# 1407 on the Floor Today, March 25th



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

It is scheduled for a floor vote late this afternoon. Last chance boys.



> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
> 
> To leave messages for legislators dial toll-free 888-635-3447.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

ttt


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

The bill passed the Senate.

yea....28

Nay.....18

Very little discussion on the no side.almost all was for the bill.


----------



## AdamFisk (Jan 30, 2005)

Roll call???


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

YEAS: Andrist; Bowman; Christmann; Dever; Dotzenrod; Heckaman; Hogue; Kilzer; Klein;
Krebsbach; Larsen; Lee, G.; Lee, J.; Luick; Lyson; Murphy; Nelson; Nodland;
O'Connell; Oehlke; Olafson; Schaible; Sitte; Stenehjem; Taylor; Uglem; Wardner;
Warner

NAYS: Berry; Burckhard; Cook; Fischer; Flakoll; Freborg; Grindberg; Holmberg; Laffen;
Marcellais; Mathern; Miller; Nething; Robinson; Schneider; Sorvaag; Triplett;
Wanzek

ABSENT AND NOT VOTING: Erbele


----------



## gator_getter (Sep 7, 2008)

Looks to me like mostly urban legislators voting NO.

The Legislators in the rural areas see for themselves the destruction the geese are causing.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

gator_getter said:


> Looks to me like mostly urban legislators voting NO.
> 
> The Legislators in the rural areas see for themselves the destruction the geese are causing.


There is another way to look at it.....the rural legislators want as many non-res. here as possible.In other words money trumps resident hunter's wishes.The urban legislators listen to the resident hunters in their districts.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Here is how the sportmen's contacts panned out on the urban vote. Very obvious. 6 more NAY would have done the job.

Bis-Man Districts

8 FREBORG-NAY

30 B. STENEHJEM-YEA

31 SCHABLE-YEA

32 DEVER-YEA

34 COOK-NAY

35 SITTE -YEA 

47 KILZER-YEA

Minot Districts

40 KERSBACH-YEA

38 HOUGE-YEA

5 BURCKHARD-NAY

3 LARSEN-YEA

Fargo Districts

11 MATHERN-NAY

21 NELSON-YEA

27 BERRY-NAY

41 GRINDBERG-NAY

44 FLAKOLL-NAY

45 SORVAAG-NAY

46 FISCHER-NAY

West Fargo Districts

13 J. LEE-YEA

Jamestown Districts

12 NETHING-NAY

29 WANZEK-NAY

Valley City Districts

24 ROBINSON-NAY

20 MURPHY-YEA

Grand Forks Districts

17 HOLMBERG-NAY

18 TRIPPLET-NAY

42 SCHNEIDER-NAY

43 LAFFEN-NAY

Casselton Districts

22 LEE-YEA


----------



## gator_getter (Sep 7, 2008)

Those darn non residents are always at my favorite fishing spots too.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

gator_getter said:


> Those darn non residents are always at my favorite fishing spots too.


I respect a non resident the same as a resident. However, when someone comes from a long way they often have limited vacation and no time to scout so they hire an outfitter or guide. I don't blame them. Unfortunately farmers post their land and hold it for those who pay. It's unfortunate, but that is what is happening. Locals are loosing to friends who perhaps moved away for better paying jobs, now come back and hunt where they can not. This is just the beginning of the end for hunting. It's also the beginning of the end for ag support. Agriculture and hunters have had a symbiotic relationship for years, but then pay hunting entered into the picture. That is going to hurt hunters and farmers. My only choice is to support ending agriculture subsidies so my taxes go down. If my taxes go down then I can go be a non resident hunter in some state with a lot of public land.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

So plainsman, how much will your "taxes go down" if ALL ag subsidies end??? We have had this discussion before and you reference it yet again. :roll: :wink:

I wonder how much a gopher hunt in Mt. on public lands would cost a fella? Might still have to save up quite a few years even with all those "tax savings" .


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Well let see, if ag is 15% of the total budget, and I pay $40,000 taxes that makes $6000. I can go on a heck of a gopher hunt for $6000.

What percent of the budget is agriculture? I know the largest is defense and then agriculture, or is it the other way around?


----------



## Augusta (Feb 2, 2011)

Dick Monson said:


> Here is how the sportmen's contacts panned out on the urban vote. Very obvious. 6 more NAY would have done the job.
> 
> Bis-Man Districts
> 
> ...


Guys, lets remember those that voted 'YEA", we can get them out in the next election. Tell your friends, let everyone know how these people voted. There is nothing worse for a politican than to be confronted by angry voters at a town hall meeting. Trust me on that one.....


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman said:


> Well let see, if ag is 15% of the total budget, and I pay $40,000 taxes that makes $6000. I can go on a heck of a gopher hunt for $6000.
> 
> What percent of the budget is agriculture? I know the largest is defense and then agriculture, or is it the other way around?


Plainsman given the fact the income you are paying taxes on as a federal biologist came from the taxpayers I don't know how much I would be spouting of about what your taxes go for. :wink:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Unite ... ral_budget Once again you seem to be pullingthings outof your ***.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Hey gst, that was not from just my income. As a matter of fact it came from more than multiple incomes. I'm surprised a smart guy like you didn't figure that out.  I'll bet you already knew that though didn't you. Maybe you thought I had a farm. :rollin: So what percent of that supported agriculture. I am asking because I don't know. Hey your the question guy, now can you answer one?

Oh, I think I found it in Dept of Ag budget. $145 billion.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

plainsman once again what the hell are you smoking? If you are getting that figure off your subsidy website remember that is for a 10 year period. (Recall I told you that once already)

http://hubpages.com/hub/FY2011-Budget-A ... op-v-Obama
this link is a breakdown of the 2010 ag dept budget.

http://www.onlineforextrading.com/blog/ ... oken-down/
This link is a break down of the total 2010 Federal budget.

Now realize out of the 26 billion for ag 8 billion goes to Domestic Food Programs that have no relation to production ag.
So if you take that off the total, there is roughly 18 billion remaining in the Ag Dept. Out of this there is even funding for REC, Rural Housing ect....(check out the first link). But lets just leave that in there and go with the 18 billion figure. So as you can see dolars going to agriculture dont rank quite as high as what you have suggested. And all those subsidy payments you talk of, they come out of the 1.7 billion allocated to the FSA segment. So if you wish to figure out what percentage of your tax dollar goes to those subsidies us "greedy" farmers get, this figure minus the actual cost of running the FSA agencies divided by the total tax revenues collected in 2010 of 2.16 trillion dollars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... ral_budget

So take the whole 1.7 billion and divide by 2.16 trillion and you will have the percentage of each dollar paid in taxes that goes to those subsidy payments in 2010.

If you wish you can even go to the whole 18 billion in the Ag dept and divideit by the 2.16 trillion and get the total percentage of your tax dollar that goes into the ag related segment of the federal budget.

Try it and see what you get, it just mightsurprise you. The NR gopher hunt may take a little longer to save for than you think. 

http://www.eenews.net/public/EEDaily/2010/07/01/3
Oh yeah included in this 18 billion are the conservation programs as well.

If you delve into the Federal budget a little deeper, you will find a rather large number pertaining to pensions of former Federal employees. :wink:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> If you delve into the Federal budget a little deeper, you will find a rather large number pertaining to pensions of former Federal employees.


Not that much, and there was none until Reagan stole our private retirement fund to save your social security. That's when retirement switched from Civil Service Retirement to FERS (Federal Employees Retirement System) Federal employees contributed from their salary for that. It was odd because Reagan didn't like social security then he made the federal retirement system about the same way. Odd. I voted for Reagan also, only because the alternative was worse. I lost a lot of benefits, but I don't regret it. Not only did he take our retirement he made us pay into it and social security, but we are never allowed to draw social security. Still I don't regret voting for Reagan. At least I am not socialist now, not quit yet. It does bug me that my retirement is now government instead of private. I don't like that feeling. I think we will go backwards in retirement this year because it's attached to government. I guess everyone will have to give a little. It appears your unwilling to do that.

I got the $145 billion of the USDA wetbsite for 2012 budget. I'll check it again in the event I misread something.


----------



## gator_getter (Sep 7, 2008)

Once again Plainsman you go off the subject of the original post and get gst started.

You and gst need your own spot to squabble.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Gator getter, I apologize for sidetracking this thread whining about NR's, but plainsman has the habit of pulling things out of his *** and expecting everyone to take them as gospel. Occassionally, the record needs to be set straight. Once again my apologies.



Plainsman said:


> Not that much, and there was none until Reagan stole our private retirement fund to save your social security. That's when retirement switched from Civil Service Retirement to FERS (Federal Employees Retirement System) Federal employees contributed from their salary for that.


And where did the monies that paid that salary that is now your pension come from in the first place ? The US taxpayer.

http://www.fms.treas.gov/finrep/note_fi ... ote15.html
This link provides what the Federal employee pension and benefits amount to.

If you click on it you will see that in 2010 as of Sept 30 there was total civilian Federal employee pension and benefits payable of just over 2 trillion dollars. Remember the figure you see of 2054.6 is in billions of dollars.

So now plainsman as a retired Fedral employee, how much did you say "greedy" farmers are getting from the taxpayer? :wink: Have you wamed up your calculator to figure what percentage of your tax dollar goes to "greedy" ag? 

Perhaps we could ALL go on that NR gopher hunt if we as taxpayers were not paying your pension! 

Hopefully in the future debates can be held about topics such as this bill or even a tiling bill without the childish snide references to "greedy" farmers and farm subsidies. For some reason I doubt it.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Gents, your comments woud be well posted on Hot Topics.

Edit: Unlocked it for comments on 1407.


----------

