« STAR TRIBUNE: “PFEILSTICKER ISN’T MS. COURAGE ON THE GAS-TAX QUESTION” | Home | THE “DUMP” BLOGGERS CHOSE PARTISAN POLITICS OVER THE INTERESTS OF MINNESOTA »
ROCHESTER POST-BULLETIN: “PFEILSTICKER HAS BEEN SOMEWHAT VAGUE ON THE DETAILS OF HER PROPOSALS”
By Michael B. Brodkorb | August 5, 2007
"Yet Pfeilsticker has been somewhat vague on the details of her proposals. She ranks repairing the state's crumbling road and bridge infrastructure as among her top priorities. Yet she declines to commit herself to a funding source or an increase in the state's gas tax, saying only that she is open to a range of funding sources. She does not specify her ideas for revitalizing rural Minnesota." Source: Rochester Post-Bulletin, August 4, 2007
Tags: Uncategorized
Topics: Uncategorized | 20 Comments »
20 Responses to “ROCHESTER POST-BULLETIN: “PFEILSTICKER HAS BEEN SOMEWHAT VAGUE ON THE DETAILS OF HER PROPOSALS””
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
August 5th, 2007 at 5:01 PM
FileSticker is for happy people, bunnies and cotton candy. Blah fuckin’ blah. Another lying liberal.
How can you tell a Democrat is lying? … their lips are moving.
August 5th, 2007 at 5:47 PM
Right out of the DFL playbook.
I wonder what normal first-time DFL candidsates (meaning those not inserted from the Ed Minnesota/DFL union boss machine) think when the campaign plan they are given demands avoiding everything they believe.
I guess it is one of those ends justifies the means sort of things.
August 5th, 2007 at 7:32 PM
She’ll let us know where she’s at on those issues on Wednesday.
August 5th, 2007 at 8:58 PM
Pfielsticker is for whatever her DFL bosses tell her she is for if she gets elected. She doesn’t need to know what she believes. She will be told what to believe when and if the time comes.
August 5th, 2007 at 10:05 PM
Drew-
Bite your tongue! If she tells us what she supports on Wednesday, that means she won the special election.
Ick! I don’t wanna see that!
August 6th, 2007 at 1:02 AM
[...] Second, it signals a turning point in this race. Yesterday, for example, the GOP’s surrogate posted a weak attack that uses Pfeilsticker’s declining to commit herself to increasing the gas tax. I have to recap that one quickly: last week MDE posted a GOP press release that attacked Pfeilsticker for not coming out resolutely against the gas-tax, four days later he’s attacking her for not coming out resolutely for it. Yes friends, they’re scared. [...]
August 6th, 2007 at 1:28 AM
From the Post-Bulliten where Drazkowski stands on Transportation…”He advocates bonding for highway construction projects as opposed to an increase in the state’s gas tax, saying it would be “an economic killer,” hurting the area’s businesses and residents. ”
Constant borrowing for Transportation will only supress the chances for Minnesota Taxpayers to save money for their needs. Bonds have to be paid on at some time, loan debt has to be paid back ina given set period. Is putting future debt of this magnitude onto the Taxpayers fiscally sound?? I don’t think so!!
While Pfeilsticker may say she wants to look into other funding sources for Transportation, she would most likely support a raise in the Gas Tax. A raise is needed.
August 6th, 2007 at 7:37 AM
Actually, kathy, yes, bonding for transportation projects is fiscally sound. It balances payments out over the use of the project. Kinda like your mortgage.
Maybe the homeless problem is due to liberal thinking that one can’t buy or live in a home unless they can scratch together the full amount today.
Bonding also prevents liberal idiots from raising taxes and spending the money on ponies.
Raising the gas tax is not needed. Revenues from gasoline taxes have increased 300 percent in the past 15 years.
BTW — last year, liberals were proposing the gas tax increase, not to pay for road work, but to punish drivers for driving.
The truth is already out.
August 6th, 2007 at 8:14 AM
I got an idea, how about we pay for all our other major infrastructure up-front like liberals say we should for roads? Great! Idiots. Their failure to understand basic government economics is baffling.
August 6th, 2007 at 8:28 AM
Are liberals willing to look at paying for all of our infrastructure upgrades out of existing revenues? If asked I wonder if their answer would be “Of course, every option needs to be put on teh table at this point”. But I doubt that any liberal would even answer such a direct and valid question.
Where are the leaders standing up and supporting an overall reduction in the state budget and an innovative approach to funding all of our transportation needs out of existing funding?
Oh, they are busy telling their constituents that they will gladly support a gas tax now that the heat is on about a bridge collapse that we don’t know fact one about the cause.
Any legislator that has already changed their gas tax vote has done so because they are more concerned about getting re-elected than doing what is truly right for Minnesota.
We don’t need a gas tax increase. Where are the leaders promoting cuts to existing spending in order to afford the transportation upgrades?
Are they all out of town?
August 6th, 2007 at 9:36 AM
One difference here, chestnut! The state of Minnesota is similar to a HOUSE. But where’s the EQUITY in which to borrow from?? One can argue that the EQUITY lies within each resident who pays taxes and is willing to see that infrastructure is taken care of.
With a small increase of the Gas Tax of a nickel per gallon, monies begin to amass. What Minnesota cannot afford to do is continue to borrow without other means in which to collect revenue for Transportation or wait until another bridge collapses with more loss of life. Even the Governor is finally realizing that his 2 Transportation Vetoes has come back into the picture and is reconsidering his position.
Just an example, chestnut!! Say you have a “structurally deficient” roof. You know you have shingles that are loose or boards that are cracked and rotting underneath. You can see water spots inside your house. Do you wait until your roof collapses to get anything done? Or do you invest in your home to maintain it and keep it sound? With a home, there is EQUITY built up over time that can be borrowed on and paid back. A home is an investment that yields returns when sold.
Unfortunately, a state’s infrastructure cannot be sold to the highest bidder and has to be maintained constantly in order to continue to fuel its economy, which pays for everything we depend on. It’s a never ending cycle that each of us is responsible for. We use the roads and bridges, we pay to keep them in the best running order. If that means a Gas Tax increase, people will support it. There has not been an increase in the Gas Tax since 1988. It is time.
August 6th, 2007 at 9:48 AM
“One can argue that the EQUITY lies within each resident who pays taxes and is willing to see that infrastructure is taken care of.”
Yeah, a brain dead liberal could argue that. Doesn’t make it true, doesn’t mean it makes any sense.
Still, it would be amazing had the DFL legislature ever delivered a transportation bill to the governor. The last one proposed $5 BILLION in additional taxes to pay for everything but roads and bridges. The one before that, diverted nearly half the money to non-roads-related projects.
BTW — it wasn’t a nickel per gallon, it was 7 1/2 cents… And the idea that gas taxes haven’t increased since 1988 is pure bullshit. The rate hasn’t increased, but revenues have grown over 300 percent. Where’s the money going? Down the DFL hole.
Again, here’s a thought, discontinue all “transit” projects, and get apply that money to what it’s intended for…
August 6th, 2007 at 10:11 AM
“And the idea that gas taxes haven’t increased since 1988 is pure bullshit. The rate hasn’t increased, but revenues have grown over 300 percent. Where’s the money going? Down the DFL hole. ”
It is true that Tax Revenus have increased over the uyears. That is in part to the increase of businesses coming in, like Resturants, Hotels, Big Box Retailers, people wioth home based businesses, etc. The Service Industry is growing to replace Manufacturing losses. When there are more Service industry businesses coming in, more taxes are paid. My business has seen an increase of 30% quarterly in Gross revenues and taxes paid to the state. It goes hand in hand.
As far as Transportation needs, raising the Gas Tax will add needed monies to what needs to be done to make sure Roads and Bridges are kept in good working order so that the economy can grow. Will my prices go up for what I do? Not really! I already charge the higher end of what the market will bear and there have been no complaints. It all balances out.
August 6th, 2007 at 10:30 AM
Kathy, you’re a prime example of liberals who change the topic to confuse the debate. Is it accidental, or are you really this dishonest.
To repeat GAS TAX REVENUES HAVE INCREASE 300 PERCENT. That has nothing to do with your business taxes. And business growth has nothing to do with the 300 percent increase in revenues from gasoline taxes.
The state doesn’t need more taxes. It needs smarter spending policies. With dishonest liberals in charge, we seem only to get more taxes.
August 6th, 2007 at 7:09 PM
So, DFLers see nothing wrong with bonding $1 Billion plus every other year for buildings and other pet projects. But bonding for roads and bridges is out of the question. How does the analogy about EQUITY fit into that equation? The state isn’t selling their buildings to get back that equity.
August 6th, 2007 at 10:41 PM
Drazkowski cleared of assault charge
By Jeff Dankert
Winona Daily News
Published – Tuesday, January 17, 2006
A Wabasha County jury last week cleared Steve Drazkowski of a charge he assaulted his 14-year-old daughter in October.
The 41-year-old Republican candidate for Senate District 28 still must avoid his daughter under a temporary restraining order filed by his ex-wife.
After the jury verdict last week, Drazkowski said Minnesota laws go “too far†and are “very oppressive.â€
“Upon my election to the state senate, I will work diligently to reform our child protection laws, so that we can prevent these breaches of justice in the future,†he said. “We must encourage common sense parenting in which children are held accountable for their actions.
August 7th, 2007 at 2:42 AM
And Drazkowski was absolutely correct.
What exactly are you trying to say “This is our guy.”
Look at what kids are getting away with? Could it have something to do with parenting?
His ex-Wife, by the way, is a few cards short of a deck. Thank God he was able to instill values in his Daughter. Now, at sixteen, she is appreciative of her Father.
August 7th, 2007 at 6:44 AM
When their kids act poorly, conservative parents turn to reason and discipline. Liberal parents turn to emotions and self esteem.
Conservative children grow up to be solid contributors to the community. Liberal children grow up to be dependents and whiners.
August 7th, 2007 at 7:53 AM
“I will work diligently to reform our child protection laws” -Draz
Which child protection laws? Mandatory reporting of a child hysterical at school with marks on torso? That law’s gotta go?
We need better laws to make these kids “accountable for their actions.” She deserved it?
Let’s let this barrel sink and come back hard next year. Get this seat back from the gee-whiz neophyte by running someone with a whiff of character. Think Swigg, not Swing.
August 7th, 2007 at 8:11 AM
Good point. Sometimes you have to debride. I won’t be going to the polls today.