|
Open Forum: They're trying to oust Koering
I must respond to the Little Falls writer's letter. I find it amazing that the same people who tried unsuccessfully to oust Sen. Paul Koering and destroy his reputation in 2006 are trying it all over again. Led by Sue Hilgart and Jay Bock, they are running former one-term representative Paul Gazelka.
I was a delegate at the 2006 convention where 100 delegates decided who to endorse. In the Republican Party 60 percent of the vote is needed for the endorsement. Sen. Koering had 58 percent on the very first ballot and yes, after several ballots, 60 percent of the people endorsed him. The Little Falls writer was also a delegate.
Sen. Koering represents 75,000 people and these people spoke very loudly in 2006 by re-electing him with a huge margin. This shows that he is much more in tune with the people of Morrison and Crow Wing counties than the former one-term representative Gazelka ever was. The Little Falls writer's belief otherwise shows that she and Gazelka's campaign are out of touch with the people of Senate District 12.
Marian Miller
Brainerd
Spending is out of control
Government spending is out of control by the majority of the elected officials at the local, state and national level.
There is an appetite to increase taxes rather than cut excessive spending.
There is a mindset to listen to appointed bureaucrats and special interest, rather than listen to taxpayers.
I've voted no on seven of the last eight city budgets because of unnecessary spending.
The city charter states, the council president, finance chair and city administrator shall prepare an annual city budget.
Council President Goedker and Finance Chair Koep presented a 2010 budget without any tax increases. City Administrator Vogt recommended a $300,000 tax increase for the 2010 budget.
Six of seven council members voted to approve the 2010 preliminary budget with a $300,000 tax increase recommended by the city administrator ... I voted no.
Discussion was not allowed in opposition to this proposed tax increase in the budget.
There is a minimum of $500,000 in expenditures that can be eliminated in the 2010 budget.
Why increase council travel expenses $3,000?
Why add an additional employee to the parks department to mow grass at $28 per hour?
Why continue to pay an employee $30 per hour to do light maintenance, change light bulbs at city hall and inspect sidewalks?
There are also other numerous and wasteful expenditures that can be eliminated.
Reducing these excessive expenditures will not negatively affect city services for our taxpayers.
Where is the accountability and financial responsibility to the taxpayers?
In Brainerd politics you are labeled a "Trouble Maker" if you disagree with the city administrator's financial recommendations; ask questions and request additional financial information.
I will continue to speak out and represent the taxpayers of Brainerd as long as I am a city council member.
Robert "Bob" Olson
Brainerd
Alderman at Large
Tax deduction is available
The "Cash for Clunkers" program for new cars may have ended, but the IRS wants to remind taxpayers that many people might overlook another special break available. If you buy a new vehicle this year, there's a special federal tax deduction available that can help you save money, in some cases hundreds of dollars. This tax break will allow people who buy a new vehicle in 2009 to deduct the sales and excise taxes they pay when they file their tax return next year. The tax deduction is available on the 2009 federal tax return even for those who claim the standard deduction.
The deduction is part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and applies to taxes paid on up to $49,500 of the purchase price for qualified new cars, light trucks, motorcycles or motor homes. Generally, vehicles weighing 8,500 pounds or less qualify. This means that most new cars and many new trucks will qualify. New motor homes qualify regardless of weight.
Buyers are entitled to a partial deduction if they earn between $125,000 and $135,000 ($250,000 and $260,000 for joint filers). The deduction is eliminated for those who earn over these amounts.
To qualify the vehicle must be new and purchased in 2009 after Feb. 16 and no later than Dec. 31. There is still time left but the clock is ticking.
More information is available at IRS.gov/recovery.
Terry L. Lemons
Director of Communications
Internal Revenue Service
Let's consider nuclear power
Events of our world have again brought American energy needs to the forefront of public discussion. With all the billions of our tax dollars being spent on "renewable" energy research, and "green jobs," there has been virtually no serious discussion of nuclear power. Except, of course, to state that it is "bad" by so-called environmental activists that are against it. In the meantime, people in Minnesota and similar cold climates are caught in the middle. We are supposed to shun coal-burning electrical plants (Bad!) and nuclear plants (even worse!) and embrace solar, wind, and "bio-fuels" in exchange. But these alternatives are unable to meet the normal needs of our society. Why has there not been a single penny of tax dollars invested in improvements in the nuclear energy arena?
Why can't we improve the cleanliness and safety of nuclear fission plants like the ones in use today?
Why is there absolutely no focus on perfecting nuclear fusion, where there is no radioactive waste by- product at all? Sure, it's a demanding and daunting task. But remember, this is still America. The nation that put men on the moon in under a decade, even though that, too, was considered "impossible."
I find it outrageous that we are at the mercy of a handful of extremists who wish us to live in cold and deprivation under the guise of "saving the environment." The energy independence issue has become a political handball. If the United States president and Congress really wanted to decrease our dependence on foreign oil, they would be acting on realistic alternatives. This goes for Democrats and Republicans alike. Ideas like Cap- And- Tax (or Trade) do absolutely nothing about decreasing pollution or our dependence on foreign sources. All they do is raise tax money for the government.
Tony Bauer
Nisswa
Learn about fire safety
Last year in Minnesota, 52 people lost their lives in fires. Another 144 were injured seriously enough to require transport or treatment by fire department responders - and we don't even know how many suffered less threatening injuries caused by preventable fires or accidents. We do know that most fire deaths and burn injuries take place at home. That clearly means we need to do a better job of educating ourselves and our children about fire safety and burn prevention.
October 4-10 was Fire Prevention Week in Minnesota - an annual opportunity to recommit ourselves to fire safety. These safety appeals can seem mundane until one human error results in flames, injuries or worse. Inevitably, we wish we'd listened.
So do something positive. If your local fire department has an open house, round up the family and go. You'll learn about what firefighters do, see the trucks up close and pick up fire safety tips. Some departments give away smoke detectors. Others have mini-lessons in CPR or other skills.
And visit the NFPA Web site for tips, especially if you have children. The 2009 site has outstanding materials for grades K-6. The "For Consumers" section includes everything from appliances to vehicle fires and high-rise building escape. Explore the site, and I guarantee that you'll find something you didn't know - perhaps the one fact that saves you from the pain and loss a fire can inflict.
The Minnesota State Fire Marshal Division and fire departments across Minnesota are dedicated to keeping our people and their homes safe from devastating fires. Please join them in their effort, and make Minnesota a safer place to live.
Jerry Rosendahl
Minnesota State Fire Marshal
Just doing his job
A Brainerd property owner was notified by Brainerd's city planner to remove a fence installed on the public right-of-way adjacent to the property owner's property.
The issue wound up on the council's recent agenda in the hopes of the elected officials making a decision as to whether the fence can stay or if it should be removed.
The fence apparently was a great improvement to the property and the property owner apparently has made several other improvements along with the fence thereby gaining support from surrounding neighbors-good job!
According to the city planner's job description, it is the planner's responsibility to "enforce" ordinance violations and Brainerd's planner did just that.
Alderwoman Koep stated her mind was boggled because so much time was being spent on the fence and also indicated the only reason the city would have an issue with the fence would be if the city needed to gain access to their right-of-way ... lending credence to the city planner's efforts.
On one hand Koep appeared to be chastising the planner, but on the other hand she identified the reason why the planner was performing his job when he notified the property owner of their fence being in violation of the ordinance.
I've often wondered if Alderwoman Koep has personal issues with the planner when she attempts pointing out the obvious to the public.
If the planner had not notified the property owner of their violation and the city required access to the right-of-way, I can only imagine what kind of grief some boggled minded council members might have bestowed upon the planner for not doing his job.
The fence was allowed with provisions, however the ordinance states specifically that no fences are allowed on the public right of way.
Jeff Czeczok
Brainerd
To Subscribe to the Brainerd Dispatch, Click Here.
Note: Comments are not edited and don't represent the views of The Brainerd Dispatch. Please read our posting rules in the terms of service policy. To report a post that may be inappropriate, click the triangle alert icon.
|
|
Top Commented Articles
