"John McClane: You know what you get for being a hero? Nothin'. You get shot at. You get a little pat on the back, blah, blah, blah, attaboy. You get divorced. Your wife can't remember your last name. Your kids don't want to talk to you. You get to eat a lot of meals by yourself. Trust me, kid, nobody wants to be that guy.
Matt Farrell: Then why you doing this?
John McClane: Because there's no body else to do it right now, that's why. Believe me, if there were somebody else to do it, I'd let them do it, but there's not. So we're doing it.
Matt Farrell: Ah. That's what makes you that guy. "

Enter your email address to subscribe to RF and receive notifications of new posts by email.

They Say To Be Sociable
A Nation In Distress
Never Forget
Propaganda Czar
Help keep RF trucking
RF Googley

Words To Live By
"The era of small government is over ... government has to be more proactive, more aggressive." ( Tim Pawlenty 2006)

"You're just petty politicians, who'd sooner sign onto the wisdom of a tyrant in another country, than the demands of ticked off voters in your own." (Neil Cavuto June 2008)

“I didn’t question her patriotism. I questioned her judgment.” Mr. Cheney went on: “The point I made and I’ll make it again is that Al Qaeda functions on the basis that they think they can break our will. That’s their fundamental underlying strategy, that if they can kill enough Americans or cause enough havoc, create enough chaos in Iraq, then we’ll quit and go home. And my statement was that if we adopt the Pelosi policy, that then we will validate the strategy of Al Qaeda. I said it, and I meant it.” (Vice President Cheney NYT Feb. 2007)

"A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers. (Ronald Reagan March 1, 1975)

"Oh, no! First of all, if I took one vote away from a serious candidate, it would be a sin." (Al Franken Time Magazine, 9/1/03)

MVST Amendment – 60/40 Sucks Money From Roads

More big hitters are coming out in support of the garbage known as the motor vehicle sales tax (MVST.) amendment. This time it is Susan Marvin (Marvin windows) and Ron Lifson (former chair of the Minnesota Chamber’s Transportation Policy Committee).

Minnesotans have what is likely a one-time opportunity to significantly increase transportation funding by voting “yes” on the proposed constitutional amendment on dedication of the motor vehicle sales tax (MVST.).

Let me insert the text of the amendment:

“Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to dedicate revenue from a tax on the sale of new and used motor vehicles over a five-year period, so that after June 30, 2011, all of the revenue is dedicated at least 40 percent for public transit assistance and not more than 60 percent for highway purposes?                       Yes ……. No ……..”

“at least 40 percent for public transit assistance and not more than 60 percent for highway purposes”Do you see it yet? They are putting a cap on how much money can be spent on highways. Plus they are mandating a minimum percentage of the money be spent on mass transit. Meaning that they have to spend money on mass transit every year whether it is needed/desired (by the public) or not.

But let’s get back to this current argument for the amendment.

However, lawmakers have continually used the money for other purposes, and today only 54 percent of the MVST dollars is used for transportation.

So how would limiting spending to “no more than 60%” of the dollars be much different? Yes, that is exactly what this will do. It will increase the funding to highways, which 95% of Minnesotans use as their main source of transit, by no more than 6%!

But then again, the people pushing this plan are not really trying to solve the transportation problem in Minnesota.

The MVST amendment is not a cure-all for our transportation needs, but it is an important steppingstone. As for the second step — an increase in the fuel tax

Even if this passes, they still know they will need a gas tax increase to get enough money. So why pass this stupid amendment that puts a limit on how much money (taken from those of us who drive a car, truck, or motor vehicle that we paid the tax for the privilege to drive on the roads)  can be used on the roads that we all use?

Bad laws don’t deserve to pass, just to start the debate on spending. How about this for the amendment?

My version: “Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to dedicate revenue from a tax on the sale of new and used motor vehicles so that all of the revenue is dedicated to transportation?                       Yes ……. No ……..”  

Let’s pass that, so that we the people of Minnesota can debate how our money can be spent every year. Doing this will give the legislature the voter approved power to allocate the ratio of highway to mass transit funds, rather than leave that to the bureaucracy of MNDOT. When they cross the line, one way or the other, we can change that through elections. But this amendment is forever limiting the money available to the roads.

The people of this state ought to control the future of transportation. Let us decide how it shall be spent, not a few bureaucrats in a room.

Be Sociable, Share!