According to this Burnsville Patch article under proposed legislation Moorhead Rep. Ben Lien (DFL-4A), some of the 107 cities which now are exempt from receiving Local Government Aid dollars from the state would again be receiving the money and the rest of the cities in the state that already do would see a more consistent dollar amount each year. The real question, however, is what governments like Burnsville will do with $86,000.

From the article:

It would also create a new formula that adjusts aid based on its “aid gap”—a product of how the formula determines “unmet need,” according to the House Research bill summary. For so-called “large cities” that have more than 10,000 people, including Burnsville, the formula considers three factors in determining need per capita:

Jobs per capita,
Percent of housing built before 1940 and
Percent of housing built between 1940 and 1970.

LGA is intended to help cities with greater needs than they can reasonably expect to fund through property taxes. In most cases, the money goes into a city’s general fund, to be spent however city officials deem necessary.

While Burnsville has been lobbying against the loss of these dollars for years and the Mayor is more than likely literally jumping up and down for joy, do cities the size of Burnsville which have such important funding priorities as city monuments at their borders need $86,000 more dollars from the taxpayers to fill this ‘unmet need’ with dollars they just simply could not have raised through property taxes alone?

Do you think Minnesota’s redistribution plan is one which works well? Do you think Minnesota cities should collect their own taxes as they do in other parts of the country so that the issues cities have with LGA are eliminated (redistribution of wealth where the larger cities end up supporting rural areas)? When you read the Mayor is likely literally jumping for joy did you see, in your minds eye, Frau Farbissina doing so? Whatever you have to say about this one go ahead and comment on as I’d love to hear your thoughts.

According to this WCCO article, an 86 year old St. Peter resident is being charged with felony voter fraud after forgetting that she voted twice in the same election. Voter fraud was a hot topic during the most recent election and the public was told by conservatives that it was occurring on a large scale even when it most definitely was not. However, this highlights the type of voter fraud which occurs and how our tax dollars have to pay to hunt down these horrendous and vicious criminals.

From the article:

Margaret Schneider, 86, says she forgot she had voted by absentee ballot in the 2012 primary election and about a month later, on Aug. 14, the great-great-grandmother went to her polling place to vote.

[...]

“I just don’t know what to think, I am so nervous about it,” Schneider said. “I didn’t realized I had (voted twice) and I wish they would understand that people my age have an (occasional) lapse in memory but they don’t understand, I guess.”

Schneider said she has voted in every presidential election since 1948, when Harry Truman defeated Thomas Dewey.

A police report notes the voter roster at Schneider’s polling place, which shows she had already voted absentee, but the election judge didn’t stop her from voting again.

[...]

Nicollet County Attorney Michelle Zehnder Fischer doesn’t comment on specific cases, but says that in general, if there’s probable cause to show a crime occurred, she is required to prosecute.

Fischer had to go back more than 100 years to find precedent in this case, and it was the 1800s the last time someone in Minnesota was prosecuted for voting twice.

Aside from the stresses placed on an 86 year old woman and on the taxpayers’ wallets, the most important piece above is the last paragraph: “the 1880s (was) the last time someone in Minnesota was prosecuted for voting twice.” Then why are we even looking at this? It’s pointless, it’s expensive, and it’s helping to kill an 86 year old faster than she should. It was investigated, an error in process was found to have occurred, let her go.

What do you think about this one? Should the state, even though there is specific wording in the state Statutes which says she must be brought before the grand jury? Should the law’s wording change faster than it is? Is it ever worth prosecuting an 86 year old considering the cost of potential incarceration of the elderly? Whatever you have to say about this one go ahead and comment on as I’d love to hear your thoughts.