I’m searching for a copy of the veto letter to post, but Tim Pawlenty vetoed the bipartisan transportation bill this morning.
From everything I’ve heard he didn’t include a list of roads he’s willing to see fall into disrepair.
Post Tools: 
PrintThis
Related Posts: George found his Mini-Me!, Molnau’s DoT Comissioner Status Tenuous, Molnau Ensnared In Another Major Scandal #2, Molnau Ensnared In Another Major Scandal, The Call is Getting Louder: Transportation Advocates Call for Special Session,
PrintThis
Related Posts: George found his Mini-Me!, Molnau’s DoT Comissioner Status Tenuous, Molnau Ensnared In Another Major Scandal #2, Molnau Ensnared In Another Major Scandal, The Call is Getting Louder: Transportation Advocates Call for Special Session,
44 Responses to “Pawlenty Vetos Transportation Bill”
Comments are currently closed.
Loading ...
Will one of the two Dems who voted against it change their mind? Last I read the House was 1 vote away from an override.
Otremba problably not, Lesch maybe. But any one of the GOP legislators could flip back too.
Anyone know why Otremba is a no vote? She seems to always show up on the GOP side of things when it comes to important votes. What, they don’t have any transportation needs in Long Prairie?
Otremba and Lesch both voted for the override last spring, I highly doubt that they will vote against it this time.
Good to see the legislature is getting their important bills to Pawlenty early rather than at the last minute.
At least you can count on TPaw to be consistently stupid. When you’re contemplating a new address, say the Vice-President’s residence, or maybe suburban D.C. Maryland or Virginia with that cabinet post, why worry about roads here. Maybe if we could only find that one Welfare mother in the Cadillac, or is it a Lexus now, that is using up all the assistance money we could afford more roads.
The GOP says re-order priorities, HOW, lets see the plan, where will you cut, who will be affected, how will you pay the debt, how long would we have wait to replace the Lafayette bridge, the Hastings bridge, the Stillwater bridge, the Cuyuga bridge to finish 610, to expand the beltway to 3 lanes, 30 Freakin’ YEARS before they plan to replace the Rice Street bridge over 694?! Have you looked at the Rice Street bridge over Hwy 36? It has exposed rebar everywhere, it’s far too narrow and it’s crumbling. What about all the structurally deficient bridges all over greater Minnesota?
There is no easy solution, if there was we would have done it. You have to make hard choices sometimes, but if you want a modern and efficient transportation system you have to pay for it. Even this increase in funding won’t pay for everything we need, but it is better than what we have done the last 2 years thanks to Governor “no new taxes”. What a freakin’ tool. Even the Chamber of Commerce supports this bill and he vetoes to make a stupid political point, if this was really about the good of taxpayers in Minnesota he would have signed it, or at least allowed to become law without his signature.
Worst governor ever in my opinion! Override this SOB!
This is simple an awful bill. The gas tax increase is reasonable and needed but the sales tax to pay for transit is about as dumb as it gets. Now on top of the stadium tax and other “special” sales tax rates for us city folk we get to pay the cost of getting people from Burnsville downtown for work. At the same time it will encourage the current exodus of retail from the city since why the hell is somebody going to drive into the city just to pay an extra 1% on everything they buy. I would much rather have the same logic used to increase the gas tax, have those who drive pay for the roads, applied to transit fares then punish businesses for locating in the city to benefit people living elsewhere.
Increasing the cost of living in the city while decreasing the cost of living elsewhere and commuting is what kills cities. This is the kind of crap (along with pretending bonding for roads is bad but is fine for community centers and the like) that shows how incompetent, unreasonable and willing to defy the will of the people current DFL leadership is. This bill will cost them lots of seats next election. It will also ensure a Republican governor.
I’m in the middle on this one.
I think the gas tax is a no-brainer, should be passed, and should have been passed at least a year ago.
I think the metro-wide sales tax should be decided by a metro-wide referendum. If the people say do it, I can live with that.
I’m thankful that the legislature didn’t just default to the tired position of piling the additional cost on the higher income families. I thank them for making this more user based, and could live with it all if there was a referendum on the sales tax piece.
Kerosene hat - bonding for roads is fine if that’s all you do, but this state has a tradition of bonding for state and regional infrastructure that includes our University and college system, state buildings, cultural amenities that keep the state worth living in, and other things like, yes, civic centers. Not all of these projects are always the best - they are part of the legislative process. But all in all, this spending has made Minnesota a great place to live.
Now, if the state starts relying heavily on bonding this way for transportation without additional revenue, it will either go broke or have to stop bonding for everything else. Perhaps we should raze our university system, state buildings and all other important infrastructure and then just use the money saved for bridges?
This isn’t pretend. The real make believe is thinking you can pay for a decent transportation system on an empty wallet.
“Now on top of the stadium tax and other “special” sales tax rates for us city folk we get to pay the cost of getting people from Burnsville downtown for work. At the same time it will encourage the current exodus of retail from the city since why the hell is somebody going to drive into the city just to pay an extra 1% on everything they buy.”
That’s just a ridiculous statement. The person from Burnsville who has taken the bus downtown to work is eating lunch downtown, and shopping at Barnes and Noble, Target, and numerous other places in the skyway. He doesn’t give a rat’s ass that there’s a teensy part of a percent more sales tax. It still beats making a special trip when he gets home. Of course nobody drives from Burnsville to the city only to shop but it’s because that would be stupid - not because of the sales tax. If there was NO sales tax in the city proper, NOBODY from Burnsville would drive all the way downtown to shop at Target just to save whatever the amount the sales tax is on $30.
Max,
I talk and work with leasing agents, building owners, retailers and property managers every day at work and know you are wrong. Retail vacancies are up, half of Hennepin is vacant, and many of the remaining businesses are struggling. Most retail cannot survive on just those couple hours at lunch or after work five days a week. People might not care about an extra 1% on a couple items they need during the day but they will reconsider making major purchases, electronics, furniture, jewlery, etc. if it costs them an extra $20.
In the end it isn’t just about getting the person from Burnsville downtown to shop it is about keeping the city residents from driving to Burnsville to go shopping.
Regardless, it makes no sense to use one logic for roads and another for transit. We need to encourage people to be more efficient and live closer to their work, school or whatever. Raising the gas tax to pay for the roads does that. Raising the sales tax to pay for transit does the opposite.
I have always advocated for an increase in the gas tax to pay for roads. I wouldn’t mind seeing the gas tax raised enough to allow it to be the only source of road funding. The DFLs B.S. about bonding making our kids pay for roads is shameful. Bonding with an attached user based revenue stream to pay for them is the smartest way to pay for infrastructure. The bill the DFL wrote and passed is more about them trying to show off their power than making good law.
The bill is also proof that any talk about the Democrats caring about a progressive tax code is nothing but a lie.
I’m thankful that the legislature didn’t just default to the tired position of piling the additional cost on the higher income families.
Oh the pitiful plight of those families making 250,000 dollars a year. How can they manage? Who will save them? The daily grind of wretched excess is nightmarish and those who’s lot in life has cast them upon these rocky shores have no one to plead their case.
“Oh the pitiful plight of those families making 250,000 dollars a year”
Actions are louder than words… Democrats typically target tax increases, phase-outs of programs such as IRA’s and tax credits at a much, much lower income level than that. Many who consider themselves middle class are cateogorized as “the rich” by Dems.
But hey — it is a small enough % of the population so they can’t elect you out of office. What can they do? Stick it to ‘em!!!
As a business executive, I imagine one gets used to not being asked for facts. Please site the aforementioned tax increases and phase outs and please site the income levels affected. The fact of the matter is, if you’re not making a million a year, you’d be crazy to vote GOP.
I’m for the gas tax, and I think whatever percentage they set the increase at is probably not enough. I’m a little more cautious about the transit sales tax- why not make the folks from Burnsville and the outer rings pay more if they insist upon their long commute? I know there’s all kinds of technicalities in that seemingly simple idea, but still…
But what on earth ever happened to the “Vote Yes” amendment that was supposed to funnel extra money into roads and transit, with 60% going to transit? Didn’t 57% of us vote “yes” in 2006? I know it’s not supposed to be fully phased in until 2011, but how come no one has said another word about it in almost 2 years?
Actually Richard, this Democrat tax increase would
hit the working class the hardest.
One of the worst taxes we have in Minneapolis is the extra tax downtown that was to pay off the Convention Center I believe. That tax was way too narrow - and does discourage people from buying downtown vs buying in other areas of the city.
With the Metro Sales Tax for Transit - there’s more justification for that, than there was for the Stadium boondoggle - which was a bipartisan boondoggle - voted by legislators outstate to stick it to the Hennepin County Taxpayer - and signed by Governor Pawlenty of Tax Increases.
Obama wants to raise taxes on any family making over $97,500 by 12% in order to help pay for social security. He has said during debates that anyone making more than $97,500 is the upper class. Direct Quote.
Roth IRA phases out starting at $99K income. If you make to much and try to contribute, you actually get penalized (it happened to me).
Deducting Student Loan interest phases out at an income of $55,000.
Filers with incomes of under $100,000 account for 53% of the AMT payments. AMT was “intended to target high income households.”
I could go on and on, Richard. The ironic thing is that you accused me of not being able to supply facts, while you made the wrong assumption that I make $250,000, and the flawed assumption that our tax code uses that as a threshold for “high income”.
Kerosene hit the nail on the head once again.
Raise the gas tax for roads/bridges. Eliminate the sales tax and the insistance on supporting transit.
The bill would get the override even if TPaw did veto it and would address the real issues around transportation.
The veto letter is at http://www.governor.state.mn.us/stellent/groups/public/documents/web_content/prod008684.pdf
“Obama wants to raise taxes on any family making over $97,500 by 12% in order to help pay for social security.”
No. Obama is for keeping the current rate of taxation, but increasing the cap from the current $97,000. Why should the cost of social security be shouldered ENTIRELY by those who make less than $97,000?
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3638710
Disclaimer: I would be affected by Obama’s plan, and I am just fine with it. Beats the hell out of ‘privatization.’
“He has said during debates that anyone making more than $97,500 is the upper class”
$97,000 annual salary is nearly twice the national average. *
Only 19.1% of households make more than $100K annually. A household with an income of $97,000 is certainly in the top quintile of wage earners.
*US Census Bureau, Income by education and sex. Retrieved on 2006-06-30
“Why should the cost of social security be shouldered ENTIRELY by those who make less than $97,000?”
What?
Someone making $100k pays up to the cap ($102k in 2008). The Fed’s cap the total benefit you can get at retirement so it’s only fair that there be an income cap since there’s also a benefit cap. The whole design is created to pay benefits based upon your earnings and how much you pay in. These cap removal proposals are often joined by ones that say we should “means test” getting benefits so that that make more actually might get nothing back in benefits.
If you’re in favor of those policies I’d be willing to bet you wouldn’t be negatively affected by their implementation. It’s easy to advocate taking other people’s money at no cost to you.
The answer to saving social security is to reduce benefits and/or extend the age when you start getting benefits.
“Why should the cost of social security be shouldered ENTIRELY by those who make less than $97,000?”
Anyone making over $97,000, whether it is $98K or $800K, is paying this tax. Furthemore, people making above the $98K range see their IRA contribution ability phase out. So, not only does Obama want to increase the amount that a higher wageearner pays toward social security that he/she will probably never recoup, but he is fine with not allowing them to save for their own retirement via IRAs!! Like I said before, stick it to them! They can’t vote you out of office - there aren’t enough of them!
“Only 19.1% of households make more than $100K annually. A household with an income of $97,000 is certainly in the top quintile of wage earners.”
Can’t argue with those stats. But Obama, Clinton, and others need to call it like it is. Does that family making $98K per year, living in a metro area like Chicago or Minneapolis, feel like they are in the upper class? No. They are probably hearing the Democrats message of “looking out for the middle class”, and have not realized that those middle class messages dont apply to them. In fact, as part of “the rich”, they will need to pay for all of these great ideas from Clinton and Obama.
Hey - I have no problem paying some taxes. If I did, I’d gladly find a lower-paying job with better hours and lower stress. Let’s just ask each candidate to define “middle class”. I think many “average” americans would be truly suprised by the answers.
http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/newsflash_20071217_income_inequality
Raise the erarning cap subject to Social Security taxes to the first $150,000 of Earned Income. Keep the 6.75% tax collection rate where it is. Keep the Retirement age to collect SS where it is.
Then, there will be plenty of funds to pay out benifits for another 100 years.
Those wage earners making $250,000 plus will still have plenty of income for investments, etc. Those making or who inherit Millions do not need Social Security.
Those wage earners who paid a higher Income Tax rate during the Clinton years madse out very well prior to the Buxh Tax cuts. Just my 2 cents worth.
So, social engineers, at what income level does one not deserve social security benefits, although they would disproportionately be funding the system for everyone else? Or is it a wealth level?
And, the question I always ask but never get an answer to: What portion of a $150K earner or $250K earners salary is morally and ethically justified to take for government operations? 20%? 40%? 60%? 100%?
The answer to that enables us to talk about which government expenses we can afford and which we cannot. There are two sides to each equation.
check out YOU TUBE
“Safety vs. Veto Pen”
40% without illegal wars, 60% with illegal wars and corporate corruption. As a business executive, I’m surprised you weren’t able to make a decision. The question I always ask and never get an answer to is, “How many people have to go homeless and hungry before the wealthiest 1% feel any responsibility?”
So we get out of Iraq, and we should actually get a tax reduction? I can live with that. I don’t support the Iraq war, and the decrease to 40% would allow me to save for 3 kids’ college (for which “the rich” can’t expect any aid), save for my retirement (for which “the rich” can’t use an IRA or recived social security), and give to private charities who address societal issues much more effectively than the bureaus of Washington DC.
Fair deal! Where do I sign????
By the way, I think that a “fair” number for a high wageearner to pay in total income taxes is in the ballpark of 33%. Being able to keep 2/3 of what you produce would be enough to fund way more government services than what that family actually uses (which is fair), allow you to save and re-invest in your business, profession, or field, and be philanthropic in whatever way suits your values. It also incentivizes private sector activity. When you know that you will be rewarded, there is more incentive to create the next wonder drug, provide services which help peoples’ lives, design and build the very internet infrastructure and technology which we are using to exchange ideas, and so on.
Once you start having much more than 1/3 of what you produce taken, I believe it decreases philanthropy, decreases investment, and creates cynics of government (which I’ll admit has happened a bit in my case.) When you get over 50% taken by the Govt, it is downright unethical. The Obama and Clinton tax plans, when combined with some states’ income tax rates, would do this.
You’ll see that I’m not defending corporate corruption and greed. For a free market advocate, there is no place for corporate corruption. There is no justification for pay an Exec a multi-million dollar bonus when he runs a company into the ground. There is no excuse for Enron.
But just as I realize that for every bad, lazy bureaucrat there are probably a hundred good ones, I hope that you can acknowledge that the vast majority of businesses make our lives better without creating scandals and rewarding mediocrity.
Richard,
You are smart enough to put together an honest argument so I don’t know why you jump statements like “How many people have to go homeless and hungry before the wealthiest 1% feel any responsibility?”. Since the highest income earners already provide a large percentage of the tax receipts so it is not as though it is rational to say they feel no responsibility.
It seems your definitions of who is wealthy and who is needy is conveniently designed to minimize the responsibilities of the particular demographic you support. How many people do you know that own boats or snowmobiles or other multi-thousand dollar toys instead of providing it to those in need. How many fishing or Disney vacations have been taken by those “working-class” people instead of volunteering that time or money. Those luxuries may be less expensive but they are still luxuries.
If you really cared about income distribution and thought it is a moral or economic imperative to reduce the income gap you would have to support massive tax increases on all but the bottom 5-10% of income earners in this country to provide support for those less fortunate people across the globe.
Funny though how this thread started about Pawlenty vetoing the transportation and has come down to wealth redistribution. Especially since the bill promoted by Democrats is about as regressive as a tax and spending bill can be. Especially the sales tax for transit where the funds will come from those “working-class” people Democrats pretend to support and the benefits primarily to people in the top income bracket. With projects like LRT there is no measurable improvement to the average person paying the sales tax unless they happen to be one of the few who live and work within walking distance to the line. Meanwhile a few developers will make huge amounts of money using T.I.F. and other government “incentives” to give them an advantage in the marketplace. A developer who may have to pay an extra few hundred dollars a year with the new taxes might save hundreds of thousands in a project cost due to government funded development incentives.
I saw this happen with the current light rail line and know it will happen to a much larger degree on the downtown to downtown route. Meanwhile those people who the line was supposed to help will be footing the bill and padding the pockets of developers and their friends.
KH - nice reply (again)
KH -
If/when you run for public office, I’ll be happy to knock on doors for you.
You always have a knack for saying (better) what I was trying to say.
Kathy,
I love how you are able to make judgements about what other people “need” or don’t “need.” It’s almost like you think wealthy people are society’s ATM and that the government should just be able to take whatever they want. Once you start saying that other people don’t need the money it’s pretty easy to rationalize coming in and taking it.
Moreover, it’s not 6.75%, Kathy. It’s double that: 13.5%. Just because your employer pays the other 6.75% doesn’t mean that it isn’t your money. And God forbid if you’re self employed, you’re paying virtually all 13.5%. There are millions of self employed people who would be hit with your tax increases to the detriment of their livelihood and the economy.
“Once you start saying that other people don’t need the money it’s pretty easy to rationalize coming in and taking it.” Amen
“If you’re in favor of those policies I’d be willing to bet you wouldn’t be negatively affected by their implementation. It’s easy to advocate taking other people’s money at no cost to you.”
In fact, I would be affected by an increase on the cap. I don’t care. This bill needs to be passed
Chris,
“Once you start saying that other people don’t need the money it’s pretty easy to rationalize coming in and taking it.”
Everyone knows the bold policies of President Bush and the Republican party over the last seven years have protected everyones finances from the poorest of the poor all the way up to the patriotic billionaire.
Americans of every income are thanking the Republican party for the incredible prosperity our policies have brought to our Nation. If you don’t realize this, you must be a dummocrat moonbat.
That is why we are going to win this November, and finally establish our permanent Repubklican majority.
Great job, Chris!
Here are the facts.
The bottom-earning 1/5 of households recive $8.21 in spending directed their way for every $1 they pay in tax
The “middle income” group recives $1.30 for every $1 paid in
Those categorized as “high income” receive $0.41 for every dollar paid to Government.
Is there a fundamental flaw with those figures? Maybe not. But much to the dismay of liberals who attempt to argue that Bush has let “the rich” off the hook, the intended redistribution of wealth is alive and well, EVEN AFTER THOSE “EVIL” BUSH TAX CUTS!
source: http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr151.pdf
Dan the Man,
Exactly! That is why all Americans, of every income bracket, are seeing these tax cut benefits pay off. The so-called “emptier wallets” theory that some of these Liberal have has no foundation in reality. Your link, DanTheMan, should prove that to everyone.
The Bush tax cuts have significantly helped those who needed the tax cuts most.
The Republican party, alone, should be thanked by every American enjoying the tremendous prosperity that has finally come to fruition.
Great job, DanTheMan!
TFRWG - ???
http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/newsflash_20071217_income_inequality
There’s exactly what the Bush tax cuts have done and what they were always intended to do. The Wealthiest have gotten wealthier.
TFRWG!!!!!
Trickle down economics didn’t work that well during the Reagan Years, they haven’t worked that well during the Bush Years.
It’s not the 1% of Wage Earners who benifitted from the Bush Tax Cuts that are in dire straights.
Kathy,
TFRWG is a person’s attempt at parody. The fact is that he has yet to do anything other than confuse fellow Democrats and left wing posters is the only funny thing about him. In the end his inability to add anything to the discussion causes him to rely on the tactics of a junior high bully. He does the same disservice to left wing views as many of the posters at MDE do for those on the right. No matter what your views there are going to be a few brain dead juveniles that pick your side and TFRWG is one of yours.
“It’s not the 1% of Wage Earners who benifitted from the Bush Tax Cuts that are in dire straights.”
I think we all agree that the lowest wage earners should be better off than they are. The question is how? We can’t go to the taxpayers for unlimited funding requests. We can invest in people or spend on people.
Investing in people: Funding effective pre-K education, funding our schools to be competitive, providing adequate support for college. Building the transportation infrastructure so people can be mobile. Enabling basic access to care so our workforce is healthy, and those with chronic diseases can be treated. Making it easy for businesses who can bring jobs to the area to do so.
Spending on people: Spending more money on unemployment. Adding layers to our bureaucracies. Creating a state-run healthcare payer which creates entitlements. Giving tax credits just because the income is low, sustaining people being content with a low income.
Moderates have no problem investing; we don’t like excess spending.