This blog post is about Minnesota law. To be more precise it’s about a proposed change to the Minnesota state Constitution that would dedicate a portion of this state’s sales tax to programs involving the environment, conservation and the arts. It’s not a new idea. In fact, the concept originated from a model long ago established in Missouri and then eventually has been kicked around in Minnesota for well over a decade.
In a nutshell, the Minnesota Legislature has recently passed a measure that will allow Minnesota voters this fall the opportunity to enact a change to the state constitution that will increase our state’s sales tax by three-eighths of 1 percent in an effort to generate upwards of 300 million dollars in a given year. Theoretically this is money earmarked to enhance our natural world and fund the sort of things most sportsmen cherish.
Problem is…I just don’t support it. I’ve given a great deal of thought to this potential law change and simply cannot accept new taxes for the outdoors when woven together with new taxes for cultural activities, such as community theater, etc. This probably doesn’t make me popular with all my sportsmen brethren, but there are things you compromise on…and there are other things for which you simply cannot make such philosophical allowances. For me, adding taxes for something I disapprove of (funding the arts—whatever that happens to be) kills the entire concept.
Let’s back up and provide a bit of history here. I’ve written about this proposed constitutional funding before. Check here and here. In theory, dedicating money to the environment alone is a great concept, especially on paper. There’s no doubt that Minnesota would be improved by putting money into well defined areas to improve and protect water quality, develop fish and wildlife resources, etc.
Therein lies part of the problem. It’s all political. Several years back this Missouri model morphed into and became melded with “the arts.” Why did this happen? Let’s face it, metro Democrats in Minnesota have a different constituency they answer to and marrying the two concepts was forced down our throats in the spirit of compromise. Forget the fact that everyone should enjoy a healthy outdoors and only a select group actually have an appreciation for the arts. Sportsmen were told if you want one then you accept the other. Period…end of story.
Granted, this might have been more palatable to me if the funding simply earmarked existing tax structure like it has been proposed for several years. But no, there again the concept changed from the original idea to one of increasing taxes. In the beginning the tax was simply dedicating a portion of what citizens of this state are already paying for sales tax on goods and service. Not anymore…if the Minnesota Constitution is revised now the tax becomes an additional burden (read: NEW TAX). With the current economic climate I can’t justify in my mind raising taxes no matter how much good could come from the additional tax monies collected.
What’s even more worrisome is how the new tax money will be spent. At the time I am writing this post there is no direct taxpayer oversight to determine how the money should be spent for either the environment or for the arts. The last thing I want to do is place trust in the Legislature to spend this money wisely. They have proven in the past with our lottery funds that promises are not always made by the legislature and meant to be kept. In other words, approve a new tax revenue stream now and you’re putting complete and blind trust in others that it will be spent wisely in the years to come.
Hey, for many years I was a strong supporter of this “outdoors” amendment in its earlier forms. It made sense for Minnesota…and it made sense for the outdoors and the many things I love. Unfortunately, too many Minnesota sportsmen heavily invested in this issue have developed this notion that the measure should pass regardless of the form. It almost seems as though some sportsmen have invested so much into the measure emotionally for so long that a win is viewed as a win no matter what the real cost.
Sorry…but I don’t see it that way. I love Minnesota and I love the many outdoor opportunities that this great state affords both hunters and anglers. I understand there are many critical issues that need money to effectively deal with and correct important problems. Still, we all must live within our means…because when we don’t sometimes terrible things can also happen. Adding NEW taxes is not the answer…especially when those taxes also go for programs (the arts) I deem as totally unnecessary to support—especially with a constitutional amendment. With that said…I will likely be voting NO this November on the ballot measure that attempts to dedicate more of my tax money to the environment and to the arts. I will also be strongly urging my family and friends to do the same. 
Note: to get an opposing viewpoint to the one I just posted here, check this out.
2008 Jim Braaten. All Rights Reserved. No Reproduction without Prior Permission.
Filed under: Current Outdoor Issues, Nature (General)
I’m not a regular reader of your blog, but when I came across your comments on d.f. I had to respond.
I’m glad you have your principles. I hope they serve you well when you try to explain to your children and grandchildren why you were willing to let the last real chance for improving MN’s outdoors go down the tubes because you insisted on ‘standing on your principles.’
And where have those principles gotten you to date? Funding for the outdoors is at its lowest point in 30 years. More than 40% of the state’s waters that have been tested so far are impaired under EPA standards (hardly a high bar to aim for). Duck populations are in decline everywhere. We continue to lose wetland acreage every year. And the list goes on.
You lament that the DFL leadership included arts in its d.f. proposal, but where did a Republican-dominated legislature and governor’s office get us on this issue over the past few years? Nowhere. As usual from T-Paw and his cronies in the legislature, there was plenty of talk but no real action.
I wasn’t a huge fan of including arts in the d.f. proposal either. But you know what? It’s simply not true that the addition or arts was driven by a bunch of Cities elitists and their DFL friends. The arts greatly benefit outstate MN as well, bringing in tourism dollars and helping to maintain the cultural vitality of small towns. To argue otherwise is, in fact, a snub to those who work hard to make their towns vital and interesting places to live, and a case of reverse snobbism. Most outdoors folks only pass through those places during the hunting and/or fishing seasons and don’t notice how important those activities are to the people who live there — which says a lot about how little they think of the people who have to spend the other 6 months out of the year in those towns.
As for getting d.f. out of existing taxes rather than new taxes, you clearly haven’t been paying attention: that’s precisely why the whole notion of d.f. came up in the first place. When faced with the competing demands of health care, education, transportation, etc., etc., the environment always comes up short on the list — always. And that is not going to change, at least not in our lifetimes. And you can be sure that no politician, DFL or Republican, will be willing to bring the issue of d.f. up again. This is it: it took us 10 years to get here, and we’re not going to get the chance again.
Whether our ‘current economic climate’ is appropriate for increasing taxes (an increase that amounts to 38 cents on a $100 purchase) I have to ask: when would the time be right? At the height of the Depression, Roosevelt created the WPA with a massive infusion of federal dollars — all to the great and permanent benefit of the nation’s outdoors. Are our dreams for our children and grandchildren so short-sighted, so devoid of imagination, so hopeless, that we can’t imagine shelling out an extra 38 cents to help make MN a better place for them? If that’s the case, shame on us all.
I urge you to think about the above and reconsider your position when you cast your ballot this fall. But if you still decide to vote no, just be sure you’ve thought through your answer to your grandchild who, someday in the future, asks why he or she can’t go swimming in the lake. Do you really want the answer to be: “Because grandpa has his principles”?