Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 7 comments Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
Pawlenty, back off veto threat
Published 12:00 p.m., February 19, 2008
While Gov. Tim Pawlenty has continued to preach his credo of “no new taxes,” his threat to veto the Legislature’s transportation bill seems to fly in the face of the public sentiment to fix Minnesota’s roads and bridges.
We’re asking Pawlenty to back off his threat and sign the transportation bill.
From the traffic problems in the Twin Cities metro area to the eroding roads and bridges in Otter Tail and many other outstate counties, Minnesota clearly needs an infusion of cash to help cure our ailing transportation system.
Pawlenty needs to understand that our state’s economy was built on the state’s excellent infrastructure. This fact would become obvious simply by touring other states where infrastructure has been neglected. Failing to provide adequate funding would lead Minnesota down the same path.
We understand the benefits of keeping taxes low. But we believe that, in the case of our roads and bridges, the funding the Legislature has proposed would be money well spent.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE THIS STORY?
Comments
The Daily Journal is happy to host community conversations about news and life in Fergus Falls and the surrounding area. As hosts, we expect guests will show respect for each other. That means we don't threaten or defame each other, and we keep conversations free of personal attacks. Those who persist with racist, defamatory or abusive postings risk losing the privilege to post. To post a comment you will need to register. Or, if you're already registered but have not included your true, verifiable identity with your registration, you will need to update your account to include your identity. Effective Dec. 1, 2009, all posts appear with the commenter's true identity, which must be verified by site staff. Those who registered prior to Dec. 1, 2009, should be aware that once you update your information with your true identity, all prior posts under your user name will also indicate your true identity. If you do not wish to link yourself to prior comments, you should register again with a different user name.Posted by pilsnerurquel (anonymous) on February 19, 2008 at 6:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I couldn't agree more.
Posted by thethinker (Todd Leucuta) on February 20, 2008 at 10:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
So in a time of economic slow down; of economic uncertainty; a time when a gallon of gas is basically $3; a time when the dollar is at a 30 year low vs. other world currencies which helps keep our nations economy lethargic; the legislature wants to raise the tax on gas to pay fo the states' infrastructure. Everyone with 1/4 brain knows the tax will be passed down to the consumers immediately by all companies who are impacted by the higher fuel cost. I think the timing of this bill stinks. I would agree our roads need some help but I do not think this is a good way - in light of the nations recession (yes, we are in one) - to fix the roads. The middle class is getting stretched to the breaking point as it is and this tax will affect them the most. If you are rich - so what, you can afford it. And the poor drive as little as possible already (now that it may take a half days wages to fill your tank). So once again the middle class bears the burden.
Eventually the middle class will stop bearing these burdens. Then what?
Posted by Commycrat (anonymous) on February 20, 2008 at 10:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If the answer laid in higher taxes, why are we not living in utopia? I would maybe agree to a higher gasoline tax if someone showed me where they plan on cutting taxes else where. After all, if the state has the gull to tell me to live with less, let them lead by example.
Posted by AndyMosity (anonymous) on February 20, 2008 at 11:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If these things aren't taken care of now, they're only going to be more expensive to fix later. That's the cost of being an American - that's my membership dues.
Posted by anamerican (anonymous) on February 20, 2008 at 1:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thinker, a weak dollar does not keep our nations economy 'lethargic' (nearly the opposite actually), and by definition, it is impossible to determine if our economy is in a recession (2Q's of neg. GDP growth), but I do agree that as a result of higher fuel prices (gas tax), not only will we pay for it at the pump, all goods and services that require transportation will also be impacted. So keep that in mind, it is not just at the pump we will pay, but every trip to the grocery store, liquor store, restaurant etc... as well.
Posted by thethinker (Todd Leucuta) on February 20, 2008 at 4:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
anamerican-economists are in a state of uncertainty regarding the impact of the weak dollar on our economy as well as whether or not we are in a recession. It has been a long, long time since the USA has been in such a bad situation and the rising power of the Euro and Yen has made mid to long-term economic forecasts more of a guess than a scientific hypothesis. In theory, a weak dollar should help our own manufacturers get more goods out into the world at a better price (for the world). But our purchasing power shrinks at the same time so we pay more for foreign goods. While the govt debates whether or not we are in a recession, the People of the country know we probably are or will be soon. 2 qtrs of neg GDP is just 1 factor. The perception of the populace is more important as we are the ones who make the economy and if we percieve things as being bad, the economy will falter.
Raising taxes on a necessity like fuel will raise prices across the board (as you mentioned). 95% of all goods are transported at some point via disel engines...yep, we'll all be paying for the gas tax.
Posted by Terry (anonymous) on February 21, 2008 at 1:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Why wouldn't Pawlenty veto it? Anyone with an 1/8 of a brain would. The DFL bill give 75% of the money to mass transit and 25% of it to roads and bridges. In other words, the Twin Cities will get at least 90% of the money for roads, bridges, and mass transit. Out here in the rest of the state, we would mostly just pay for it.
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)
You may also register to comment in our forums at www.fergusfeedback.com.