Her almost criminally-brief article on the fictionally-low $2.16B surplus (it's actually more like $3B if government did their accounting the way they require private businesses to do it) starts off like so:
She then makes it worse by quoting only one source on the matter, who makes it clear it is his purpose to convince people that $2.16B is chicken-feed, and that clearly it's nowhere near enough to allow the government to take a stand against new taxes or - heaven forbid - offer state taxpayers some kind of rebate or tax break.Megan Boldt wrote:"State lawmakers will have about $2.16 billion in new money to spend on proposals and programs for the next two years. That projected budget surplus, released today as part of the state's tax-and-spending forecast, is just $7 million off from the projection made in November."
I thought J-school was still teaching news reporters the two-source rule. Oh well, it would have only been another liberal tax-n-spend source anyway, to drive the agenda home. So I guess it doesn't matter.
Only a tax-n-spender could call $2.16B a cause for concern and a need to be careful with the commitments the state makes in future budgets. Some folks need Ionamin to suppress their appetite; clearly, there needs to be an equivalent drug to suppress the tax-n-spend appetites of Minnesota lawmakers - be they RINO Republicans or DFLers.Megan Boldt wrote:"We are going to have to be careful in how we budget," said Finance Commissioner Tom Hanson. "We have to be very concerned in the commitments we make."
Clearly, this state has no real conservatives anymore, outside of message boards, blogs, and local talk radio.