The Call is Getting Louder: DFL Calls on Pawlenty for Special Session, Again

8 Responses to “The Call is Getting Louder: DFL Calls on Pawlenty for Special Session, Again”

---

• Snowman

  September 7, 2007 at 8:14 am

  So if the Governor is supposed to keep ‘all options on the table’ then why did our wimpy DFL leadership send the ‘OK, no gas tax’ letter a few days ago?

  Was it just a preview of another session of bending to the oh-so-mighty will of T-paw?

  Lets hope our DFLers grow some spine before the session starts.

  Reply
• Justin C. Adams

  September 7, 2007 at 8:20 am

  Why no gas tax?

  Because it’s an ideal ‘conservative’ funding mechanism (it is both regressive and use-ased), and because the governor was demanding a permanant cut in the income tax (an ideal ‘liberal’ funding mechanism as it is progressive) in exchange for a temporary gas tax increase.

  Reply
• Kerosene Hat

  September 7, 2007 at 9:07 am

  A substantial increase in the gas tax would be the best way to reduce our overconsumption of transportation and the oil we use as fuel. Raise it enough so it would be the only source of funding for roads and many of the problems many Liberals talk about with sprawl, environmental damage, mass transit viability and business paying “their share” would be reduced greatly.

  Subsidizing wasteful behavior for everybody because it is not a “progressive” tax is destructive. We need to be more efficient rather than waste millions on ethanol to make driving cheaper. Nobody that voted for ethanol subsidies has much standing when it comes to transportation funding.

  Reply
• Big Kahuna

  September 7, 2007 at 9:30 am

  Too bad for so many years the DFL in this state did what they could to not build roads to try and hold back urban sprawl.

  The whole veto fo the transportation bill is nothing more than smoke and mirrors for the DFL! Do you really believe the DFL of this state is interested in building more roads?

  You know as well as I do the first thing they will do is take funds for mass transit, then fix a few bridges to make the effort look good and then cry to us all again how there is not enough money.

  I say stop all funding of mass transit now until roads and bridges are where they should be. So far all mass transiit has done here in move a few people a few miles at a time and make traffic even worse. We built a train line that we already had busses working the same line. Now, we have a bus or train option for certain areas and all we did was move a few people from the bus to the train.

  We have very poor leadership in this state when it come to roads and bridges. The DFL has sold it’s soul to mass tranist fans so they will never let a bill go through for “just roads and bridges”, they will try to add pork transit projects every single time!

  Reply
• Bill

  September 7, 2007 at 10:26 am

  We need roads and transit. Anyone who says “roads only” is the answer is hanging out with this guy….
   http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/19/politics/main2953001.shtml

  Reply
• Anon

  September 7, 2007 at 11:18 am

  can we stop using smilies?

  Reply
• Swiftee

  September 7, 2007 at 4:33 pm

  I’ve just come across the most reasonable compromise I’ve read yet. T-Paw will call the session when:

  A) The Democrats sign a document agreeing to limit the session to rebuilding the bridge and flood relief.

  B) Larry Pogemiller stands on a table and barks like a dog.

  Reply
• Larry

  September 7, 2007 at 6:01 pm

  I want to know why the hell I have to pay for someone else to rebuild after a flood when I don’t live anywhere near a creek/river/lake/pond. When did the government (me) have to start taking care of people who should be taking care of themselves? Same for hurricanes/tornadoes/you name it. That’s not in the constitution. I bet when our ancestors were going west in covered wagons, if they got stuck in the river, they were just s.o.l. - no government bailout. Even Republicans seem to buy into the fact that its the job of the state and federal governments to give money or loans to rebuild.

  Reply