Legislators target majority rule on tax increases
Posted at 2:07 PM on April 28, 2011
by Bob Collins
(8 Comments)
Filed under: Politics
The 2012 ballot is certainly going to be a long one if all of the proposed constitutional amendment questions are approved by this year's Legislature.
Today, Republicans in the House filed another one. This one proposes an amendment requiring a three-fifths vote to enact a law imposing or increasing certain taxes.
The bill would require a "super majority" for tax increases, not unlike the 60 votes needed in the U.S. Senate to end a filibuster and get major legislation through.
Why wait until next November?
The legislature of New Hampshire is considering the same legislation. So is Wisconsin.
Sixteen states require a supermajority vote to increase some or all taxes. Seven require a two-thirds vote, six a three-fifths vote and two a three-fourths vote.
Comments (8)
Just get ride of them and make us a true democracy instead of this stupid representative democracy!
Let the people vote, on everything! That will teach us, I mean them.
:)
How many of these legislators supporting this bill also voted to allow Hennepin County to increase sales taxes for a stadium without a referendum at all?
Who needs consistency in taxation?
It's a law just like this that has helped create California's huge budget trouble.
How about requiring a super-majority when voters head to the polls on taxes tacked on to the state constitution? Remember this?
Agreed with comments. This is a bad idea.
This is what happens when you elect extremists to the legislator. We have the the most extreme in leadership positions. Will the people awake before they have stolen everything of importance from us.
I'm frustrated by legislation that works to change how legislation occurs, especially when the purpose is not to make legislating more effective, but rather to advance a political position. This particular case - requiring a supermajority for any tax increases, but presumably not for any spending or tax reductions - is a blatant attempt to entrench conservative ideals in how we legislate. Both this use of supermajority, along with the use of a constitutional amendment to pass it, is akin to election district gerrymandering, a stacking the deck against future change and possibilities.
OMG Ben!
I was just thinking the very same thing
| April 2011 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | |||||
| 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
| 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 |
| 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |
Master Archive
Recent Entries
- Tornado damage via satellite
- Sabrina's best day ever
- Postcards from the security state (5x8 - 5/23/13)
- God and the Oklahoma tornado
- Enough with the Hiroshima atomic bomb comparisons
- Justices fume over MN Supreme Court ruling in sexual harassment case
- What happened in the basement? (5x8 - 5/22/13)
- Mary and Bob (5/21/13)
- If the tornado had hit MSP
- A 2018 Super Bowl for Minneapolis?
Categories
- Arts
- Aviation
- Crime and Justice
- Disasters
- Economy
- Energy
- Five by 8
- Floods
- Floods 2011
- Health
- History
- Icons
- Life
- Marketing and advertising
- Mary and Bob
- Media
- News
- People doing good
- Politics
- Race
- Regional history
- Religion
- Schools
- Science
- Sports
- Surveys and trivia
- Tech
- The jobs we do
- War
- Weather
- You Should Meet...
Services
- Become a Member
- Member Connect Accounts
- Leadership Circle
- Sustaining Members
- Member Discounts
- Become a Sponsor
- Tax Information
- Planned Giving
- Vehicle Donation
- Donate Stock