Give Us Your Take

Jonathan Kovaciny -- Mankato

So I take it the Community Grant is still on for this year since it was already included in the budget? Couldn't it have been voted on by the city council at their last meeting to reduce it by, say 25% this year, since it may be cut altogether next year?

Robyn -- Mankato

Hasn't the city given millions to Wal-Mart-- a company who has several family members with incomes larger than some nations? These programs are worthwhile, build community, and provide valuable resources for some less fortunate. I think there are probably other areas that should be cut instead or also-- perhaps the city should open up their entire budget for public review?

Marilyn Bennett -- Mankato

Based upon my observations of the way money is wasted in Mankato I would like to suggest eliminating the Planning Department. They created an artificial street at the end of a parking lot because of not anticipating traffic flow on Adams Street. They have caused a huge problem for the school children because of closing Broad Street at Madison Avenue. This has also made those of us who have to cross Madison every day do so without a light, thereby increasing the danger to all involved. By eliminating the Planning Department the money saved could be used to undo these dumb things and in the future the city could just get a committee of citizens with some common sense to ok changes in traffic patterns.

Perhaps some of the money saved could be used to pay for the fireworks. All the other community grants should be eliminated as the community will and does support these worthy causes without government help.

Jonathan Kovaciny -- Mankato

[This is in reply to comments below.]

There is absolutely nothing compassionate, responsible, or charitable about forcibly taking money away from one person and giving it to another. It is wholly contrary to the principles of liberty on which our country was founded, and it is quite unethical. Yes, even if it is "only" $2 per year. Need I remind you of the trillions of other dollars that the government redistributes per year in the name of helping those in need?

Government-organized “charity” is, and will always be, less efficient and effective than private-sector efforts. When the government gives money to the poor, it is quite literally subsidizing poverty, guaranteeing that there will always be more of it. Like the recent bank bailouts, it is taking money from the productive economy and putting it into the unproductive economy.

Do you think it would be good to compel every neighbor on your block, with the threat of imprisonment, to shovel elderly Mrs. Smith's driveway when it snows? It might be nice for Mrs. Smith, and the neighbors might not mind too much at first. But as each additional person signs up for free shoveling, resentment builds among the neighbors, and their workload grows. Eventually, some people spend so much time shoveling other people’s driveways that they too have to sign up for free shoveling for their own. Our workload – also known as a tax burden – has grown considerably since our nation was founded. Any such redistributive tax, even if it is only $2, is a net negative on our society.

Meredith -- Mankato

The Community Grant program is a wonderful and compassionate resource that the city of Mankato provides. The people who are helped by this program don't have the luxury of only needing help when times are good.

I would encourage the citizens of Mankato to attend a Symphony performance; volunteer at LEEP, or watch a youth center basketball game. Then tell me that these events are not worth supporting. The community grant program costs about $2/year per resident of Mankato. That is less than the cost of renting a movie or dining on fast food. Is cutting a compassionate and responsible program really worth that extra $2 in your pocket?

Times may be tough for the average person but times are tougher for the people helped by this grant program.

Joan Bindner -- Mankato

I agree with the third paragraph in Mr. Kovaciny's comments. However, I believe that funding should still go to the Light for Life Foundation of MN, Open Door Health Center, the Salvation Army and for Fireworks. We still need to help our citizens in need.

Chad -- Mankato

Cut the funds of the Community Grant Program.

I think that cutting the monies that operate the Community Grant Progrm would help eliminate cost changes to other areas that could be affected by the budget deficient. This could be of a greater concern and not be realized by the citizens of Mankato, how much the city provides for them until they are "threaten" by a change.

In the meantime the Community grant program needs to be restructured to be able to provide more and be more self suffient once it can be "reborn". The rebirth should not happened until there is a strong foundation with the new changes.

Phyllis Kenning -- Mankato

I have to agree with Mr. Kovaciny. Some of these programs seem important to me, but I believe that charity should be a choice, not forced upon one. We should be able to decide for ourselves which causes we want to fund.

Jonathan Kovaciny -- Mankato

Honestly, I would love to see all Community Grant funding phased out completely, even though I have previously been a member of one of the above-listed organizations and have enjoyed performances and events by several of the others.

Money for these grants can come from nowhere other than the pockets of our fellow Mankatoans and Minnesotans, and we should reduce the burden of government as much as possible to help the private sector get back on its feet. This money, collected through various taxes, cannot be spent on the only thing that can truly revive our economy – the creation of new capital goods. Removing this money from the private sector prevents people from investing that money -- either directly in the businesses they own, or indirectly through the purchase of stock or goods and services.

Much as we may enjoy watching a performance by the Mankato Symphony Orchestra, those who do not attend are still paying for it whether they want to or not. If the MSO or any of these other organizations have a "product" that is good enough to "sell" (and I am sure many do), then they will invest their time in pitching grant proposals to area philanthropists and businesses instead of our local and state governments. This way, money is only spent on the most worthy programs. This competition fosters creativity and improvements across the board, as organizations work to produce the products and services most desired by those who will actually use them. With government grants, the decisions about who gets how much money are dependent upon a much smaller number of people (the grant approvers), and those decision makers are spending someone else's money, not their own, meaning that real value and price are not always central to the decision. Competition is reduced, money is misallocated, and those who do not wish to support certain programs are required to anyway.

Please, make cuts everywhere you can. I mean that seriously. Turn as many government services back over to the private sector as quickly and completely as you possibly can. It is the only way to start building real wealth in our community again.