Senator Melisa Franzen Disguises Taxes as “New Sources of Funding”

Is Melisa Franzen a wolf in sheep’s clothing?  In a recent newsletter to constituents, Senator Franzen (D) described her approach for funding the transportation bill as “a comprehensive, long-term approach that increases NEW DEDICATED FUNDING” (emphasis ours). In other words, she’s supporting a LONG-TERM TAX INCREASE.  But why not just say that?  Why use terms that disguise the truth?

 Of course, given her proclivity for supporting fiscally irresponsible tax and spend policies, it’s not surprising that she’d advocate for a tax increase. But why is she not being more straightforward and honest with her constituents?

Perhaps Senator Franzen isn’t proud of the policies she supports.  Or perhaps she just wants to pull the wool over our eyes.  We Minnesotans pride ourselves in being reasonably well-educated and fiscally literate.  We know that a tax by any other name is still a tax, and if taxes need to be raised we’d like to be presented with them honestly.

Fortunately, we have the opportunity to vote this year to send a more honest representative to St. Paul.  We can vote for Mike Lehman for State Senator.  He is fiscally responsible.  He tells it like it is, using straightforward terms.  He will be a welcome replacement for Melisa Franzen, who apparently doesn’t mind trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

Franzen’s deceptive language is a consistent pattern.  Read on for more Franzen twists of truth.

Here's another piece of disguised language from Melisa Franzen.  In this case, she disguises the word SPEND (as in tax and spend) by referring to her spending policy as an "investment".  Though, once again, her language is not so straightforward.  In the paragraph below, Franzen criticizes House Republicans for not spending enough of the budget surplus, but she uses disguised terms and twisted fiscal logic.  Indeed, the terms are so twisted that it seems like she's saying that spending (which she refers to as "investing") $456.7M of the surplus is more fiscally responsible than spending just $3.2M (as proposed by House Republicans).

“The Supplemental Budget Conference Committee met this week to review differences and come to an agreement on how the $900 supplemental budget surplus should be invested. The biggest disparity lies in a $453.5 million difference in bottom lines. While the House is proposing under $3.2 million in net supplemental spending for the biennium, the Senate proposal would invest an additional $456.7 million."

Her use of the term "bottom line" is also quite misleading. This term usually refers to an organization's profits which appear on the bottom line of an organization's income statement and which are often driven by budget cuts (certainly not spending) that drive savings directly to the bottom line.  However, Franzen's misuse of this financial term seems to be an attempt to deceive constituents into believing that SPENDING $453.5M MORE of the surplus actually returns more money to the bottom line of the State's finances.  Of course, her policy does just the opposite as her spending plans would actually remove $456.7M from the State's financial bottom line.  Unbelievable.  Who does she think she's kidding?

Newsletter quotes from May 12, 2016 Senator Melisa Franzen Capitol Update