He said both sides are guilty of stealing money out of other funds to balance the budget.
“Don’t say you’re not raising taxes when you’re stealing money out of other funds,” he said.
He said it’s a lack of vision.
“To not solve those problems, you’re just putting it off to the next generation of people that come in to do the work and that’s always wrong.”
Mike's chum, Matt Look has been chest pounding around everywhere about Ramsey not raising the tax rate, short-term, recently, which was an arrangement achieved by buying the failed Ramsey Town Center via depletion of reserve funds (set aside for other purposes than land speculation and consultancy hirings).
I have criticized the creation of an illusion by City of Ramsey folks of balancing things while claiming to not ultimately be raising taxes, via manipulating reserve levels, but I have never gone so far as to equate it to, "stealing money out of other funds to balance the budget - don't say your not raising taxes when you're stealing money out of other funds."
Mike the Senator said it's "strealing."
Him.
Not me.
So tell me, where does this image fit into the Senator's analysis:
___________UPDATE___________
Is Matt Look's advocating the Ramsey Town Center purchase by the city, with Matt Look then within a year deciding to leave the situation he'd championed, something that in the Senator's view was, "just putting it off to the next generation of people that come in to do the work and that’s always wrong"? Are there nuances at play in the Senator's thoughts that I miss?
_________FURTHER UPDATE_________
Read the Elk River news item. What do you find there other than platitudes?
What actual policy statements are there? I see two: Walk away from administrative rule-making. Gut permitting oversight.
Do more with less is nothing but a platitude. The GOP governor's not downsized the executive branch payroll despite tons of do more with less rhetoric.
Pawlenty instead gave high paying government jobs, the spoils of victory, to political appointees. As did every governor before him. He only dissembled over what he was up to much more than the others.
_________FURTHER UPDATE__________
For those needing more convincing, or saying I quoted the Senator out of context - he was talking about the legislature not Ramsey's council - my answer is: THINK. What's the difference in substance, if the words are accepted as believed by the speaker, when applied, in substance, to a parallel governmental set of circumstances? It is not applying "apple" analysis to "oranges." It is applying words about government integrity, good government judgment, and fair and careful honest characterization of conduct and results. It is applying those conceptual assertions about government, to a specific governmental set of steps.
And that cash cow? Well the Senator does in the article define himself as a water expert with Landform [I only mention the term "rainmaker"] where:
[1] Landform has insinuated itself into the position of drawing regular five-figure cash from Ramsey for consulting.
[2] Landform has been tub thumping with the Senator having billed Ramsey for consulting time for a Legislative tour situation that had Senate members visiting the Ramsey site about which Landform "consults."
[3] The Senator was the sole author/sponsor of SF 2500 last session intended to route over two and a half million of State money through DEED to Ramsey, without Landform disavowing an intent to ultimately be paid a part of proceeds of any such grant of funds, had it passed (and with the money intended for the site in Ramsey where Landform has been doing its consulting).
In baseball it is three strikes and out.
In addition, the Senator has not registered as a lobbyist for Ramsey, despite the business set-up, the billed hours re the "legislative tour," and the legislative process being used and aimed at getting state cash for a water-related project, in Ramsey.