MN GOP, Pfeilsticker, Draz and the Gas tax

by Matt Martin | 16 Comments

August 6, 2007, 1:02 am | Category: Misc. Local Politics |

16 Responses to “MN GOP, Pfeilsticker, Draz and the Gas tax”

Feed for this Entry Trackback Address

Mockingbird
August 6, 2007 at 7:20 am

Now that gas prices are going down a bit from our newly accepted “norm” - its easier to take a nickel increase as a “FEE.”

Judging by some of the things I read on this forum - at least attributed to a couple of the adamant right wingers, they must apparently be wealthy enough that a nickel a gallon surely isn’t going to break THEM.

Their objection is not practical, rather it is ideological somehow.

What strikes me a little chilling in the blog subject above is the very wording:

“Pfeilsticker: Won’t Rule Out A Gas Tax Increase”

as though it DEMANDS a religious conversion & “testimony” at the front of the church!!!

Somebody thinks they can browbeat from a bully pulpit:

“…can’t be trusted when it comes to pocketbook issues.” - Mark Drake, Republican Party

Reply
wtm
August 6, 2007 at 9:34 am

So, does this post signal the end of the armistice regarding the politicization of the bridge collapse?

Reply
Kathy
August 6, 2007 at 9:49 am

The GOP wants to continue to borrow, borrow, borrow, for running the state.When there has been so much borrowing, the interest on loans pile up. It is the Interest that has to be paid back first before the Principle goes down.

A raise in the Gax Tax of a Nickel is needed to generate monies in addition to that which has been bonded. The longer Minnesota delays to act, the faster Trasnporttion suffers. I am glad to see the Governor finally come to the realization that he needs to act.
.

Reply
Bob T
August 6, 2007 at 10:32 am

If a major event shows that Republican anti-government policy is bankrupt, then the Rebubs shout about how the event should not be politicized.

Todays Repubs have the stated goal of destroying the public sector, and commercializing every aspect of our lives.

They cannot maintain the fiction that Government can’t do anything right, and at the same time actually allow a government program to succeed, because it would show the falsity of their arguments.

Reply
Ross
August 6, 2007 at 12:00 pm

I was at the CD 2 fundraiser last night with all the the big names running, (oh and side note, Steve Sarvi is a great potential candidate for CD 2, watch out Kline). When I was there fmr. Sen. Mark Dayton said something that was remarkable and fired up the crowd. He said something to the degree that ” I know that after this tragedy all of our leaders are stressing not to politicize the incident and keep the matter civil, no pointing fingures ect., well that’s all fine and dandy, but after 9/11 it didn’t take the GOP long to point the fingure of fault at Bill Clinton (applause) We democrats have learned our lesson and we won’t have that happen again.” Thats not quite word for qword, but pretty close. I agree some responsibility must be taken on the part of those who are at fault, but we also must be very careful not to overstep our boundary, some candidates last night did overstep, to U.S. senate candidates as a matter of fact, Jim Cohen and Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer, both leapt on the Bush and Pawlenty administrations, which would be fine normally, but it was to the degree in which the politicized the issue, for political gain rather than to help the people of Minnesota, it made a room full of Democrats cringe when they spoke

Reply
Chris
August 6, 2007 at 12:38 pm

kathy,

Since you’re so concerned about borrowing, does that mean you opposed the following projects for Rochester:

*Extensive improvements and renovations to the Mayo Civic Center Complex
*Regional Public Safety Training Facility
*Joint City/County/State Maintenance facility
*An addition to the National Volleyball Center which could provide A View to Kill (kill a volleyball term) but not a License to Kill.

(All were requested by the City of Rochester to the State Legislature.)

Reply
Chris
August 6, 2007 at 12:42 pm

Matt,

Nice pre-emptive attack. I think you’re probably aware that both parties’ record on infrastructure will be coming into question. That includes the DFL which for the last decade or more has abandoned road and bridge construction in favor of mass transit including light rail.

Could it be a liability for the DFL if people found out that Steve Murphy killed over $1.7 billion in road and bridge construction in the last session of the legislature?

Reply
Nitro
August 6, 2007 at 12:58 pm

Chris,

Wow you’re on the ATTACK today. We all are so very impressed with your grasp of bullshitting your way and SLAMMING those Dems again and again.

I’m sure you’ll be fired up after the factor tonight.

AWESOME!!! Keep up the great work, scum.

Reply
Chris
August 6, 2007 at 1:41 pm

Nitro,

It didn’t take you long to start calling names again. I didn’t attack anyone, either, Nitro. I did not say Murphy and the DFL were to blame for the bridge collapse. I am saying that anyone campaigning on being better than someone else on the issue should be careful because their own record on that issue is checkered at best. Look at the MVET Amendment last year where we said that AT LEAST 40% would go to transit and NO MORE THAN 60% would go to roads and bridges.

Reply
Nitro
August 6, 2007 at 2:24 pm

Chris O’Reilly,

When Bill O’Reilly calls people names like scum every show that doesn’t bother you?

What are you, scum?

Reply
wtm
August 6, 2007 at 3:46 pm

Nitro,

You’re pathetic. Apparently all of your false talk of civility — as well as any shred of hope I had in it — has gone in the crapper. And, by the way, Publius, with its barrage of posts today (beginning with this one) about the political ramifications of the GOP’s stance on the gas tax in relation to the bridge collapse has ended the moratorium on politicizing the issue.

Basic infrastructure — such as roads and bridges — should be funded first, not the collectivist choo-choo trains you and your utopian greenie friends want to coerce us taxpayers into riding.

Reply
Kathy
August 6, 2007 at 3:49 pm

Funding these projects , Chris, takes less dollars than what is needed for Transportation. We’re talking a few million here and there compared to Billions needed to keep Minnesota’s Roads and Bridges in good working condidtion anbnually.

AS it turned out, funding was refused for most of the requests Rochester made. Our 1/2 cent City Tax is still in place and revenues will continue to be raised that way to pay our share of future projects.

Reply
Kathy
August 6, 2007 at 3:50 pm

Funding these projects , Chris, takes less dollars than what is needed for Transportation. We’re talking a few million here and there compared to Billions needed to keep Minnesota’s Roads and Bridges in good working condidtion anually.

AS it turned out, funding was refused for most of the requests Rochester made. Our 1/2 cent City Tax is still in place and revenues will continue to be raised that way to pay our share of future projects.

Reply
Chris
August 6, 2007 at 4:10 pm

kathy,

That’s not the question I asked. I asked whether you supported bonding for the projects requested by Rochester? You can bet your bottom dollar that next year Rochester will be back at the well for the Mayo Civic Center among other things.

Also, Pawlenty did propose $1.7 billion (not a few million here and there) for big road and bridge projects. They were dismissed out of hand by the same people who are saying that another bridge collapse is “iminent.”

Reply
Nitro
August 6, 2007 at 4:25 pm

wtm

Civility is not what the right wing spin machine has been about for 6 years. Trolls have been a problem on blogs that allow them for many years now.

If we just laid down and let you righties walk all over us, we’d be labeled as being “soft” by the right. If we fight we are labeled as “unhinged”.

I am way way past the point of laying down and letting you righties get away with the bullshit that you have the last 6 years. I am not soft, and in fact, am quite angry at all you stupid ass trolls.

Why does the debate about the bridge so resemble the debate about Katrina? Same themes of “out blaming” the other guy, especially those whimpy Liberals. Well that does not move America forward. O’Reilly doesn’t move America forward.

We’ll see what happens in the local news tomorrow….perhaps a wake up call?

Reply
MRW
August 7, 2007 at 8:38 am

One theme that has resurfaced in the thread — which had appeared in another one long since rotated off the site is this: why are Dems so averse to using bonding funds for road construction but not for other construction projects (college buildings, community centers, etc) commonly seen in the bonding bills.

To me the answer should be that road construction already has a source(s) of funding specifically set aside for that purpose. The other projects do not — unless you count general funds dollars that are used to pay off the bonds themselves.

Bonding for road projects without even marginally increasing the ability to pay for them in the long run cuts down on the state’s long-term ability to engage in not just new construction, but maintenance on current construction. Ask a room full of highway engineers how tired they are of the phrase “deferred maintenance”.

In addition, look at the counties that are using property tax dollars to pay for their road projects. Not good when you consider how strectched county budgets are (and I don’t mean Hennepin, Ramsey, Anoka, Scott, et al).

We should not have to bond for road projects. We should have been keeping up with the needed revenue. But we did not. And where has this gotten us?

Reply