GR Press-MDNR funding-worse than anyone thought.

[Pinefarm]

Column: Conservationists thinking outside box regarding natural resources funding problems

Saturday, May 12, 2007

Three months after conservation leaders staged a ground-breaking, day-long summit to look at the problems of funding natural resources programs in Michigan, a handful of them gathered to look at just how bleak the situation is.

It's worse than anyone thought.

Michigan ranks 12th among states in total natural resources spending, not bad, it seems, until you dig a little deeper into the numbers. On a per capita basis, Michigan ranks 47th.


It gets worse from there. When natural resources attributes are factored into the equation, Michigan is clearly neglecting its resources. Given that this state has the most coastal management responsibility, the most square miles of water under its jurisdiction, fourth most wetlands and ranks 10th in state park acres, Michigan is dead last in the amount it spends based on those resources, some $32 million less than average compared to other states, based on a study by Michigan State University's Land Policy Institute.

The proposed hunting and fishing license fee increases, which appear to be in real trouble in the Legislature, won't even dent that discrepancy.

On a per capita basis, Michigan is spending about a dollar less for natural resources protection and programs than the 49th ranked state, Indiana.

Our other neighbors? Wisconsin ranks 19th. Ohio is 31st.

A study by the Heart of the Hills Center for Land Conservation Policy that identified potential tax options to improve conservation funding ran through a variety of options and found two that were possibilities. Of those, the option preferred by many isn't about to happen anytime soon.

Most conservationists point to what's known as the Missouri Model, a dedication of one-eighth of a cent of sales tax revenue to conservation. Although the program has been in effect in the Show Me State for more than 20 years, Missouri ranks 45th in the Land Policy Institute study of appropriate conservation spending. (Believe it or not, Wyoming is No. 1.)

But the Missouri Model would face major hurdles here. To start with, Michigan is projecting a 2007 budget shortfall of $700 million. We've got to find that, just to keep the ship afloat, before we start digging further into sales tax revenues. Raising sales taxes, which has been proposed to fix the budget crisis, appears to be a non-starter.

So citizens would have to put a tax proposal on the ballot. That's an expensive proposition (even the forces who put the dove hunting ban on the ballot had to resort to professional signature gathering), costing in the neighborhood of $800,000 just to get the signatures. And then you have to fund a campaign to get it passed, at a time when even local park millages are going down to defeat.

Compounding the problem is that anytime anyone tries to designate funds for specific purposes, every other interest group that looks to those funds immediately lines up in opposition.

So that leaves Plan B -- taxing extractive industries, such as sand, gravel, salt and, maybe, even water.

That idea has caught the eye of a number of conservation groups, including Michigan United Conservation Clubs. Acting director Donna Stine said taxing extractive industries could generate between $100 million and $300 million, not only solving the funding crisis, but serving conservation.

"Most of those products are leaving the state," Stine said. "It's a non-renewable resource."

Best yet, recent polling data indicates that 58 percent of voters support the idea. And why not? Except for those involved directly in the industry, it appears to be the ideal tax -- i.e., one paid by someone else.

Will it fly? We'll see. But at least the conservation community is looking for answers, thinking outside the box during times that demand exactly that.

[Rusher]

Okay, just keep the law enforment division and fire the rest:lol: .

[hondorob]

"The proposed hunting and fishing license fee increases, which appear to be in real trouble in the Legislature, won't even dent that discrepancy.

On a per capita basis, Michigan is spending about a dollar less for natural resources protection and programs than the 49th ranked state, Indiana."

The State has cut waaaaay back on the money they spend in this area. The solution is quite simple. We either need to restore that previous level of funding, or we need to cut back on the level of spending.

No need to talk about new taxes and fees, because that's not the answer as we see, particularly not when the State is hurting so badly. If we as a State are not going to support a given level of spending, then we need to cut back that level of spending.

[steelie]

Good Day,

Sadly, with our state being in the straights it is.... DNR funding is the first to be taken and the last to be restored. IMHO.

Steelie

[wildcoy73]

looks like they keep missing the boat last year we were ready to pay more on our doe permits and they let it slide by. giving out more cross bow permits would also help. but looks like they will let that on pass them by also. maybe for short term help they could offer the lifetime tags again. i work hard for my money but when it comes to mother nature i will help when needed. get a few more co's and ticket all the unlawfull baitpiles. that alone will raise a nice sum of cash. just go up north to the tb zone every store is selling bait and i can tell you that they still bait in a no baiting area. just money they are not capturing. another way we can help is send in donations and show the state we as sportsman enjoy and support what we have

[FixedBlade]

I see no problem taxing the water bottling co's $1.00 for every 16oz of water they put in a bottle. The end consumer would end up paying but I see no problem with someone paying 1.99 for a bottle of water. If you can't bring it from home then pay for the privlidge. Those that profit from our recources should pay a much higher price. Mining, timber, drilling, Game farms, fishing and so on.

[yoopertoo]

Column: Conservationists thinking outside box regarding natural resources funding problems

Saturday, May 12, 2007
...
Although the program has been in effect in the Show Me State for more than 20 years, Missouri ranks 45th in the Land Policy Institute study of appropriate conservation spending. (Believe it or not, Wyoming is No. 1.)
...


I suspect the western states, and their NR license cash flow has something to do with it.

[grouly925]

Yeah, tax the excavation businesses.....until you want to build a house or they start to work on roads and need the sand, gravel, etc. Sounds like a double edged sword there.

[Sib]

Looks like there are two paths we can go down. Pay more to enjoy the outdoors, or cut spending with major cuts to things like, fish planting and selling off state land and access sites. I'd just as soon increase the license fees, but I'd understand if the state sold off a good chunk of state land, sold lake access land, or any other drastic means.

[hondorob]

I see no problem taxing the water bottling co's $1.00 for every 16oz of water they put in a bottle. The end consumer would end up paying but I see no problem with someone paying 1.99 for a bottle of water. If you can't bring it from home then pay for the privlidge. Those that profit from our recources should pay a much higher price. Mining, timber, drilling, Game farms, fishing and so on.

I don't think it's a "privelege" to buy a bottle of water, and fail to see why it's responsible or equitable to hit a water consumer for an additional $1 fee. That's just another government money grab.

Bottled water, like water that comes from "home", will be returned to the watershed right here in Michigan, so there is no net loss or additional burden placed on the environment. Nobody's trucking that water out of this watershed, as it is cost-prohibitive to do so, all scare tactics notwithstanding. It stays right here, and likely doesn't travel further than you drive to work. I'm certainly interested if anybody can document some massive outflow of bottled water leaving this Great Lakes watershed, but I've yet to see that documented.

Frankly, as a matter of public policy, I'd like the government to encourage drinking water, rather than drinking sugary soda and other such unhealthy drinks. The epidemic of obesity is a serious problem and costs us TRILLIONS in this coutry... and making water a more expensive alternative to unhealthy drinks just seems counterproductive in solving that problem. If anything, water should cost MUCH less than soda, for reasons of public health, if not simply for fairness and fiscal responsibility. I WOULD be in favor of a massive "sugar tax", which would kill 2 birds with one stone, but it'd have to come at the federal level so I'm not sure it'd help this state directly.

As for profiting from "our resources", I can agree that fish in public waters are public resources, but mining, timber and drilling on private lands are not "our resources"... they belong to the property owner... not the state government. As long as the property owner complies with all relevant laws... they are free to do with their property as they wish... afterall it's their property... not "ours".

There is no free lunch here. If this state wants to keep up the current level of spending... then it needs to pony up the money to do so... and do it out of the GENERAL FUND... at the level where it was previously... before the massive, irresponsible spending cuts. Otherwise, we need to cut the level of spending to match what we are truly willing to spend.

[solohunter]

i see the word "tax in every posting pretty much??? this state in the last 10 years has lost approx 30% of its hunters, but the DNR has not reduced its size to match the amount of hunters it now services,,,,,, they want to be bigger and better to service fewer hunters,,, i see something wrong with that. they want more money from fewer hunters to maintain their levels,, and as i dont think jenny hunts,, she aint giving them any state tax money any more,, no i dont mind paying to hunt, but i do mind financing in larger parts the DNR,,

[FixedBlade]

Hondo. Your statement, "Bottled water, like water that comes from "home", will be returned to the watershed right here in Michigan, so there is no net loss or additional burden placed on the environment. Nobody's trucking that water out of this watershed, as it is cost-prohibitive to do so, all scare tactics notwithstanding. It stays right here, and likely doesn't travel further than you drive to work. I'm certainly interested if anybody can document some massive outflow of bottled water leaving this Great Lakes watershed, but I've yet to see that documented".

Hundreds of thousands of gallons of water taken from one spot dries up aquifers, swamps, lakes and streams in that area. It kills animals, fish and founa. Permenantly changeing the enviroment of the area. Just because it is flushed back into the watershed of Detroit or Grand Rapids doesn't help the watershed of Big Rapids any. The DNR has to do the studies of all the effects of huge water withdraws, and who do you think pays for that? Your hunting and fishing dollars. Why not have the water drinkers pay for those services?

[Setter]

I don't have tha answers to the water supply questions but wonder about the increase of "water" brought into the state in the froms of beer, juices, pop and other beverages that are mostly water. Are we importing more than we export? Are we consuming more than we are pulling out of the ground?
Don't the aquafirs seek their own level as the water filters through the ground and settle where voids are created?
Just some questions that I have had and never heard the answers.

[rzdrmh]

this is exactly why i disagree so much with the proposed license fees. it does nothing but tax the hunter, without making a drop in the bucket difference.

its the department of natural resources, not the department of hunting. i'm willing to pay more, without a doubt. but the load needs to be carried by every citizen of the state.

[boehr]

Exportation of water......evaporation and then dumped in another state or country in the form of rain.:)

Kind of off topic anyway.;)

[hondorob]

[quote FixedBlade]"Hundreds of thousands of gallons of water taken from one spot dries up aquifers, swamps, lakes and streams in that area."

I have never seen this occurrence documented in this state... anywhere. Show me even one stream, aquifer, swamp, lake or stream that's ever been "dried up" due to a bottled water operation somewhere, and then I'll believe what you're saying.

It kills animals, fish and founa. Permenantly changeing the enviroment of the area.

Again, you'll have to document this claim, and tell us precisely where this is happening, because I've never seen this documented in this state... ever.

Just because it is flushed back into the watershed of Detroit or Grand Rapids doesn't help the watershed of Big Rapids any.

If no water leaves the the Great Lakes watershed, then there is no impact on the watershed resulting from bottling water. If you can document localized effects in Grand Rapids, Detroit or Big Rapids... then please do so. I've yet to see such, but I'm open minded if you can dprovide this information.

And I'd like to see where the Grand Rapids bottled water is being shipped. I'd be surprised if it's shipped more than 100 miles in any direction, as that's costly shipment, and it'd make more sense to build a bottling plant locally. But again I'm open minded if you can document otherwise.

The DNR has to do the studies of all the effects of huge water withdraws,

Again, there are no "huge water withdraws", as the water is not leaving the GL watershed, unless you can document otherwise.

And actually, the DNR might be the LAST people I'd have performing a comprehensive study of hydraulics/hydrology of the GL watershed. The DNR does a poor job of what they do now IMO, and that additional work is well beyond the scope of their abilities. Locally, they might be a contributor to the effort in mapping out the parameters of a specific bottled water operation, but I'm skeptical of their abilities in even this arena.

and who do you think pays for that? Your hunting and fishing dollars.

Incorrect, as "hunting and fishing dollars" are inconsequential to making up the recent cuts, as demonstrated by the article at the top of this discussion.

Up to this point, the taxpayers of the state have borne that cost, but recently state government has found things that are more "important" than our collective resources, so they've cut funding drastically. We need to restore that level of funding... out of the GENERAL FUND... as per historical norms. These are OUR resources, and WE have to pay for them, unless we don't care about it, in which case we need to cut the level of SPENDING... in order to be fiscally responsible (albeit conservationally IRRESPONSIBLE, IMO).


Why not have the water drinkers pay for those services?

Again, all of us already pay for our water use now. There is no need for a government money grab that would only discourage water consumption, and encourage obesity.

There is no free lunch. We pay or we don't. Right now, we, the people of the State of Michigan, are not paying what we used to pay, because we evidently feel that other things are more "important". That's sad.

[hondorob]

Exportation of water......evaporation and then dumped in another state or country in the form of rain.:)

Kind of off topic anyway.;)

Precisely. Evaporation DWARFS the effects of a bottled water operation, re the GL watershed.

[CL-Lewiston]

"will be returned to the watershed right here in Michigan"

How many think that the water being pumped by the millions of gallons from Evart area will ever get back into the aquafer????

[GVDocHoliday]

i see the word "tax in every posting pretty much??? this state in the last 10 years has lost approx 30% of its hunters, but the DNR has not reduced its size to match the amount of hunters it now services,,,,,, they want to be bigger and better to service fewer hunters,,, i see something wrong with that. they want more money from fewer hunters to maintain their levels,, and as i dont think jenny hunts,, she aint giving them any state tax money any more,, no i dont mind paying to hunt, but i do mind financing in larger parts the DNR,,


30% of it's hunters? I'd like to see the numbers of licenses sold in 1996 and the number sold in 2006 for comparison.

[pescadero]

Why not have the water drinkers pay for those services?

Again, all of us already pay for our water use now. There is no need for a government money grab that would only discourage water consumption, and encourage obesity.

Considering that bottled water accounts for a miniscule portion of the water drank - I think your purported discouragement of water consumption is a bit of a red herring. No one is talking about taxing municipal water systems, only packaged water.


--
lp

[Rudi's Dad]

"will be returned to the watershed right here in Michigan"

How many think that the water being pumped by the millions of gallons from Evart area will ever get back into the aquafer????


Very little will return to the aquafer. In the dry prairie states the huge underground aquafer's are drying up from irrigating farm crops. The smart farmers are cutting back or eliminating dependency on irrigation. They do see it as a resource to leave intact for the next generation instead of raping it now.

[farmlegend]

I see no problem taxing the water bottling co's $1.00 for every 16oz of water they put in a bottle. The end consumer would end up paying but I see no problem with someone paying 1.99 for a bottle of water. If you can't bring it from home then pay for the privlidge. Those that profit from our recources should pay a much higher price. Mining, timber, drilling, Game farms, fishing and so on.

Ah, the old "don't tax you, don't tax me, tax that man behing the tree!" approach.

[hondorob]

Considering that bottled water accounts for a miniscule portion of the water drank - I think your purported discouragement of water consumption is a bit of a red herring.

--
lp

If you drive up the cost of bottled water, then you depress bottled water consumption. That's not a red herring... it's economic reality.

Further, raising the cost of bottled water encourages the consumption of other, unhealthier drinks. It's just a lose-lose situation.

No one is talking about taxing municipal water systems, only packaged water.

Bottled water discharged into municipal water systems pays the same discharge fees as municipal water. Further, many bottling plants take water from municipal water systems, and simply refine it further and bottle it.

I guess I'm still not following why some want to pick bottled water as the source for their money grab... and it is a money grab.

[hondorob]

30% of it's hunters? I'd like to see the numbers of licenses sold in 1996 and the number sold in 2006 for comparison.

The DNR has a recent study up on their website, on that precise topic. Hunter numbers have been significantly depressed over the last while, but you can check the numbers for yourself if you're curious. I found them troubling for sure.

[hondorob]

Very little will return to the aquafer. In the dry prairie states the huge underground aquafer's are drying up from irrigating farm crops. The smart farmers are cutting back or eliminating dependency on irrigation. They do see it as a resource to leave intact for the next generation instead of raping it now.

Yes, other states have significantly depressed their water resources, but Michigan is not one of them.

But again, I'm interested in hearing about all the streams, swamps, creeks, etc. that have been dried up due to bottled water operations in this state. No opinions, please. Show me the data.

[hondorob]

The real problem I see here is the short term thinking of much of the "outdoor" community. Rather than encouraging the state-based, broad conservation ethic we've always had here, many are now looking to scurry around and slap tax and fees on whoever, as if the resources are somebody else's, and not theirs. That type of slipshod funding is not broad-based, and it doesn't encourage participation. It's not true conservation, IMO.

Every citizen in this state should participate in this conservations effort... and pay for it too. It should be coming out of the General Fund... not by gouging the few unlucky oxes, whoever they might be. That only splits us up. And note the decline in hunter numbers mentioned above. Whatever the reason, those numbers are fewer and fewer, and this ties into this discussion.

Each day the citizens of this state abandon their conservationist effort, and fail to push for a restoration of the broad based funding required to support it... is another day we move towards an abandonment of conservation in general. We have to think long term... and get EVERYBODY involved.

[FixedBlade]

In my post I used bottled water as an example for a way to increase money for the DNR. A dollor or fifty cents, whatever. The basic idea was to find a way to increase money and try to get those who indrectly use our natural recources to start putting money back into it again. I think there is great concencis on this just not concencis on ways to do it. Thats where we need to start thinking out side the box. We have to find a way to increase money but find a way to spread it out to evenly to everyone. That means we will have to pay more. Call it a tax, whatever, but we will never get back what we lost. We need to make sure that what we put in place is done equaly to all and designated for a purpose. It has been told that our increased fees will not shore up the budget deficit. Yes, I do believe that buying bottled water at the store when you can get it from your tap is a privilige.

[boehr]

Decrease the welfare in Michigan which doesn't mean doing away with it but make it where the people that "really" need it until they get back on their feet get it and get rid of the "cheaters" and the state would have plenty of money to run the whole state. Problem is no politician wants to talk about that because way too many people get it and that means votes. Remember when Engler started to change the welfare system (among other things), the state came it a bunch of money. That along with a small sales tax increase for natural resources would take care of all the states woes and spread it evenly, even to non-residents.

[FixedBlade]

Gosh boehr, I thought the water ides would be hard to sell. Great idea tho. Outside the box where we need to look.

[hondorob]

In my post I used bottled water as an example for a way to increase money for the DNR. A dollor or fifty cents, whatever. The basic idea was to find a way to increase money and try to get those who indrectly use our natural recources to start putting money back into it again. I think there is great concencis on this just not concencis on ways to do it. Thats where we need to start thinking out side the box. We have to find a way to increase money but find a way to spread it out to evenly to everyone. That means we will have to pay more. Call it a tax, whatever, but we will never get back what we lost. We need to make sure that what we put in place is done equaly to all and designated for a purpose. It has been told that our increased fees will not shore up the budget deficit. Yes, I do believe that buying bottled water at the store when you can get it from your tap is a privilige.


I guess this is just a disagreement in philosophy. Drinking bottled water, or any water, is not a "privilege"... it is a RIGHT. Further, it is paid for by the consumer, and takes place under the law, just like everything else. Slapping a tax onto this particular oxe is just money grabbing... pure and simple.

Again, I fail to see the distinction you're making in any of the various types of water supply. There's nothing logical about your approach, it's just willy nilly money grabbing, IMO.

We don't need to "increase" money. The money WAS there, in the budget historically, and it was being spent on conservation efforts... but now the greasy Lansing politicians have chosen to take it away and spend it on something more "important". They, at our direction apparently, have chosen to begin the abandonment of our historical conservation effort. And those who enable them in this reprehensible action, those who fail to demand that that money be RESTORED, are only encouraging them to go even further in their irresponsibility.

Thus begins the long slide toward our failing natural resources.

If we attempt to push that required funding off onto a few gored oxes, thus removing the people at large from collective responsibility for conservation, we only facilitate the Lansingers continued abandonment of their conservation obligation, and help them detach the people at large from the conservation effort. YOU ARE DOING PRECISELY THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU CLAIM TO BE DOING. LONGTERM, YOU ARE HURTING CONSERVATION IN THIS STATE.

Take a look at your roads, and compare them to other states. The Lansing types have other uses for the road money, too, apparently, and our conservation situation is absolutely analogous to the road situation. As Dr. Phil says, "How's that working out for you?" I guess we approve of all this, so it must be working out alright, eh?

How sad.

If the "outdoor" community participates in this travesty, and doesn't step up to the pump and DEMAND that the state take it's proper role as the collective guarantor of our natural resources, then they will continue to go into decline... just like our roads.

This isn't about money out of my pocket. I don't drink bottled water, and I've bought less than a dozen fishing/hunting licenses in my life, and I STILL refuse to advocate an increase in those fees, because I know the downstream effects of that misguided action... and how such a philosophy will only encourage the greasy politicians to do what politicians ALWAYS do: Think short term, avoid the longterm, and continue to cut our historical level of spending on our ESSENTIAL conservationism. That's frickin' criminal... and even more so if we ENCOURAGE them to do it.

Conservation requires longterm commitment... from ALL of us. Those who advocate short term grab bagging and money-grabbing are only hurting the conservation effort that they ostensibly claim to support.

You want to get a petition together? Get one that says ALL of our historical spending must be restored. That's the level of spending we the people of this State wanted historically, before the current crop of greasers decided to steal it and give it away for more "important" things.

[hondorob]

Decrease the welfare in Michigan which doesn't mean doing away with it but make it where the people that "really" need it until they get back on their feet get it and get rid of the "cheaters" and the state would have plenty of money to run the whole state. Problem is no politician wants to talk about that because way too many people get it and that means votes. Remember when Engler started to change the welfare system (among other things), the state came it a bunch of money. That along with a small sales tax increase for natural resources would take care of all the states woes and spread it evenly, even to non-residents.

I won't disagree with you on welfare reform, but I would point out that previously we were paying for welfare and the previous level of conservation spending, so don't let any greasy Lansing politicians try to tell you that we can't afford that conservation spending. We can, and have, and now we must demand that we do so again... and restore that level of commitment.

Roll over like sheep, and you'll only encourage them to do the wrong thing. You see all these special interest groups fighting for their share of the pork in Lansing? That's exactly what people who truly care about conservation in this state need to be doing... now.

Because conservation ain't pork... it is essential. We need to act like it is, and budget for it... same as we always have.

[boehr]

but I would point out that previously we were paying for welfare and the previous level of conservation spending,I won't disagree with you on that point either but, are the costs of past welfare the same as the present, I doubt it. Also, cost levels were not as high either for the operation of the other departments of the state. Just as your home costs were not as high as they are this year, heat, water, electric, gasoline, etc., etc., etc. Far to often we want to concentrate on just one small point without realizing, or at least stating, that there is always more that just one item that creates different circumstances.

I don't believe anyone is advocating to roll over like sheep but as my signature states.......

[hondorob]

I won't disagree with you on that point either but, are the costs of past welfare the same as the present, I doubt it. Also, cost levels were not as high either for the operation of the other departments of the state. Just as your home costs were not as high as they are this year, heat, water, electric, gasoline, etc., etc., etc. Far to often we want to concentrate on just one small point without realizing, or at least stating, that there is always more that just one item that creates different circumstances.

I don't believe anyone is advocating to roll over like sheep but as my signature states.......

Yes I'd agree, other state budgetary items are going up, and the conservation budget is going down. That's the problem. The solution is to restore that level of conservation spending, and to do it without detaching the people of this state from their historical commitment to conservation.

That is, unless you are in agreement with the Lansing greasers, that these other spending programs are more "important" than conservation, and should be INCREASED, while conservation spending is DECREASED?

And remember, while spending may have increased, funding to the state has also increased. We tax gasoline and diesel fuel at the same 6% rate as everything else. And since gasoline has gone up from about $1.40 per gallon in 2003 to about $3.40 per gallon today, that means the state is taking in an additional $0.12 in revenue for each and every gallon of gas and diesel fuel soldhere. In 2004, I believe we were using about 18,000,000 gallons of gasoline and diesel each and every day in this state. That means an ADDITIONAL $800,000,000 per year are flowing into state coffers. In the papers, the politicians always call this "unexpected revenues", and happily spend it of course (the governor of Georgia mandated that they END this additional tax on the price increase, since it was not voted into action. But he believes in responsible government, I guess, unlike our politicians.

And even if the increase in gas prices only averages $1 per gallon over that timeframe (and it's at least that much), that still means we're collecting nearly a 1/2 billion EXTRA dollars every year from that tax ALONE.

Be nice if we took some part of this NEW money and put it into conservation, rather than STEALING from conservation as we have been, don't you think?

But perhaps you're comfortable that the Lansingers are spending all that fresh new money, plus the stolen conservation money, on more "important" things?

[boehr]

hondorob, you aparently are reading my posts wrong whether it is how I wrote them or your reading them but I will now back out since you are starting to make this personal and I didn't realize you knew so much about state budgets....
But perhaps you're comfortable that the Lansingers are spending all that fresh new money, plus the stolen conservation money, on more "important" things? Bye bye.

[hondorob]

hondorob, you aparently are reading my posts wrong whether it is how I wrote them or your reading them but I will now back out since you are starting to make this personal and I didn't realize you knew so much about state budgets....
Bye bye.

Hey, you responded directly to me with some vague statement about "cost levels", and some reference to the bottom of your post. I responded to you with data.

There's nothing personal here, unless you want it to be. I don't know how much I know about "state budgets", but I do know enough not to make vague, unsupportable statements about them, and if I did, I certainly wouldn't then start whining when those statements are inevitably refuted.

Sorry, but your argument isn't with me... it's with the data.

[hondorob]

What needs to happen now is for each one of us to write our state representatives and senators and DEMAND that the previous level of conservation spending be restored NOW.

Absent that, we have a continued declination in our natural resources to look forward to, and a further erosion of any broad-based conservation effort in this state.

[STEINFISHSKI]

Here is the full report.

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/final_report_177934_7.pdf

And YES, we need to hammer our legislators on this. They are the ones who need to pass this legislature now.

[pescadero]

If you drive up the cost of bottled water, then you depress bottled water consumption. That's not a red herring... it's economic reality.

Correct... and bottled water consumption accounts for something like 1% of total drinking water consumption and depression of bottled water consumption will likely lead to increases in tap water consumption. Drinking water consumption is relatively inelastic.

Further, raising the cost of bottled water encourages the consumption of other, unhealthier drinks. It's just a lose-lose situation.

Arguable. I'm willing to bet that it encourages the consumption of tap water a lot more than it encourages the consumption of other, unhealthier drinks.

No one is talking about taxing municipal water systems, only packaged water.

Bottled water discharged into municipal water systems pays the same discharge fees as municipal water.

Not necessarily true. Many municipal water systems charge non-residences higher discharge fees as well as using sliding scale fees based on discharge rates. Bigger water users and corporate water users often are already paying increased discharge fees.

Further, many bottling plants take water from municipal water systems, and simply refine it further and bottle it.

There are a lot that do - although I recently saw a program that said the somehwere in the neighborhood of 80+% of bottled water in the US is actually spring water and that the remaining was municipal water - and usually in these cases it ISN'T further refined, just plain bottled municipal water.


I guess I'm still not following why some want to pick bottled water as the source for their money grab... and it is a money grab.

Whether or not its a money grab is really dependent on a full accounting of ALL costs and benefits associated.

--
lp

[pescadero]

The real problem I see here is the short term thinking of much of the "outdoor" community. Rather than encouraging the state-based, broad conservation ethic we've always had here, many are now looking to scurry around and slap tax and fees on whoever, as if the resources are somebody else's, and not theirs. That type of slipshod funding is not broad-based, and it doesn't encourage participation. It's not true conservation, IMO.

The resources aren't "theirs" or "somebody elses" - they are everyones.


--
lp

[pescadero]

Decrease the welfare in Michigan which doesn't mean doing away with it but make it where the people that "really" need it until they get back on their feet get it and get rid of the "cheaters" and the state would have plenty of money to run the whole state.

"Welfare" outside secondary and post-secondary education accounts for a tiny fraction of the budget, well less than 10%. Cutting all non-education based welfare from the general fund budget wouldn't even cover this years short fall.

--
lp

[pescadero]

And remember, while spending may have increased, funding to the state has also increased.

State Tax revenue used to support General Fund programs (inflation adjusted):

1990: 6.95 billion
2004: 5.38 billion

Oops... funding DECREASED by 22% between 1990 and 2004.

--
lp

[hondorob]

State Tax revenue used to support General Fund programs (inflation adjusted):

1990: 6.95 billion
2004: 5.38 billion

Oops... funding DECREASED by 22% between 1990 and 2004.

--
lp

Nice try, but you're either passively ill-informed or actively deceptive.

"State Tax revenue" is not the sole source of funding for state spending, and as you may or may not know, state spending in FY 2007 is about $29B, having risen nearly 50% from the 1995 level of $19B, well over any inflation and population growth rates.

Ooops.

You might try checking your facts a bit. Here's one of many sources for this sort of data, if you're curious: http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=7973

Thanks for prompting the additional discussion, however. I'd forgotten how massively state government spending has grown, even as they slash conservation spending. Thanks again.

[pescadero]

Nice try, but you're either passively ill-informed or actively deceptive.

Nope - I just understand the difference between areas where their is much spending discretion (the general fund) and where there is much less spending discretion.

"State Tax revenue" is not the sole source of funding for state spending, and as you may or may not know, state spending in FY 2007 is about $29B, having risen nearly 50% from the 1995 level of $19B, well over any inflation and population growth rates.

I don't know if I'd say "well over" - 19 billion in 1995 dollars adjusted for inflation to 2006 dollars is ~25 billion. Add another couple percent for 2007. Then take a look at only the funds the legislature actually has some control over and ignore directed funds, guaranteed funding level funds, and forced funding mandates from the federal government and look.

Ooops.

You might try checking your facts a bit. Here's one of many sources for this sort of data, if you're curious: http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=7973

Thanks for prompting the additional discussion, however. I'd forgotten how massively state government spending has grown, even as they slash conservation spending. Thanks again.

I'm not sure I'd call spending outpacing inflation by 10-12% "massive" growth - and I know just taking straight state spending without any analysis of what ability the legislature actually has to determine funding levels in any particular area is pretty worthless.

--
lp

[hondorob]

[quote=pescadero]Correct... and bottled water consumption accounts for something like 1% of total drinking water consumption

Hmmmmm, so bottled water is only "1% of total drinking water consumption", and yet you think somehow this is a massive depletion of "our" water resources, and thus we need to slap a tax on it in order to end this scourge of 1%? That what you're so terrified of? And further, you intend to make up the massive cuts in conservation spending by taxing this 1% bottled water consumption, despite the minuscule amount of revenue the 1% would bring?

Huh? Make up your mind. Either bottling water is a huge drain on our natural resources... or it's only 1% so it's not. Either we get a huge amount of money out of taxing bottled water, or it's only 1% and we don't get it.

Either way, though, taxing bottled water is a money grab.

Drinking water consumption is relatively inelastic.

Well, if bottled water were free, I guarantee a lot more would be consumed. If it were slapped with a $1 tax as you seem to prefer, consumption would decline. Again, this is basic economics, not red herrings.

Arguable. I'm willing to bet that it encourages the consumption of tap water a lot more than it encourages the consumption of other, unhealthier drinks.

Not really arguable. If people are out of the house, and faced with the choice of a $1.25 bottle of sugary pop and the $2 taxed bottled water you seem to prefer, that would drive many to choose the unhealthier drink. Again, this is all basic economics.

Not necessarily true. Many municipal water systems charge non-residences higher discharge fees as well as using sliding scale fees based on discharge rates. Bigger water users and corporate water users often are already paying increased discharge fees.

Or they charge lower fees, depending on the municipality, and how they structure their rates. Or at least, that's what I've seen, when working with the Townships I've consulted with, in helping them set their rates.

There are a lot that do - although I recently saw a program that said the somehwere in the neighborhood of 80+% of bottled water in the US is actually spring water and that the remaining was municipal water - and usually in these cases it ISN'T further refined, just plain bottled municipal water.

You're mistaken. Most if not all bottled water is refined further, even if it's source is municipal water systems. Further, it is a food product, regulatd by the FDA and Michigan Food Law. And if it says "purified" on the label, it's undergone distillation, reverse osmosis, deionization, or some other treatment process. Check the label.

Whether or not its a money grab is really dependent on a full accounting of ALL costs and benefits associated.

If money grabbers are slapping a tax on whichever oxe they've grab-bagged, then it's a money grab.

[hondorob]

[quote=pescadero]I don't know if I'd say "well over" - 19 billion in 1995 dollars adjusted for inflation to 2006 dollars is ~25 billion. Add another couple percent for 2007.

The $29B figure was through FY 2007. The increase is well over inflation and population growth, as mentioned. Again, your argument isn't with me... it's with the data.

Nice to see you drop off the dodge of "taxes" and get into actual spending, however. That was deceptive, for sure.

I'm not sure I'd call spending outpacing inflation by 10-12% "massive" growth -

Hmmmm, you and I have divergent views about what massive spending growth is. But let's leave it up to the people. Tell me, citizens, has your spending level grown by over 50% since 1995?

Sort of an easy answer, eh?

analysis of what ability the legislature actually has to determine

Oh, the Lansingers have plenty of ability to control spending, as we see, as they plunge into the 1/2 billion dollars of additional gas tax money, but obviously you don't seem to be too worried about spending, or massive spending increases.

But at least you now agree with my initial point, which you initially (and deceptively) disputed. Spending has increased.

Massively, in the eyes of most observers, although perhaps little, in your eyes.

[hondorob]

The resources aren't "theirs" or "somebody elses" - they are everyones.


--
lp

Agreed. And they should be conserved and paid for by everyone, and not just the select few oxen that some would like to gore.

Conservation is the responsibility of everyone. We are the guarantors of the quality of these natural resources, and these funds must come from the General Fund, from which the Lansingers have been stealing them.

[pescadero]

[quote=pescadero]Correct... and bottled water consumption accounts for something like 1% of total drinking water consumption

Hmmmmm, so bottled water is only "1% of total drinking water consumption", and yet you think somehow this is a massive depletion of "our" water resources, and thus we need to slap a tax on it in order to end this scourge of 1%?

You might want to quit goring that strawman before it makes you too itchy. My only claim is that changes in bottled water pricing will have little to no effect on the amount of water that is ingested.

That what you're so terrified of? And further, you intend to make up the massive cuts in conservation spending by taxing this 1% bottled water consumption, despite the minuscule amount of revenue the 1% would bring?

It's hard to say - bottled water seels for such a premium (generally in the 100x-1000x price range per volume compared to municipal water systems) that a tax may generate revenue out of proportion to what one thinks it would. Of course, I never made any claim that taxing bottled water would generate a lot of revenue. My only claim is that there is nothing "unfair" about taxing those profiting off a public resource.

Huh? Make up your mind. Either bottling water is a huge drain on our natural resources... or it's only 1% so it's not.

Why make up my mind, when you're so busy making up and attributing to me claims I've never made? I'll just let you hold the conversation for both of us, since you obviously aren't reading what I've written... or maybe you can quote all those posts where I claimed bottling water was a huge drain on our resources? Might be kind of tough, since I never said such a thing though...


Either we get a huge amount of money out of taxing bottled water, or it's only 1% and we don't get it.

Americans drink about 16oz of bottled water a day on average (and about 56 oz of tap water). That is about 9 million 16oz bottles a day in Michigan at an average price around $.50. A 1% tax on bottled water would generate about 16 million dollars a year in Michigan.


Either way, though, taxing bottled water is a money grab.

All taxes are a money grab. As are all user fees.

Drinking water consumption is relatively inelastic.

Well, if bottled water were free, I guarantee a lot more would be consumed. If it were slapped with a $1 tax as you seem to prefer, consumption would decline. Again, this is basic economics, not red herrings.

The question is: how much? Gas prices have increased 100% in the last two years. Demand for gasoline in the US has increased in that same time period.

Arguable. I'm willing to bet that it encourages the consumption of tap water a lot more than it encourages the consumption of other, unhealthier drinks.

Not really arguable. If people are out of the house, and faced with the choice of a $1.25 bottle of sugary pop and the $2 taxed bottled water you seem to prefer, that would drive many to choose the unhealthier drink. Again, this is all basic economics.

Because they couldn't use the free water fountain... You're making partially supported by MICRO economic statements with no regards to elasticity, replacement costs, or optimal tax structures.

Not necessarily true. Many municipal water systems charge non-residences higher discharge fees as well as using sliding scale fees based on discharge rates. Bigger water users and corporate water users often are already paying increased discharge fees.

Or they charge lower fees, depending on the municipality, and how they structure their rates. Or at least, that's what I've seen, when working with the Townships I've consulted with, in helping them set their rates.

It's certainly variable - and it depdns on a lot of factors.

There are a lot that do - although I recently saw a program that said the somehwere in the neighborhood of 80+% of bottled water in the US is actually spring water and that the remaining was municipal water - and usually in these cases it ISN'T further refined, just plain bottled municipal water.

You're mistaken. Most if not all bottled water is refined further, even if it's source is municipal water systems. Further, it is a food product, regulatd by the FDA and Michigan Food Law. And if it says "purified" on the label, it's undergone distillation, reverse osmosis, deionization, or some other treatment process. Check the label.

Generally municipal water systems are already "purified".

Whether or not its a money grab is really dependent on a full accounting of ALL costs and benefits associated.

If money grabbers are slapping a tax on whichever oxe they've grab-bagged, then it's a money grab.

If the long term costs of the ox outweigh the long term benefits including the tax, it isn't.

--
lp

[hondorob]

[quote=pescadero]You might want to quit goring that strawman before it makes you too itchy.

Hey, you're the one scurrying about looking for oxes to gore, I'm just trying to keep score on your gorings!

My only claim is that changes in bottled water pricing will have little to no effect on the amount of water that is ingested.

Yes it will, as mentioned, if folks out of their home choose other drinks in response to your goring of bottled water. Again, this is basic economics.

My only claim is that there is nothing "unfair" about taxing those profiting off a public resource.

Depends if it's a public resource. If I hold riparian rights to that water, you best believe it don't belong to you or anybody else. Or at least, that's what I've found in working with clients I've consulted with on their water rights issues.

But to your point, if conservation funding is removed from the general fund as we've seen, and reverts to select oxen, the conservation effort itself goes out the door with it. That's what we're seeing in this state, recently, and sadly.

or maybe you can quote all those posts where I claimed bottling water was a huge drain on our resources?

That was the initial discussion that you jumped into, but if that's not your position, then fair enough. You're a slippery fellow, though! Can't quite tell when you'll jump in or out of a position, apparently.

All taxes are a money grab. As are all user fees.

Not if they're broad-based, and are directly attached to the public good, and are seen as such. Evidently, our politicians are divorcing themselves from this sorta responsible public policy, in the realm of conservationism. The bottled water money grab would further that misguided policy, and further detach the public from that conservation effort.

The question is: how much? Gas prices have increased 100% in the last two years. Demand for gasoline in the US has increased in that same time period.

However, diesel has gone WAAAAY up, and the demand for diesels is starting to decline. But you are correct on this one, gasoline is one commodity that is truly inelastic in this country, in the short term anyway. But if you make bottled water more expensive, people purchase less of it... immediately. Unlike gasoline, bottled water IS elastic, when there's a bottle of Mountain Dew sitting in the cooler at 1/2 the cost.

Because they couldn't use the free water fountain...

Precisely. The oxe gorers gore the bottled water, and people choose the cheaper alternative... soda pop... the unhealthier alternative.

It's certainly variable - and it depdns on a lot of factors.

Good move. From the quality of your response, it's probably best for you to move away from the municipal water rate discussion you plunged into, I suspect.

Generally municipal water systems are already "purified".

Again, "purified" in this usage implies reverse osmosis, ultrafiltration, distillation, and other such treatment processes that are rarely or NEVER used in municipal water treatment. You'll have to trust me on that one, I suspect, unless you want to once again boldly plunge into a subject that you don't appear to have command of.

If the long term costs of the ox outweigh the long term benefits including the tax, it isn't.

If the long term "benefits" include divorcing the people of the state of Michigan from their historically-collective approach to conservation, then the oxe is gored to death, unfortunately.

[pescadero]

I don't know if I'd say "well over" - 19 billion in 1995 dollars adjusted for inflation to 2006 dollars is ~25 billion. Add another couple percent for 2007.
The $29B figure was through FY 2007. The increase is well over inflation and population growth, as mentioned. Again, your argument isn't with me... it's with the data.
The data:

19 billion in 1995 dollars adjusted for inflation in 2007: 25.7 billion

Actual 2007 budgeted number: 29 billion.

Increase above inflation in total spending: 12.8%

Of course - how much of that spending is discretionary (or cutting it would actually cost more money than keeping it - see Medicare or other federal matching programs) makes a huge difference.

You seem to want to ignore that certain parts of the budget have mandated funding levels that AREN'T under the control of the legislature. Costs that the legislature cannot reduce or remove.

You want to ignore that while spending has gone up (13% more than inflation) - the state tax burden on Michigan citizens has gone down in inflation adjusted dollar terms.

...and you keep wanting to bring in population adjustments, as though costs scale linearly with population.

Nice to see you drop off the dodge of "taxes" and get into actual spending, however. That was deceptive, for sure.

Not really. Taxes are what WE are contributing. Spending is our tax dollars, people from other states tax dollars, sales of government property, trust fund outputs, and numerous other sources.

I'm not sure I'd call spending outpacing inflation by 10-12% "massive" growth -
Hmmmm, you and I have divergent views about what massive spending growth is. But let's leave it up to the people. Tell me, citizens, has your spending level grown by over 50% since 1995?

Sort of an easy answer, eh?


My spending level has grown 500+% since 1995... but lets not be dishonest here, lets use inflation adjusted numbers. Spending has grown 13%, not 50%.


analysis of what ability the legislature actually has to determine

Oh, the Lansingers have plenty of ability to control spending, as we see, as they plunge into the 1/2 billion dollars of additional gas tax money, but obviously you don't seem to be too worried about spending, or massive spending increases.

Plenty of ability? So you should have no problem showing some actual data instead of propoganda. Lets see a list of which expenditures are discretionary and subject to change by the legislature and their associated costs. What percentage of that 29 billion is discretionary and which isn't? The budget is right there on the Mich.Gov. website for all to see. Do some analysis.


But at least you now agree with my initial point, which you initially (and deceptively) disputed. Spending has increased.

Spending has increased 13%. The state tax burden on Michigan residents has decreased.

Massively, in the eyes of most observers, although perhaps little, in your eyes.

You think most people believe a 13% increase is "massive"?

--
lp

[pescadero]

You might want to quit goring that strawman before it makes you too itchy.

Hey, you're the one scurrying about looking for oxes to gore, I'm just trying to keep score on your gorings!

Should I now add "Strawman Argument" to the list of things you seem not to understand?

My only claim is that changes in bottled water pricing will have little to no effect on the amount of water that is ingested.


Yes it will, as mentioned, if folks out of their home choose other drinks in response to your goring of bottled water. Again, this is basic economics.

No, basic microeconomics requires that you actually have some clue about the price elasticity of demand for bottled water, and you need to know how various substitutes will effect the total demand curve for water. You have none of those - just a pronouncement that ignores the most basic of microeconomic concepts.

My only claim is that there is nothing "unfair" about taxing those profiting off a public resource.

Depends if it's a public resource. If I hold riparian rights to that water, you best believe it don't belong to you or anybody else. Or at least, that's what I've found in working with clients I've consulted with on their water rights issues.

Water from underground aquifers is a public resource. If you are drawing water from a private lake or other riparian rights situation, I agree with you - as long as we're talking about Michigan (Western Water law is very different and doesn't use the concept of riparian rights).

But to your point, if conservation funding is removed from the general fund as we've seen, and reverts to select oxen, the conservation effort itself goes out the door with it. That's what we're seeing in this state, recently, and sadly.

We're seeing it with EVERY aspect of the state government - massive compartmentalization and turf wars. When the natural resource funds say to the general fund "this is OUR money, and you can't touch it" the general fund is going to play the same game right back.


or maybe you can quote all those posts where I claimed bottling water was a huge drain on our resources?

That was the initial discussion that you jumped into, but if that's not your position, then fair enough. You're a slippery fellow, though! Can't quite tell when you'll jump in or out of a position, apparently.

Apparently you can't even tell when I take position - which I'd have to do before jumping out of it. I think your problem stems from reading into what is written instead of reading what is written.

All taxes are a money grab. As are all user fees.

Not if they're broad-based, and are directly attached to the public good, and are seen as such.

Still money grabs, just justifiable money grabs.


Evidently, our politicians are divorcing themselves from this sorta responsible public policy, in the realm of conservationism. The bottled water money grab would further that misguided policy, and further detach the public from that conservation effort.

I'm afraid you may shortly find out that this change in policy you're talking about in reality is supported by the majority of Michigan residents.

The question is: how much? Gas prices have increased 100% in the last two years. Demand for gasoline in the US has increased in that same time period.


However, diesel has gone WAAAAY up, and the demand for diesels is starting to decline. But you are correct on this one, gasoline is one commodity that is truly inelastic in this country, in the short term anyway. But if you make bottled water more expensive, people purchase less of it... immediately. Unlike gasoline, bottled water IS elastic, when there's a bottle of Mountain Dew sitting in the cooler at 1/2 the cost.

There is no such thing as "elastic" or "inelastic" - just degrees of elasticity. Gasoline isn't totally inelastic, and like most real goods the demand curve is NOT linear.

The elasticity of bottled water demand is certainly more elastic than gasoline, but I'm not sure total water consumption IS much more elastic. Plus your numbers are silly. Mountain Dew ALREADY costs less than bottled water, and putting a tax on bottled water is never going to cause a massive change in price. Do you really think the average bottled water cost going from $1 to $1.05 is going to cause a mass exodus from bottled water and to unhealthy drinks?


Because they couldn't use the free water fountain...

Precisely. The oxe gorers gore the bottled water, and people choose the cheaper alternative... soda pop... the unhealthier alternative.

Why didn't they choose the even cheaper alternative? Water from the free water fountain.

It's certainly variable - and it depdns on a lot of factors.

Good move. From the quality of your response, it's probably best for you to move away from the municipal water rate discussion you plunged into, I suspect.

I doubt it - it's a variable that is highly dependent on so many things as to need to be quantified on an individual case basis.

Generally municipal water systems are already "purified".

Again, "purified" in this usage implies reverse osmosis, ultrafiltration, distillation, and other such treatment processes that are rarely or NEVER used in municipal water treatment.

They are relatively uncommon IN MICHIGAN. That being said the water quality standards they have to meet are no more stringent than those of municipal water systems outside of lead levels.



You'll have to trust me on that one, I suspect, unless you want to once again boldly plunge into a subject that you don't appear to have command of.

I'll agree that in Michigan due to our copiuous amounts of fresh water of reasonably good quality that municipal water systems generally don't do that level of purification because it is unnecessary.


If the long term costs of the ox outweigh the long term benefits including the tax, it isn't.

If the long term "benefits" include divorcing the people of the state of Michigan from their historically-collective approach to conservation, then the oxe is gored to death, unfortunately.

The government IS us, the people. If there is a divorcing of the people of the state of Michigan from their historically-collective approach to conservation it is at the peoples choice.


--
lp

[hondorob]

[quote pescadero]The data:

19 billion in 1995 dollars adjusted for inflation in 2007: 25.7 billion

Actual 2007 budgeted number: 29 billion.

Increase above inflation in total spending: 12.8%

Very good, you actually absorbed and analyzed the data properly this time, rather than giving your original deceptive mischaracterization of it, which was itself an acknowledgement of your originally deceptive implication that state spending had declined. You're getting better! Who knows? You might eventually even get to honest-debater status!

And again, we'll let the bulk of the people decide whether the (begrudgingly acknowledged by you) 12.8% increased real spending level is what they themselves are seeing in THEIR lives. HINT: It's not.

You seem to want to ignore that certain parts of the budget have mandated funding levels

Oh, unlike you, I ignore very little. And equally unlike you, I don't invent my facts.

The Lansingers have ultimate control over the state budget. They set priorities. Legislative matters and required changes are a part of the mainstream governmental process used to do this, and much or most of the budget can be handled in this mainstream fashion, as in the past by RESPONSIBLE state governments. If Constitutional change is required to reset priorities, in the event of unneeded strictures placed on spending, the Lansingers can intitiate that also.

You seem to view state government as victims, for some strange reason. I don't. There is no magic to this process, and no need to view politicians as "victims".

You want to ignore that while spending has gone up (13% more than inflation)

I again want to commend you on your abandonment of your first-stated implication that state spending had gone down. That's progress!

...and you keep wanting to bring in population adjustments, as though costs scale linearly with population.

"As though"? Hmmmm, I rather thought that my mention of population adjustments was conjoined with inflation rates to demonstrate that the massive increase in state spending BEYOND those 2 factors was proof of their MASS, with no other implication attached. But, that's just me properly analyzing the data again. Pardon me for not comporting myself with your preferred methods of mischaracterization and deception.

Spending is our tax dollars, people from other states tax dollars, sales of government property, trust fund outputs, and numerous other sources.

Gosh, you seem so excited to share that bit of minutiae, almost like you just learned it! But thanks for sharing, anyways. Perhaps there's another initiate such as yourself in here, who might benefit from that info.

Lets see a list of which expenditures are discretionary and subject to change by the legislature and their associated costs. What percentage of that 29 billion is discretionary and which isn't? The budget is right there on the Mich.Gov. website for all to see. Do some analysis.

You do it. To this point, I've provided ALL of the (honestly characterized) data in this discussion, and it's time for you to start providing some, don't you think?

As for me, I view most or ALL of the state budget as reviewable and actionable directly by the Lansingers. You don't, obviously. You view the Lansingers as victims to happenstance, and you will have to demonstrate why you hold such a view. Similar to past generations in Lansing, the rest of us simply have to balance our budgets, both personally and in business, and we do what's necessary to do so. So must the current Lansingers, while maintaining essentials such as CONSERVATION, which the current crop of greasers doesn't appear to acknowledge as essential, evidently.

Spending has increased 13%. The state tax burden on Michigan residents has decreased.

Oh really? You mean the future tax burden placed on the people of Michigan by the structural deficit these current Lansingers are clandestinely hammering down on us doesn't count? I guess you're not following that discussion (among other things you're not following, obviously.). Here's one portion of that MASSIVE deferred future tax burden you're ignoring, if you suddenly develop an attack of curiousity: http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070512/SCHOOLS/705120386/-1/ARCHIVE

You think most people believe a 13% increase is "massive"?

Again, let's leave that to the body of the people. How about it, folks? How are you enjoying that 13% extra spending money these days? Are you having fun on those 13% additional vacations you're taking? And the 13% extra hunting/fishing trips you're getting, how you liking those? The 13% extra personal electronics, they working out good for you? The 13% more house you've been blessed with, you like that? That 13% more ACROSS THE BOARD REAL SPENDING MONEY... you appreciating that?

Or rather, are you like many in this state, who in fact have seen your real income DROP, while state spending increased a MASSIVE 13% in real terms? (while spending on conservation is slashed)

Tell us, folks.

Well, tell this guy, anyways. The rest of us already know the answer.

[pescadero]

The data:

19 billion in 1995 dollars adjusted for inflation in 2007: 25.7 billion

Actual 2007 budgeted number: 29 billion.

Increase above inflation in total spending: 12.8%

Very good, you actually absorbed and analyzed the data properly this time, rather than giving your original deceptive mischaracterization of it, which was itself an acknowledgement of your originally deceptive implication that state spending had declined.

No, I said State General Fund State Tax revenue had declined... and guess what? It has.

You're getting better! Who knows? You might eventually even get to honest-debater status!

It is so very dishonest to claim that State General Fund State Tax revenue had declined, when it has declined... oh wait, it just stating the facts.


And again, we'll let the bulk of the people decide whether the (begrudgingly acknowledged by you) 12.8% increased real spending level is what they themselves are seeing in THEIR lives. HINT: It's not.

"What they are seeing in their lives"? What the hell are you trying to say here?

Are you saying most people haven't had a 13% increase in spending over the last 12 years? Or most people have seen their tax burden increase by more than 13% Or what?


You seem to want to ignore that certain parts of the budget have mandated funding levels

Oh, unlike you, I ignore very little. And equally unlike you, I don't invent my facts.

Now you're adding lying to list of accomplishments. Very nice. I haven't invented a single fact.


The Lansingers have ultimate control over the state budget.

So they can cut ANY item in the budget, ANY amount they want?

They set priorities. Legislative matters and required changes are a part of the mainstream governmental process used to do this, and much or most of the budget can be handled in this mainstream fashion, as in the past by RESPONSIBLE state governments. If Constitutional change is required to reset priorities, in the event of unneeded strictures placed on spending, the Lansingers can intitiate that also.

Oh, so they CAN'T do whatever they want - but they COULD change the Constitution to let them do it... except even that isn't completely true - some spending mandates come from the federal government.


You seem to view state government as victims, for some strange reason. I don't. There is no magic to this process, and no need to view politicians as "victims".

They aren't victims - but they're players in a system. Just like a running back can't shoot the guy trying to tackle him (because of those pesky rules and laws) the legislature has to work within the legal and procedural framework they are given.


You want to ignore that while spending has gone up (13% more than inflation)


I again want to commend you on your abandonment of your first-stated implication that state spending had gone down. That's progress!

...and I want to recommend you look into a reading comprehension course, because I never stated or implied that state spending has gone done. I explicitly stated that State General Fund Tax revenue had declined.

...and you keep wanting to bring in population adjustments, as though costs scale linearly with population.


"As though"? Hmmmm, I rather thought that my mention of population adjustments was conjoined with inflation rates to demonstrate that the massive increase in state spending BEYOND those 2 factors was proof of their MASS, with no other implication attached. But, that's just me properly analyzing the data again. Pardon me for not comporting myself with your preferred methods of mischaracterization and deception.

Do you think a school that has 100 students sees a 50% reduction in costs if it's enrollment suddenly drops to 50?

Do you think the cost of patrolling/maintaining/etc. our state forests decreases with decreased population?

Some expenditures are effected positively by reductions in population, and some are not.


Spending is our tax dollars, people from other states tax dollars, sales of government property, trust fund outputs, and numerous other sources.

Gosh, you seem so excited to share that bit of minutiae, almost like you just learned it! But thanks for sharing, anyways. Perhaps there's another initiate such as yourself in here, who might benefit from that info.

It isn't the average Michigan resident paying for that increased spending, and the average Michigan resident has seen a reduction in state tax burden.



Lets see a list of which expenditures are discretionary and subject to change by the legislature and their associated costs. What percentage of that 29 billion is discretionary and which isn't? The budget is right there on the Mich.Gov. website for all to see. Do some analysis.

You do it. To this point, I've provided ALL of the (honestly characterized) data in this discussion, and it's time for you to start providing some, don't you think?

What was honest about calling a 13% inflation adjusted increase 50%? That is pretty much the only data (honestly characterized or otherwise) that you've provided. You're th one making the claim for complete autonomy of the legislature re. the budget - the onus of proof is on you.


As for me, I view most or ALL of the state budget as reviewable and actionable directly by the Lansingers.

So when the federal government legally requires a certain level of funding be dedicated to something the legislature should break the law and not fund it?

You don't, obviously. You view the Lansingers as victims to happenstance, and you will have to demonstrate why you hold such a view.

Because MANY of their budget requirements are just that - requirements, not subject to their decisions.


Similar to past generations in Lansing, the rest of us simply have to balance our budgets, both personally and in business, and we do what's necessary to do so. So must the current Lansingers, while maintaining essentials such as CONSERVATION, which the current crop of greasers doesn't appear to acknowledge as essential, evidently.

Remember - the government IS the people. Those legislators are there doing the bidding of the people.

Spending has increased 13%. The state tax burden on Michigan residents has decreased.


Oh really? You mean the future tax burden placed on the people of Michigan by the structural deficit these current Lansingers are clandestinely hammering down on us doesn't count? I guess you're not following that discussion (among other things you're not following, obviously.). Here's one portion of that MASSIVE deferred future tax burden you're ignoring, if you suddenly develop an attack of curiousity: http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070512/SCHOOLS/705120386/-1/ARCHIVE (http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070512/SCHOOLS/705120386/-1/ARCHIVE)

Nope - I'm talking about past years actual tax take. Inflation adjusted tax dollars going into the general fund have dropped ~20% in the last 20 years.

You think most people believe a 13% increase is "massive"?

Again, let's leave that to the body of the people. How about it, folks? How are you enjoying that 13% extra spending money these days? Are you having fun on those 13% additional vacations you're taking? And the 13% extra hunting/fishing trips you're getting, how you liking those? The 13% extra personal electronics, they working out good for you? The 13% more house you've been blessed with, you like that? That 13% more ACROSS THE BOARD REAL SPENDING MONEY... you appreciating that?

Or rather, are you like many in this state, who in fact have seen your real income DROP, while state spending increased a MASSIVE 13% in real terms? (while spending on conservation is slashed)

Tell us, folks.

Well, tell this guy, anyways. The rest of us already know the answer.

Yep - we know 13% isn't massive.

--
lp

[hondorob]

[quote=pescadero]Should I now add "Strawman Argument" to the list of things you seem not to understand?

Well, I suggest you stay away from "addition" or any other subset of mathematics, as you don't seem very comfortable with data management, analysis and presentation, or any other of the sciences evidently, even as you wax "eloquent" on water rights, water treatment, water rates, and various other technical subjects you obviously haven't a clue about.

basic microeconomics requires that you actually have some clue about the price elasticity of demand for bottled water

Precisely. If you raise the price of bottled water, it's consumption will go down. You seem to be struggling with this most basic of economic concepts. The consumer will choose the bottle of sugary Mountain Dew, as the rest of us well understand. Now, you and Comrade Professor can go analyze the reasons why this is true, if you'd like. Perhaps you can even heist some grant money from the Lansingers to study it. Who knows? You two might even reach the same conclusion the rest of us already understand!

(Western Water law is very different and doesn't use the concept of riparian rights).

It's positively stunning, your continued blathering on technical matters of which you are so blindly ignorant. Amazing!

FYI, riparian rights are perhaps the BIGGEST part of "Western Water law" or whatever term you've invented to describe the systems of acquisition, control, and exercise of water rights out west. Your ignorance of this is pretty stunning, considering the hard, long-recognized road they took to develop that system out there. They sorta had to work on it for a while, to get to the point of workable law and process, and much of the "work" involved Winchester repeating rifles, which might (but probably not)educate you as to how serious they were/are about their riparian rights in that part of the world, and the important place they hold in the law and society out there.

But then, I've had only the briefest of experiences with this subject out there, although even that appears to be somewhat more "expansive" than yours, to say no more. You might just want to drop the poseur routine, big guy. You're starting to look pretty foolish now.

When the natural resource funds say to the general fund "this is OUR money, and you can't touch it" the general fund is going to play the same game right back.

"General funds" don't play games, fyi. Lansing greasers do. Remember this. Conservation spending has gone down, state spending has gone up. Remember this, too, as you seem to be forgetting again.

Still money grabs, just justifiable money grabs.

I don't think most people view justifiable taxes and fees, reasonably explained and presented as for essential services, as "money grabs". But to each his own, I guess.

I'm afraid you may shortly find out that this change in policy you're talking about in reality is supported by the majority of Michigan residents.

Suggest you check around a bit, before you assume what the "majority" thinks about what's happening right now. The Lansingers are quaking in their boots, scurrying for cover as they work through these budget issues. Take a guess why.

There is no such thing as "elastic" or "inelastic" - just degrees of elasticity. Gasoline isn't totally inelastic, and like most real goods the demand curve is NOT linear.

Well, I'll go you one better, almost NOTHING is "linear" (assuming this concept doesn't tax your limited mathematical skillset).

However, the point is that gasoline consumption is far more "inelastic" than bottled water consumption, clearly, as we've seen historically.

putting a tax on bottled water is never going to cause a massive change in price.

False. The price of bottled water will have a precise "linear" relationship to the tax rate you oxe gorers throw on it. If the tax is massive, the price will be massive. Again, I hope this concept falls within the confines of your mathematical abilities. As this linear relationship approaches the price of other, unhealthier drinks, consumption of these unhealthier drinks will rise. Again, why is this concept so difficult for you to understand?

Why didn't they choose the even cheaper alternative? Water from the free water fountain.

Because there wasn't one available? Because they don't want to use a public facility? Because of a million other reasons?

But rather than chase those million elusive, vaporous answers, let's try a more precise question. What logical reason do you oxe gorers offer to support goring this one particular oxe, and not... thumbtacks, for example?

I doubt it - it's a variable that is highly dependent on so many things as to need to be quantified on an individual case basis.

Yes, municipal water rates are dependent on many things, none of which you have familiarity with, evidently, even as you bloviate on them.

Again, you might want to abandon this poseur routine, and walk away from the technical discussion. It's gettin' pretty ugly now.

They are relatively uncommon IN MICHIGAN.

Oh? Well then, precisely where in these United States are ultrafiltration, reverse osmosis, etc. "commonly" used in municipal water treatment, since you're so obviously knowledgeable on the topic? I'll expect an answer on this one. Let's see if you can exercise some quick Wikipedia skills, and manufacture an answer unembarassing to you.

However, as mentioned, "purified" as used in bottled water applications presumes the treatment methods mentioned previously, methods that are rarely or NEVER used in municipal water treatment, as previously mentioned. They're sorta expensive, as you might understand if you actually knew anything about water treatment

The government IS us, the people. If there is a divorcing of the people of the state of Michigan from their historically-collective approach to conservation it is at the peoples choice.

Well, we finally agree on something, I suppose.

We have made some progress. You seem to have finally dumped your implication that state spending has declined, and has actually increased, even as conservation spending has been slashed. You need to work on the rest of it, though. And again, you might wanna drop the poseur routine, re the technical issues you're attempting to discuss. Or at least, sharpen up those wiki skills.

To the larger point, the "divorce" you refer to, the severing of the people from a collective conservation ethic, can only occur if the Lansingers have willing apologists, who accept the Lansingers' preferred role as "victim", rather than as empowered government. You appear to be one such, and I most definitely am not. That money WAS there previously, and it must be restored.

[hondorob]

Dang, you're gettin' edgy now!

[quote=pescader]It is so very dishonest to claim that State General Fund State Tax revenue had declined, when it has declined...

Except when the discussion was about state spending, and you injected mischaracterized data to imply that spending had declined. But good of you to now acknowledge that it's risen!

"What they are seeing in their lives"? What the hell are you trying to say here?

Um... let's see... how about.... that people in this state haven't seen a 13% increase in their real spending power, even as the state spending HAS seen it?

Do you need further explanation, or did I use littler-enough words for you?

I haven't invented a single fact.

Well no, other than you manufactured FY 2007 spending levels when I first presented them. And all the water treatment, riparian rights discussions you're fantasizing detailed knowledge of. No, not much lying... other than all that.

So they can cut ANY item in the budget, ANY amount they want?

If it's not Constitutinally mandated... basically, yes.

some spending mandates come from the federal government.

Ah, but as you are apparently unaware of, young glasshoppa, many of those spending mandates are attached to federal funding. The Lansingers can decline them if they choose, as many states have done, which you'd know if you bothered checking on these things.

Again, the Lansingers have ULTIMATE control of state budgetary issues. They set prioritities. This ain't magic.

Some expenditures are effected positively by reductions in population, and some are not.

Thank your for your continued sharing of such minutaie, and I do get a kick out of your obvious excitement with sharing that stuff!

It isn't the average Michigan resident paying for that increased spending, and the average Michigan resident has seen a reduction in state tax burden.

Again, does that include the massive deferred tax burden the Lansing greasers are pounding down on us today? Maybe you haven't been able to decipher that bit of data I handed you? Let me know, I might be able to offer you remedial help on that one.

And oh, why don't you go tell your loan officer that your loan that comes due next month don't count, and you don't have to pay it because it's in the "future". See where that gets you. The rest of us already know, but it's time you learned it too.

That is pretty much the only data (honestly characterized or otherwise) that you've provided.

If it is, it's more than you've provided.

You're th one making the claim for complete autonomy of the legislature re. the budget - the onus of proof is on you.

No, I make the claim that the Lansingers can and SHOULD develop budgets encompassing the essentials. YOU are the one claiming the Lansingers are victims and it's too hard a job because of blah blah blah. Prove it. Show me the data to support your point. The rest of us sorta live with this sorta thing daily, and have no patience with you victimologists.

So when the federal government legally requires a certain level of funding be dedicated to something the legislature should break the law and not fund it?

If federalism permits this... yes.

Because MANY of their budget requirements are just that - requirements, not subject to their decisions.

Some may be, but many or most of those falling within the boundaries of federalism require the feds to pony up cash in order enforce compliance. It's not about "breaking the law", it's about the Lansingers setting priorities, and refusing that cash if they think it best. If fed priorities aren't theirs, they don't have to follow 'em. That precedent is long proven, as you should know. We've done it multiple times in this state in my memory, as you'd know if you knew anything much.

Remember - the government IS the people. Those legislators are there doing the bidding of the people.

Well again, ultimately, we agree. Problem is, some of the "people" are victimologists such as yourself, who find excuses for the Lansingers to abandon conservation in this state, slowly and surely.





Nope - I'm talking about past years actual tax take.

More deception, I guess. That future tax burden the Lansingers are hammering down on us right now is just as real as today's burden, FYI. And you wonder why you're called slippery, eh? Stop your deception.

And again, go talk to your loan officer and hand him that same line, and see how you make out.

Yep - we know 13% isn't massive.

Well, at least you now acknowledge the INCREASE, anyways, and that's progress. Like I say, we'll let the people decide how they're enjoying the MASSIVE 13% increase in their real spending power, as the Lansingers have done, even as they slash conservation spending.

[pescadero]

Should I now add "Strawman Argument" to the list of things you seem not to understand?

Well, I suggest you stay away from "addition" or any other subset of mathematics, as you don't seem very comfortable with data management, analysis and presentation, or any other of the sciences evidently, even as you wax "eloquent" on water rights, water treatment, water rates, and various other technical subjects you obviously haven't a clue about.

You've sure waxed a lot - piles of pronouncements supported by nothing but your bloviating.



basic microeconomics requires that you actually have some clue about the price elasticity of demand for bottled water

Precisely. If you raise the price of bottled water, it's consumption will go down.

Correct - the question is, how much? A 10% increase in price may only lead to a .1% decrease in consumption OF BOTTLED WATER.

You seem to be struggling with this most basic of economic concepts. The consumer will choose the bottle of sugary Mountain Dew, as the rest of us well understand.

They may choose the Mountain Dew, or they might choose the iced tea, or that might choose to wait until they get home and have a glass of water. There is no evidence to show that a small increase in bottled water prices leads to an increase in sales of soft drinks.


(Western Water law is very different and doesn't use the concept of riparian rights).


It's positively stunning, your continued blathering on technical matters of which you are so blindly ignorant. Amazing!

FYI, riparian rights are perhaps the BIGGEST part of "Western Water law" or whatever term you've invented to describe the systems of acquisition, control, and exercise of water rights out west. Your ignorance of this is pretty stunning, considering the hard, long-recognized road they took to develop that system out there. They sorta had to work on it for a while, to get to the point of workable law and process, and much of the "work" involved Winchester repeating rifles, which might (but probably not)educate you as to how serious they were/are about their riparian rights in that part of the world, and the important place they hold in the law and society out there.

Riparian rights specifically refers to allocating water among those who possess land about its source - western water law (which is still FAR from settled by the way) places much less relevance on the posessors of land at the water source.



When the natural resource funds say to the general fund "this is OUR money, and you can't touch it" the general fund is going to play the same game right back.

"General funds" don't play games, fyi. Lansing greasers do. Remember this. Conservation spending has gone down, state spending has gone up. Remember this, too, as you seem to be forgetting again.

Spending has gone up where the consitutents and laws have demanded it. Spending has gone down where the constituents have desired it.

Still money grabs, just justifiable money grabs.

I don't think most people view justifiable taxes and fees, reasonably explained and presented as for essential services, as "money grabs". But to each his own, I guess.

Sure they do - because there aren't two people on earth who agree on a definition for "justifiable taxes and fees" and "essential services".

I'm afraid you may shortly find out that this change in policy you're talking about in reality is supported by the majority of Michigan residents.

Suggest you check around a bit, before you assume what the "majority" thinks about what's happening right now. The Lansingers are quaking in their boots, scurrying for cover as they work through these budget issues. Take a guess why.

Because people don't want to pay more, but people want more services. The people of Michigan in particular are full of this malady - they want a free lunch. The legislature can't give it to them, and they know they can't win for losing.


There is no such thing as "elastic" or "inelastic" - just degrees of elasticity. Gasoline isn't totally inelastic, and like most real goods the demand curve is NOT linear.

Well, I'll go you one better, almost NOTHING is "linear" (assuming this concept doesn't tax your limited mathematical skillset).

Yes... my limited mathematical skill set... What technical degrees do you have now?


However, the point is that gasoline consumption is far more "inelastic" than bottled water consumption, clearly, as we've seen historically.

...but is more inelastic than WATER consumption?

putting a tax on bottled water is never going to cause a massive change in price.


[quote=hondorob] False. The price of bottled water will have a precise "linear" relationship to the tax rate you oxe gorers throw on it. If the tax is massive, the price will be massive.

Duh. If you add a massive tax to anything, the price will be massive. Lets stick with reality here though - no one anywhere is suggesting a massive tax.

Again, I hope this concept falls within the confines of your mathematical abilities. As this linear relationship approaches the price of other, unhealthier drinks, consumption of these unhealthier drinks will rise. Again, why is this concept so difficult for you to understand?

The concept is easy to understand - its all those niggling details you seem to want to ignore that get in the way. The assumption that "other" drinks will by definition be unhealthy is unsupported. The assumption that a tax will inevitably lead to the price "approaching" other drinks is unsupported - especially in light of the fact that the majority of those unhealthy drinks are already cheaper than bottled water.

Why didn't they choose the even cheaper alternative? Water from the free water fountain.

Because there wasn't one available? Because they don't want to use a public facility? Because of a million other reasons?

... and you know based on your mountains of objective data the numbers which will choose to use drinking fountains and which will resort to replacement with soft drinks...


But rather than chase those million elusive, vaporous answers, let's try a more precise question. What logical reason do you oxe gorers offer to support goring this one particular oxe, and not... thumbtacks, for example?

I've never said I support it - there is that strawman rearing his head again. Why don't you try arguing against what I said, instead of what your fevered imagination wants me to have said? All I've said is that there is no definitive evidence that a tax on bottled water will increase soft drink consumption.

Talking with you is pointless - you don't argue against peoples claims, but against what you WANT their claims to be. You consistently engage in strawman arguments and several other logical fallacies... and you blatantly lie. It's rather unbecoming.


The government IS us, the people. If there is a divorcing of the people of the state of Michigan from their historically-collective approach to conservation it is at the peoples choice.


Well, we finally agree on something, I suppose.

We have made some progress. You seem to have finally dumped your implication that state spending has declined,

An implication that never existed outside your fevered imagination.


and has actually increased, even as conservation spending has been slashed. You need to work on the rest of it, though. And again, you might wanna drop the poseur routine, re the technical issues you're attempting to discuss. Or at least, sharpen up those wiki skills.

To the larger point, the "divorce" you refer to, the severing of the people from a collective conservation ethic, can only occur if the Lansingers have willing apologists, who accept the Lansingers' preferred role as "victim", rather than as empowered government.

You couldn't be more wrong. All it takes is the desire of the people for it to happen - and it seems to be happening.



You appear to be one such, and I most definitely am not. That money WAS there previously, and it must be restored.

Not if the people of Michigan don't want it restored.

--
lp

[pescadero]

It is so very dishonest to claim that State General Fund State Tax revenue had declined, when it has declined...

Except when the discussion was about state spending, and you injected mischaracterized data to imply that spending had declined. But good of you to now acknowledge that it's risen!

I injected data with NO characterization other than an accurate label.

"What they are seeing in their lives"? What the hell are you trying to say here?

Um... let's see... how about.... that people in this state haven't seen a 13% increase in their real spending power, even as the state spending HAS seen it?

Do you need further explanation, or did I use littler-enough words for you?

You're the one who seems to have problems communicating your point in correct English.

I haven't invented a single fact.


Well no, other than you manufactured FY 2007 spending levels when I first presented them.

Pretty impressive since the only mention I've made of 2007 spending levels in this entire thread is to estimate what the inflation adjusted 1995 numbers would be in 2007... but hey, somewhere in your mind you must have seen it, so its reality.



some spending mandates come from the federal government.

Ah, but as you are apparently unaware of, young glasshoppa, many of those spending mandates are attached to federal funding. The Lansingers can decline them if they choose, as many states have done, which you'd know if you bothered checking on these things.

...and in some cases refusing those spending mandates will make the deficit WORSE as the feds are matching at over 100%.


Again, the Lansingers have ULTIMATE control of state budgetary issues. They set prioritities. This ain't magic.

No, the people of Michigan have ULTIMATE control of state budgetary issues.

No, I make the claim that the Lansingers can and SHOULD develop budgets encompassing the essentials.

Which essentials? The ones you want, or the ones desired by a majority of Michigan residents?


]Remember - the government IS the people. Those legislators are there doing the bidding of the people.

Well again, ultimately, we agree. Problem is, some of the "people" are victimologists such as yourself, who find excuses for the Lansingers to abandon conservation in this state, slowly and surely.

As they should. Their mandate is to uphold their oath of office and work for their constituents desires. If the people of Michigan want to abandon conservation it is the duty of their legislators to do so.



Yep - we know 13% isn't massive.

Well, at least you now acknowledge the INCREASE, anyways, and that's progress.

I always acknowledged that spending had increased. Pointing out that taxpayer contributions decreased says nothing about whether spending increased or decreased, it only says something about what part of the change is seen by the populous.


Like I say, we'll let the people decide how they're enjoying the MASSIVE 13% increase in their real spending power, as the Lansingers have done, even as they slash conservation spending.

Just like we always have - they're called elections. And the people of Michigan have repeatedly elected those people who have raised spending to your ire. If they don't enjoy it, they'll vote them out. If they do, they'll keep them in power. So what is the w/l rate for incumbents in the Michigan legislature over the last 12 years?

--
lp

[hondorob]

Man, you're whining, but this is sorta fun!

[quote=pescadero]You've sure waxed a lot - piles of pronouncements supported by nothing but your bloviating.

Hey, that's MY word! COPYCATTER!

But needless to say, I don't bloviate about things I'm ignorant of, as you appear to enjoy doing. Again, drop the poseur routine.

Correct

More progress! If you raise the price of bottled water, consumption goes down.

WHEW, it was a battle, but you finally got there!


western water law

Again, you might want to drop the poseur routine. You are not qualified to bloviate on this topic, and you and I both know this.

Spending has gone up

Continued progress... very encouraging!

Sure they do - because there aren't two people on earth who agree on a definition for "justifiable taxes and fees" and "essential services".

Yeah, but we're talking about the people as a whole, and "essential services" are pretty much a known and accepted thing for us as a whole, even if the route to them is to be argued over. The specific question here is, are you Lansinger apologists and victimologists gonna continue to allow your Lansinger "victims" to redefine conservation in this state as "non-essential". Recently, your answer seems to be "yes".

The people of Michigan in particular are full of this malady

The legislature can't give it to them, and they know they can't win for losing.

Ah, we finally get to it, the people have a "malady", and the poor Lansinger victims have to deal with these ungrateful slobs. That's the sorta talk we hear from somebody with some skin in the game. What's your role here, by the way?

If they see themselves as "victims", they better resign. If the reason they offer for not doing their jobs is the "malady" of the people... they better resign NOW. And if you're in here explaining away and apologizing for that disgraceful behaviour... well... WOW... is all I can say.

Yes... my limited mathematical skill set... What technical degrees do you have now?

"Degrees", is it? Well, if you were as smart as you're posing to be, you'd probably know this already from the character of my posts. But let's see if you can guess. Shouldn't be too hard for somebody of your obvious abilities!

And as you might imagine, I'm not too impressed with "degrees", not even my own, and especially not the types you and Comrade Professor are all about.

[quote=pescadero]putting a tax on bottled water is never going to cause a massive change in price.

If you add a massive tax to anything, the price will be massive.

Good, but you said otherwise in your post, as mentioned. You musta read my analysis thoroughly, and now recognize this simple reality, which the rest of us knew all along. Progress again!

The concept is easy to understand - its all those niggling details you seem to want to ignore

No, again, I ignore little, my friend. My clients pay me to take in data, and analyze it properly, unlike you. You should try this discipline sometime, then I wouldn't have to correct you as you mischaracterize FY data, as above.

The assumption that a tax will inevitably lead to the price "approaching" other drinks is unsupported

Whoops, I guess we have to back you up to previous lessons, still unlearned. The price of a commodity will have a "linear" relationship with the tax you oxe gorers place on it. If you gore the oxe enough, that price will "approach" or even "surpass" other oxen. This "linear" relationship has long been "supported" by 2-dimensional mathematics (assuming you ever got that far). Got it?

... and you know based on your mountains of objective data the numbers which will choose to use drinking fountains and which will resort to replacement with soft drinks...

Again, who knows the myriad million answers to your vaporous and useless question as to what the consumer will do? What we DO know is that they will defer some bottled water consumption, if you oxe-gorers gore the oxe too high. Again, what's so difficult about this concept?

I've never said I support it

Yes, you're a slippery chap, alright! The discussion was about a bottled water tax, and you made countless points supporting the "reasons" for it, but you don't really "support" it. Gotcha!

Talking with you is pointless

Well, for something so "pointless", you sure seem to be coming back for more, that's for sure! You are educable though, glasshoppa, I truly believe that. But you have to WANT to be educated, and the education has to STICK. You have to absorb and APPLY it. That's the ticket. I am glad that you've helped in here to get the word out concerning the massive real state spending increase, though. Everybody has a purpose, and you've served that here. Thanks!

And I'm also grateful to have you act out as apologist for the Lansingers abandonment of their proper governmental role in these fiscal shenanigans. They like to stay underground, and we need you types to help surface this stuff, and their arguments that people have a "malady" and so forth. That too is useful. Thanks again.

Now, we just need to use these arguments to put the pressure on those Lansing types, and force them to RESTORE that conservation spending to historical levels. No excuses... no "victimology"... do your job and restore that essential spending.

[pescadero]

Man, you're whining, but this is sorta fun!

You've sure waxed a lot - piles of pronouncements supported by nothing but your bloviating.

Hey, that's MY word! COPYCATTER!

You should contact the Guiness Book - if it's your word you must be the oldest man on earth.



Sure they do - because there aren't two people on earth who agree on a definition for "justifiable taxes and fees" and "essential services".


Yeah, but we're talking about the people as a whole, and "essential services" are pretty much a known and accepted thing for us as a whole, even if the route to them is to be argued over.

No, "essential services" are not a known and accepted thing. You and I think conservation is an essential service. Some people think community mental health is an essential service... and if you talk to most libertarians they'll tell you that NEITHER are essential services to be provided by the government.


The specific question here is, are you Lansinger apologists and victimologists gonna continue to allow your Lansinger "victims" to redefine conservation in this state as "non-essential". Recently, your answer seems to be "yes".

It ain't the politicians - it's the citizens. The citizenry is deciding it is non-essential, and the legislature is just carrying out there wishes.


The people of Michigan in particular are full of this malady

The legislature can't give it to them, and they know they can't win for losing.


Ah, we finally get to it, the people have a "malady",

They absolutely do - it's a refusal to admit, as Robert Heinlein said "There is no such thing as a free lunch".

and the poor Lansinger victims have to deal with these ungrateful slobs. That's the sorta talk we hear from somebody with some skin in the game. What's your role here, by the way?

My role? I'm an interested observer of the human foibles. The people get the government they deserve. Always.

If they see themselves as "victims", they better resign. If the reason they offer for not doing their jobs is the "malady" of the people... they better resign NOW.

They ARE doing their jobs - enacting the will of the people. Your problem seems to be that you don't like the will of the people and want to slag the politicians for doing their job.

And if you're in here explaining away and apologizing for that disgraceful behaviour... well... WOW... is all I can say.

You're the one who seems to be advocating the disgraceful behavior of ignoring ones constituents.

Yes... my limited mathematical skill set... What technical degrees do you have now?

"Degrees", is it? Well, if you were as smart as you're posing to be, you'd probably know this already from the character of my posts. But let's see if you can guess. Shouldn't be too hard for somebody of your obvious abilities!

We can start with things it certainly isn't:

English
Formal Logic
Economics
Elocution

.... hmmm, I'm going to guess some sort of engineering, because you communicate just as poorly as most engineers I know.

And as you might imagine, I'm not too impressed with "degrees", not even my own, and especially not the types you and Comrade Professor are all about.

There is about a 95% chance that work stemming from my degree is actually being used, by you, right now as you read this post.

putting a tax on bottled water is never going to cause a massive change in price.

If you add a massive tax to anything, the price will be massive.


Good, but you said otherwise in your post,

Only if you believe the possibility of a massive tax being added doesn't approach zero. The problem is, it does.


The assumption that a tax will inevitably lead to the price "approaching" other drinks is unsupported

Whoops, I guess we have to back you up to previous lessons, still
unlearned. The price of a commodity will have a "linear" relationship with the tax you oxe gorers place on it.

Assuming a flat tax, yes.

If you gore the oxe enough, that price will "approach" or even "surpass" other oxen.

Nope - because it already surpassed the other oxen - without any tax.

... and you know based on your mountains of objective data the numbers which will choose to use drinking fountains and which will resort to replacement with soft drinks...

Again, who knows the myriad million answers to your vaporous and useless question as to what the consumer will do? What we DO know is that they will defer some bottled water consumption, if you oxe-gorers gore the oxe too high. Again, what's so difficult about this concept?

Nothing. What is so difficult about the concept that the value of "some" is what the whole enchilada hinges on? What is so difficult about the concept that a drop in bottled water consumption is not necessarily a drop in water consumption?




I've never said I support it

Yes, you're a slippery chap, alright! The discussion was about a bottled water tax, and you made countless points supporting the "reasons" for it, but you don't really "support" it. Gotcha!

No, I made countless arguments against the reasoning against it, but nary an argument for it. My argument isn't with the idea that bottled water shouldn't be taxed, it's with the junior high level arguments against taxing it.



And I'm also grateful to have you act out as apologist for the Lansingers abandonment of their proper governmental role in these fiscal shenanigans.

They have only two proper governmental roles -

Uphold their oath
Do the will of their constituents

They seem to be upholding the former just fine, and if they fail at the latter their constituents will take care of that.

They like to stay underground, and we need you types to help surface this stuff, and their arguments that people have a "malady" and so forth. That too is useful. Thanks again.

I can't believe you're so detached from reality as to not see the common affliction of wanting services and not wanting to pay for them.

Now, we just need to use these arguments to put the pressure on those Lansing types, and force them to RESTORE that conservation spending to historical levels. No excuses... no "victimology"... do your job and restore that essential spending.

It is not their job, unless it is the desire of their constituents.

--
lp

[thousandcasts]

Speaking of Welfare, you'd think that 90% of the people whining about a license fee increase were on welfare. For God sakes, so you have to spend an extra $20 or $30 a YEAR for a license fee increase--big deal. If you're going to lose your house over that, then why bother buying a license in the first place?

I know my kids won't eat over that extra expense that, for a $30 increase, equals eight-cents a day. :rolleyes: This whole debate is getting ridiculous. This state's natural resources are funded by those of us who buy licenses. We need to pay the tab, the tab is getting underfunded...pay up or shut up, it's that simple.

It just just boggles my mind that the so called sportsmen of this state would be anything other than supportive of something that benefits US and the resources WE use. IT'S TIME FOR US TO PAY MORE, PERIOD!!!!!!!

[Hamilton Reef]

Legislature needs to fund DNR properly or face loss of services

http://www.mlive.com/outdoors/statewide/index.ssf?/base/sports-1/1179270606263130.xml&coll=1

05/19/07 by Bob Gwizdz

Right at the end of the May 10 Natural Resources Commission meeting, as the crowd began filtering toward the doorway, chairman Keith Charters asked those in attendance to help build some momentum for the proposed hunting and fishing license fee increase that is languishing in the Legislature.

If not, Charters warned, the DNR will have to lay off 82 employees in August.

The bulk of those people, of course, will be from the fish, wildlife and law enforcement staffs -- the divisions that are funded almost entirely by license dollars.

Actually, the layoffs wouldn't take place until October 1, when the new fiscal year begins, but notifications of impending pink slips would go out in August. And according to Department of Natural Resources director Becky Humphries, the layoffs will hurt.

"Obviously, we just hired a new class of conservation officers and some of those folks -- if not all of those -- will be gone," she said.

Interestingly enough, a lack of conservation officers is a perennial complaint about the DNR. Still, civil service rules are clear: Last fired, first fired.

For her part, Humphries said she is fairly positive about the level of support for the fee increases. After the NRC revised its proposal for incremental increases over a four-year period -- instead of doubling some fees in one fell swoop -- customer resistance has decreased, she said. Sportsmen understand the issues, she said.

"I don't know that they're saying, `I want to pay more,' but certainly they realize license prices have not been raised for a long time and are lower than most of the surrounding states," she said. "And they don't want to see programs that are near and dear to their hearts, like conservation officers, cut."

So who would get hurt? Humphries suggested that managing deer populations at the county level would be difficult if the department loses wildlife biologists.

"It takes manpower to do that," She said.

"I think people feel pretty strongly about our natural resources and their management," Humphries continued. "But having said that, our license packages are always a bear to get through in this state."

This one will be, too.

It's unfortunate that the Legislature sometimes adopts the posture that it's protecting the public from DNR avarice when it fights funding proposals, while, at the same time, it whittles away at general fund contributions. The total of DNR and Department of Environmental Protection budgets is less than 1 percent of the general fund. The DNR has no place else to go for money except the sportsmen.

Remember back in the 1990s, when the Lake Michigan salmon fishery collapsed and the Legislature was reading the DNR the riot act about it? Between the wringing of hands over the DNR's lack of answers and the grandstanding about how the downturn was effecting the economy, the Legislature never once suggested the general fund pony up some dough to help solve the problem. Lawmakers wanted something done, but they didn't want to pay for it. And that was back when the state's fiscal situation was not nearly as dire as it is today.

So we're getting down to crunch time now. Sportsmen are either going to have to step up to the collection plate or they are going to see some significant cuts in services.

It would please me to no end to pretend that natural resources management is not subject to the same inflationary pressures as any other commodity and to keep on paying very nearly the same for my deer license that I paid 20 years ago. But I know better. And I suspect, in their hearts, the rest of the state's sportsmen do to.

So it's now or never. We either tell our lawmakers to fund the DNR appropriately so it can do its job or we face the consequences.