I watched Tim McNiff on the KARE-11 morning news after the election. His guest was his political go-to guy and left winger (incognito), Hamline Professor David Schultz who was commenting on the passing of the so-called clean water amendment. He said “this proves that the idea of the Reagan tax cuts are dead”, or words to that effect, thus suggesting that Minnesotan’s like the idea of paying more taxes.
This is absurd, I don’t believe it proves anything. Schultz fails to consider, or mention, the deception within the ballot wording which is as follows:
“Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to dedicate funding to protect our drinking water sources; to protect, enhance, and restore our wetlands, prairies, forests, and fish, game, and wildlife habitat; to preserve our arts and cultural heritage; to support our parks and trails; and to protect, enhance, and restore our lakes, rivers, streams, and groundwater by increasing the sales and use tax beginning July 1, 2009, by three-eighths of one percent on taxable sales until the year 2034?
As evident by our exit polling, MANY people blindly voted yes because it “sounded” good and many admitted they didn’t even know what it was. I think if they would have flipped the wording around and led with the sales tax increase instead of “dedicate funding”, there would have been a much different result.
Also disturbing was the fact it was so heavily promoted using words like “clean water, habitat’s, etc.. ” even though about 2/3 of the money was to be used for OTHER purposes.
I think Tim McNiff would do better if he’d bring on guests representing both political sides of issues and from both political parties. I think I’ll stick with one of the other morning newscasts.