« REPORTER: PRESS CORPS “ANNOYED BY LACK OF DETAILS” FROM DFL LEADERS | Home | COMMENTARY FROM MN GOP CHAIRMAN RON CAREY: “FRANKEN’S NAME CALLING, NEGATIVITY WOULDN’T WIN ALLIES ACROSS THE AISLE” »
KSTP/SURVEY USA POLL SHOWS 59% OF MINNESOTANS DON’T SUPPORT A GAS TAX INCREASE
By Michael B. Brodkorb | February 14, 2008
According to a new KSTP/Survey USA poll, 59% of Minnesotans do not support a gas tax increase for roads and bridges. 36% support an increase, while 5% are not sure. Of the 36% that support a gas tax increase, 64% think it should be raised less than 5 cents.
This poll should make the DFL's transportation package (filled with tax increases) D.O.A. when hearings begin at the capitol. Will Democrats listen? I doubt it.
Tags: DFL Legislators, Polls
Topics: DFL Legislators, Polls | 43 Comments »
43 Responses to “KSTP/SURVEY USA POLL SHOWS 59% OF MINNESOTANS DON’T SUPPORT A GAS TAX INCREASE”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
February 14th, 2008 at 10:04 AM
[...] Todd Beeton wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptAccording to new KSTP/Survey USA Poll, 59% of Minnesotans do not support a gas tax increase for roads and bridges. 36% support an increase, while 5% are not sure. Of the 36% that support a gas tax increase, 64% think it should be raised … [...]
February 14th, 2008 at 10:06 AM
It’s interesting you don’t mention the survery also done by this group that shows Coleman and Franken in a dead heat!!!!!
February 14th, 2008 at 10:09 AM
From past experience, Survey USA usually puts together fairly accurate polls in Minnesota. So, even with the margin of error and the appropriate amount of skepticism with which any poll should be treated, it is safe to say that a majority of Minnesotans are against ANY gas tax increase. It’s fun watching the Dems commit suicide.
February 14th, 2008 at 10:16 AM
Marc,
The Democrats would much rather lose a few elections, then have more of their citizens killed by another bridge falling down.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:15 AM
“The Democrats would much rather lose a few elections, then have more of their citizens killed by another bridge falling down.”
No, if so they would not have diverted money to toys like trains, bike trails and buses – not to mention other budget wastes.
There is plenty of money, it is just being spent on the wrong things.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:24 AM
“The Democrats would much rather lose a few elections, then have more of their citizens killed by another bridge falling down.”
You on the Left complained, and continue to complain, that Republicans used 9/11 for political purposes, yet have no problem using this tragedy for political gain and demagoguery.
The intellectual disingenuousness and bankruptcy of the Left is astounding and disgusting.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:43 AM
Listen…you hear that? Know what that is? It’s the sound of the Democrat legislature strangling on their own rotten innards.
Despite the Democrats best efforts, the polls have not moved an inch since last year.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:44 AM
Both sides are ridiculous. There needs to be a solution and it’s time for everyone to stop lobbing verbal bombs at the other side and solve it. While no one wants to pay more taxes, and not everyone on the left (like me) agree with wasting money on fancy stadiums and bike trails, we should be able to agree that we need to inspect and repair bridges, fix our roads and be safely able to move from point A to point B.
I’m really sick of both parties, frankly. Too much partisanship and too little accomplished for the good of the country.
We can disagree on what needs to be done. That is what needs to be discussed.
So, my proposal – dump the stadium, sell our professional sports teams to the highest bidder, pave the bike trails and let cars use them and put the money saved into fixing potholes and bridges.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:45 AM
Well if Democrats were using it for political gain, it apparently is a poor strategy judging by the poll just taken. Democrats are using it for what it is, a prime example of why we need to invest in our state, instead of just treading water as we are with Tim.
Since I have heard no one mention terrorism as a cause of the bridge collapse, the state of Minnesota is responsible for that collapse. Who oversees our bridges? MNDOT Who runs MNDOT? Molnau
What the Democrats are pointing out is that clearly there was a huge oversight in a key government responsibility, namely maintaining our infrastructure. Instead of sticking their finger to the wind and gauging what is the correct political decision, they are acting to do what they know is right. I know that’s an odd concept to understand from the party of Norm Coleman.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:46 AM
It occurs to me that if the Democrats go ahead and push for Taxapolooza II anyway, we could probably hold up a few bridges with the stinking corpses of their political careers.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:55 AM
Possibly, Swiftee, possibly. But, wouldn’t you rather have that bridge held up in the end? Is it even conceivable that some people in the leg understand that their responsibility is not to their party but to the people of the state to make government provide the basic services? I personally consider bridge safety and road safety a basic service. I don’t care how many careers it tanks if it keeps my family safe.
So, rather than taxapolooza II as you call it, would you prefer our grandchildren pay for these necessities? I would prefer a reality-based budget. You know. If you need it, figure out how to pay for it. If it costs you a few extra dollars today, fine. I’d rather that than thousands down the road (bonding forward).
February 14th, 2008 at 12:06 PM
West, kind of nice to hear a lib mention we need more roads and bridge repair. Most here cannot say that without mentioning mass transit which only helps a very small portion of the population and does almost nothing to reduce traffic issues.
We really should be stopping all transit projects until roads and bridges are where they should be.
I do find it funny the libs do not want to bond for roads and bridges but are just fine with bonding for pet projects other than transportation.
February 14th, 2008 at 12:24 PM
Pawlenty was threatened by a senior Democrat legislator for political retribution within an hour of the bridge falling down. Tinklenberg was calling for a gas tax increase two hours after the bridge fell down. Democrats block funding to rebuild the bridge resulting in other projects to get delayed. Democrats make bridge funding contigent on largest tax increase in modern history.
It’s pretty cut and dry. Democrats are using 13 bridge victims for political ploys and partisan games. Poorly, as this poll shows.
February 14th, 2008 at 12:26 PM
I think the people of Minnesota would be receptive to the 5 cent increase but make sure it was dedicated to roads and bridges. The rest of the bill in the Senate is nothing but payback to unions and increasing the power of the controlling party. It would be nice if the Dems would set the priorities as being Education(K-12 and overhaul of the funding mechanism) and Transportation(roads and bridges)which is what our real needs are right now is this economy in anticipation of the betterment of the future of this state. I just don’t see transit, bikes and trails doing anything for the economy now or in the future.
February 14th, 2008 at 12:41 PM
Here’s an interesting question, in the poll Michael linked to:
Do you think the Minnesota Senate should? Or should not? Confirm Carol Molnau as commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Transportation?
23% Should
49% Should Not
29% Not Sure
February 14th, 2008 at 12:52 PM
West Dem, I think we should find out where the money that was supposed to be maintaining our roads and bridges has gone to before we dump more in.
If we need to be spending more there, I’m all for it but there are plenty of places we could get it from already before we raise taxes.
For instance, I think we should be taking a closer look at LGA. LGA was supposed to be a way to assist small towns that do not have a sufficient tax base keep their services up.
Why, do the two biggest cities in the state get LGA at all? If the citizens of Minneapolis and St. Paul want liberal, big spending city governments I say God bless ‘em and welcome to pay for it too.
February 14th, 2008 at 1:09 PM
“I think the people of Minnesota would be receptive to the 5 cent increase but make sure it was dedicated to roads and bridges. The rest of the bill in the Senate is nothing but payback to unions and increasing the power of the controlling party.”
Bob, do you think it’s a bad thing we have well qualified people driving those trains? I don’t, if you had a beef with it talk to the Met Council.
Transit is necessary for the size of our metro area and will only become more important if the population projections ring true in the next 20-30 years. We need to build a solid transportation framework and transit must be included in that plan today. We will reach a point,as we have in many areas already, where there simply is not room for highways to add more lanes. Transit will help to reduce the future rate of growth in congestion in those parts of the system. It makes great sense to make the investment now, then to pay 10 times as much to do it years from now.
Transit use is growing rapidly as people have choices. It’s no surprise people don’t use it, if it doesn’t go where they need to go. Give people the choice and I believe they will use it. Just watch Northstar in 2009, it is going to be very successful.
February 14th, 2008 at 1:12 PM
Swiftee, T-Paw is into his second term; I would hope by now he’s cut ALL the “fat” out of transportation – wouldn’t you?
Actually, with the “R” domination of state political power, ALL of the fat in EVERYTHING should have been cut, or the “R”‘s didn’t do their jobs – agreed?
February 14th, 2008 at 1:24 PM
Jimmy John – “Bob, do you think it’s a bad thing we have well qualified people driving those trains? I don’t, if you had a beef with it talk to the Met Council.”
I don’t have a beef with the unions or the Met Council.
I just do not like Senator Murphy in the news conferenmce saying that this would create 32,000 per year good paying “union jobs” with benefits. If non-union, but just as an equally qualified construction worker, should you be discrininated against?
Many can go to the training of running the trains and be equally qualified and able, why is one of the requirements that you must belong to a union? What does belongng to a union make you more qualified to run the train than a comparable non-union person?
February 14th, 2008 at 2:12 PM
Bob K, I have to agree with you on priorities. I’m as sick as the next person with pet projects and crap legislation. It’s time to put forth legislation that works for everyone. We can disagree on how it does that (I do believe in mass transit because it would take cars off the road and result in a cleaner environment) and how it is paid for but we do need to prioritize without pork. Just my 2 cents. I don’t agree with either party down the line. I do believe, though, more in the ideals of the DFL than the GOP.
We almost need a bi-partisan (stop laughing) citizen committee to lay out priorities and provide budget oversight. The leg obviously doesn’t do well on either – either party, frankly.
February 14th, 2008 at 2:26 PM
“Actually, with the “R†domination of state political power,”
What state are you talking about?
February 14th, 2008 at 3:01 PM
[...] This KSTP/Survey USA Poll is filled with bad news for Democrats at the capitol (first mentioned earlier today in this post). Aside from 50% of the Minnesotans polled disapproving of the job being done by the DFL-controlled legislature, the transportation plan pushed by the Democrats gets hammered. [...]
February 14th, 2008 at 4:27 PM
You had a Republican controlling the Executive Branch; you had Republicans controlling the house.
Granted, the DFL held the Senate, but: you had two out of three, and one of those prepared the budget AND held a veto pen.
That, is power.
February 14th, 2008 at 4:39 PM
Is that “domination”?
The Senate DFL shutdown the government. How is that R Domination?
February 14th, 2008 at 4:47 PM
Actually, Eric Paulsen and the Republicans shut the government down, because they wanted a Racino in Shakopee.
Nice try at “revisionis history”, though….
February 14th, 2008 at 4:52 PM
And did anyone actually notice when government shut down, I mean, aside from the people who work in state government?
Q: How many people work in state government?
A: About half.
It’s like the time the bus drivers were on strike. The media predicted major gridlock on the roads, and at least from my experiences, the traffic flow was better.
February 14th, 2008 at 5:03 PM
“Actually, Eric Paulsen and the Republicans shut the government down, because they wanted a Racino in Shakopee.”
Nice try at completely making shit up. Its early to be drinking isn’t it?
February 14th, 2008 at 5:08 PM
Interesting note Newton.
During the “shut down”, I believe that the Democrats finally bent over because they realized that if people actually did start to notice that government was “shut down” they’d wonder why we should “start it up” again since so many departments were so obviously unnecessary.
I’m still wondering that.
February 14th, 2008 at 5:09 PM
VEEEETTTOOOOO!!! Rules over the left again!!
Seven votes short of overriding Pawlenty’s veto of a bill raising the gas tax – Good work Governor!!
February 14th, 2008 at 6:29 PM
Didn’t we just have a vote in 2006 that was supposed to address the shortfall in transportation funding. What ever happened to that taking up the lack of funding issues we face(d)?
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/information/mvst/
February 14th, 2008 at 7:20 PM
Boy time to correct a few people:
Blurb:
What the vote in 2006 was that 100% of the motor vehicle sales tax should be directed to transportation (apparently it wasn’t before). And furthermore a minimum of 40% but possibly all 100% was suppose to be dedicate to mass transit. Note all those cute commercials said it was going to the roads like we want.
To the person or persons who think Carol M is responsible lets remember that the national investigation pointed out a couple of weeks ago that the cause was the use of wrong plates back in the 1960′s. I didn’t know Carol M was running the department of transportation for over 40 years.
You know for those people who are complaining we need to increase taxes why don’t we focus first on building roads only. Once we get the roads in good shape we can start considering spending money on silly things like mass transit projects that don’t reduce congestion.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
February 14th, 2008 at 8:35 PM
Transit in the Twin Cities needs an overhaul – I don’t know if more money is the answer though.
The way the transit system is now, they’re not going to incentivize us to give up our cars.
Case in point: How many Mpls and St. Paul legislators and city council members use mass transit on a regular basis? I’d bet that number is pretty low.
Some bus routes are simply not safe, thanks to the thugs and gangbangers aboard. And how many times do you see a bus “Not In Service” on the roads during rush hour?
Sure ridership may be up, but what percentage of those routes is subsidized? And how many of those folks hop on the bus to go collect a welfare check, and then return home?
Make the buses safe and more efficient, and I bet that transit would make more money. Even I would consider riding the bus when possible.
February 15th, 2008 at 10:37 AM
The Gas Tax should have been raised at least a nickel during the Carlson and Ventura terms.
Minnesota is trailing by 15 years to the rest of the US in condition of Roads and Bridges. Wisconsin and Iowa have better roads than Minnesota. I wonder why?? Could it be that their Transportation Departments have funding???
February 15th, 2008 at 10:41 AM
Any light rail in those two states, Kathy?
I thought we were behind by 20 years. Or is this like The Price is Right and you guys just pick out any number you want?
February 15th, 2008 at 10:57 AM
No light rail, Newton. But better roads, more of them to travel to the more remote areas past Tomah, more direct routes from Point A to Point B.
Plus, better Bridge inspection and upkeep.
This is where Minnesota is lagging.
February 15th, 2008 at 11:00 AM
What the Gov. id doing is delaying the inevitible regarding the Gas Tax issue for the next Governor to tackle after he leaves office. He will have washed his hands of this matter once and for all.
And like the games being played in this state and in Washington by the GOP, it will be the Democrats taking the blame for wanting to address the Transportation issue that should have been taken care of several Gubernatorial terms ago.
February 15th, 2008 at 11:45 AM
Kathy
The reason you’re blaming governors is that the DFL hasn’t held that office in more than 15 years. The closest any democrat has come to the governor’s mansion is the Papa John’s driver who delivers to that part of St. Paul.
I might argue though that the last DFL governor was Arne Carlson, that is, if you believe his current rhetoric. But I think the last one was Gov. Goofy, wasn’t it?
Maybe the roads in WI and IA are better because they haven’t wasted their money on light rail schemes, which is the point I believe you were trying to make.
February 15th, 2008 at 12:57 PM
When the Mn Legislature had a GOP majority, issues like Transportation could have been dealt with over the last 15 years or so, rather than be left to be dealt with now.
ANd don’t go telling me that the HWY52 Upgrade was the partisan effort of the MNGOP in the Legislature. MNDOT had been pressing the state for this upgrade well before 1998, when the project was set to begin with the funding already in place. It was delayed 5 years, though finished ahead of schedule.
February 15th, 2008 at 2:09 PM
Kathy
The same stale senators have been in power for years and years and years. Are they to blame for this?
Face it: Pogemiller, Murphy, Higgins – they’re the “Road Closed” sign on the highway of progress.
The only transportation news the DFL made was when its members – Metzen, Rukavina, and Pfeilsticker were cited for DUI.
February 15th, 2008 at 3:07 PM
Kathy:
So not only can’t the President of the United States listen to the phonecalls the governor must agree to increase the gas tax. Last time I remember you lived in Rochester. Part of the DFL proposal is that the seven county metro area must pay a sales tax! How about you say that they don’t let that tax be part of the proposal?
The governor has put proposals out there. Such as immediately build a bunch of projects and use the revenue coming to pay for the bill in to lock the current costs in. Nope! The DFL didn’t like that idea.
The governor is using the bonding bill to help put in lots of transportation. Instead he’s being attacked for it. Apparently one reason why the DFL wants the gas tax is to save room on the bond bill for other useless projects.
Part of the problem and this started ever since it was created that the money pay were charged in motor vehicle sales tax was taken for other things. Despite last years constitutional amendment part of it (possibly the whole thing) is kidnapped for mass transit projects.
How about we agree for five years to no new mass transit projects and focus on building roads? If you can show we don’t have enough money to build the roads than I might listen to the gas tax you want increased along with the other things. This is a gimmick to shove tax increases down our throat to fund useless mass transit projects! No if’s and’s or but’s Kathy.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
February 17th, 2008 at 10:23 AM
If we put every dollar in to roads and bridges and none into other ways of transportation , what happens when gas is $5, or $10 a gal.,?
You do remember that oil is a nonrenewable resource.
So, because our generation decides to save a buck and not consider the future transportation needs of our children and grandchildren, they will struggle with not only high gas prices but also the cost to repair those roads and bridges, which could be cheap because they won’t get much use.
All the roads and bridges we can build will not change the price of oil or save what is left, (ANWR drilling and off shore drilling won’t help either). The amount of oil used by China and India is growing at a very fast pace and both those countries will continue to demand even more. Which means less fuel and higher fuel costs for America.
Heat your home or drive your car.
Walter;
The useless mass transit projects you speak of is how our future generations will travel.
Why is the GOP, always me, me, me
That’ll do Sheeple, that’ll do
February 18th, 2008 at 7:33 AM
HCDFL, you do realize which political party axed the bill that would have required automobile companies to increase the gas mileage of cars and trucks a number of years back because “It would hurt the union workers in their districts” don’t you. I’ll give you a hint, the animal representing their part is a jackass, er donkey.
By the way, what type of surface does a BUS run on? Could it be ROAD and BRIDGES? Come to think of it, the light rail uses bridges. Also, light rail uses electricity to run, and the vast majority of electricity is derived from FOSSIL fuels. And while Xcel Energy is trying very hard to use alternative sources of electricity, such as wind and solar, those alternative sources will never come close to being able to generate the amount of electricity the metro area will use.
Seems to me your mass transit options used the roads and bridges as well as the fossil fuels that you are railing against. Not to mention, they are so costly that we will forever have to subsidize the fares so people will utitilize that mass transit.
As always, the DFL doesn’t think things all they way through. They want to keep people dependent on them (ie poor) so they (the DFL) can stay in power.
February 18th, 2008 at 11:23 AM
Okay HCDFL:
You know there was a great episode of the West Wing where the Deputy Chief of Staff created a major news story with his SUV. To make up for the damage he was ordered to have a meeting with a bunch of environmental people who had all of these proposals which wouldn’t work. The President (I do believe he’s a liberal Democrat in the show)pointed out that the proposals wouldn’t work until energy costs got much higher. Right now oil is cheap and available.
But even at three dollars a gallon the DFL complains it’s too high and accuses the oil companies of ripping people off when it’s a proven fact that gasoline taxes account for more of a person’s cost in gasoline than oil company profits.
So if I get this right we should immediately put our cars in the garage and walk to work or take a bus or a train. In December I got an unexpected phonecall from a friend. He had a ticket for me for the disaster game with the Redskins which if the Vikings had won would’ve given them a playoff spot. The wife of the friend wanted to avoid downtown traffic picking us up so we had to catch the light rail for one station away from the Metrodome. It took something like a half hour with the crowd coming out of the Metrodome (and that assumes it flowed easier because people were leaving early because it was a hopeless loss). And after all of that we still had to ride in a minivan (four people had tickets) to our homes. If a car is still needed to be part of the transportation for a sports game at one event at one place how big does the system have to be for jobs? Especially if people work in shopping malls or plants in the suburbs? Years ago before I got a car I had to take a bus to work or at least part of it. Even though two major bus routes were close to my house the one that was closet didn’t go near my office (causing a walk) or the other route which went by the office on some versions I had to walk to. Note I’m not complaining about walking. Even though I accepted walking the biggest problem was catching a bus and walk time to get to work. This is office is less than a ten minute drive, but I need something like a half hour plus transit time to get there on time.
And sometimes it had to be much earlier because the bus ran something like twenty minutes or longer. Multiply that by over two million people trying to do the samething you have a problem. Cars are needed!
Furthermore, and this is just as important some jobs are done at hours like four in the morning. My sleep pattern is disruppted because to help my roommate stay employ because I have to get up and drive him to work. Fortunately his employer is right across the street from my employer so I can take him during my lunch hour.
Because cars are needed the roads are needed. Especially since things like trucks carrying food and other things for us every day.
Right now roads are needed. In the meantime you can work out that dream masstransit project that will cost trillions (it was about a billion for the first line of about twenty miles).
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN