Skip to Content

Lauren Maker

Minneapolis, MN
Commenter for
3 years 6 weeks

Recent Comments

Posted on 08/05/11 at 04:45 pm in response to Public gives Vikings stadium backers an earful

Of course, RT is only going to meet with 4 department heads in forming his new priority-based budget, and is delaying giving the real budget details until 3 days before the Board of Estimate and Taxation has to set the levy.
I suppose that transparency isn't a part of the priority for budgets in Minneapolis anymore. We saw that coming when RT stripped the audit powers out of the Board of Estimate and Taxation, right after voters overwhelmingly voted to keep them intact with the BET...

Posted on 07/29/11 at 04:56 pm in response to YPN5Q: Nekima Levy-Pounds

I had the pleasure of hearing Professor Levy-Pounds speak at the economic summit for North Minneapolis held with Governor Dayton earlier this year. Most impressive! Not only was her scholarship sound, she clearly gets and articulates the social/political/economic connections of the issues we face on the Northside. And she sets them out in clear, understandable terms--you do not need to be a scholar to comprehend what she is saying. Prof. Levy-Pounds had a visible impact on the Governor...

Posted on 07/14/11 at 11:05 am in response to Racino advocates see an opportunity to make their move -- and help budget negotiations

Texas tried several years ago to bolster their funding shortfall by using new lottery proceeds to fund public education. It was a fiasco--not enough proceeds, education underfunded and in debt--lose-lose-lose scenario.
Seems like the GOP has already gambled with education funding--betting the economy would improve enough so we could pay the $1.9 billion of deferred education spending from last budget cycle in this budget cycle. Well, it's didn't and we can't. So they are talking...

Posted on 07/08/11 at 04:31 pm in response to Obama risks losing the left by considering entitlement cuts

There's a simple fix to the Social Security funding issue and that is to remove the cap on income subject to Social Security --I believe it's currently $109,000 and above is not subject to Social Security tax. If Social Security tax is based on earned salary income, why exempt any of it?

Posted on 07/05/11 at 04:26 pm in response to Tough political slog predicted for state 'wisemen's council'

Well, and another problem with "wisemen's council" is that it does seem to be a wise MEN'S council--perhaps with the exception of Kris J. And no one from the social services sector seems to be involved either. It would seem both problems bend the scope of what the solutions could/should be.

Posted on 07/05/11 at 02:26 pm in response to Skepticism, lack of enthusiasm greet 'third way' budget solution plan

The GOP is blindly clinging to their no new taxes pledge. They are ignoring that they've lost the Recovery Act revenue AND that they kicked the $2 billion owed to education into this budget cycle--esstentially putting it on the credit card with no plan to pay it off.
So why don't they agree to a "revenue enhancement" to make up for the lost funds and the credit card bill--assessed only to those with net income of over a million dollars.
As Tim Pawlenty showed with the...

Posted on 06/24/11 at 02:18 pm in response to Judge Gearin makes clear: This shutdown will hurt

Eric-- I just read the Senate filing--it says what you said it says. It does not say what Mr. Bottern said it says.
I would also note Mr. Bottern is Senate staff counsel-- which means he's a paid government employee. If this is the competency of their paid legal staff, it seems to sort of make the GOP case for wasteful government spending.

Posted on 06/16/11 at 10:05 am in response to State Sen. Linda Scheid has died

A good woman and a hard, steady worker. Thank you for your years of dedicated service, Linda. RIP.

Posted on 06/16/11 at 10:14 am in response to Footnotes to the shutdown: Dayton told us how many he'd keep, but how many will be left behind?

I don't see the court system on this chart. They are all state employees--where do they fall in the scheme of things?

Posted on 06/04/11 at 11:26 am in response to Barataria: Let's use humor to defeat awful marriage amendment

I've already started. The amendment language says marriage is between ONE man and ONE woman. I've already had my ONE man--does that mean I don't get another?
Truth be told, an activist conservative judge (we have many choices in that category, thanks to Tiny Tim) could rule that's what the language means--outlawing remarriage after divorce.