and move back toward greater public involvement and away
from the central planning model we have been following. I use the 5 as
I see nothing to get excited about here.
Question 3: This
question does nothing to get at the issue of fairness of taxation and
provides a very good example of why I am a strong supporter of
a simple flat tax structure that would draw (at least theoretically)
an equal % of every citizen's income and end this foolish
argument between the middle class and the rich that always leaves
those of us in the 62% class making up the difference.
Ayotte (6) (5) (6)