Fees, fines and funding to follow
3/16/2008
Rep. Melissa Hortman of Brooklyn Park has introduced a trio of bills to put the force of law behind her quest to get every empty can and bottle into the recycling bin. HF 4048 frankly states, "A person may not place a beverage container in mixed municipal solid waste." (You may want to bone up on the municipal solid waste laws before you drink another can of pop.) HF 4047 makes you pay more for your beverages by imposing a mandatory deposit fee: "A refund value of not less than ten cents must be paid by a consumer on each beverage container sold in this state by a retailer." HF 4046 completes the trio by dumping all the responsibility on the manufacturer: "A manufacturer who, as of July 1, 2008, sells or offers for sale beverage containers in this state must, by January 1, 2009, submit a plan to the commissioner describing a statewide program, financed and implemented by the manufacturer, that will enable the manufacturer to, by July 1, 2010, collect, transport, and recycle a number of beverage containers equal to at least ... percent of the number of those products sold under the manufacturer's brand in the state during the previous year."

DFL bill uses "copy and paste" lawmaking
3/17/2008
Whether or not you think the Earth has a fever, as Al Gore believes, and we need to phase out the internal combustion engine, most Minnesotans would agree that state lawmakers should write their own laws, not just copy what another state does. But Melissa Hortman's HF 863 does just that by adopting California's emission standards rules and any amendments just as fast as possible: "The rules…must be identical to and must incorporate by reference the California low emission vehicle regulations adopted by the California Air Resources Board under the California Code of Regulations…and must be amended as necessary in a timely fashion to minimize the time during which Minnesota's rules are not identical with California's regulations…" Forget the idea that the states should serve as laboratories of political experimentation. Or that lawmakers should hold hearings and gather support for their policies. House non-partisan research found a few similar legal provisions, but nothing so sweeping: laws related to federal tax conformity, safety rules regarding school buses, building code rules and rules regarding the making of rules are adopted by reference. Co-authors of HF 863 are Tschumper; Faust; Hornstein; Liebling; Murphy, E.; Loeffler; Morrow; Brynaert; Knuth; Davnie; Hilstrom; Slocum; Bly; Greiling; Paymar; Kahn; Ruud.

On March 13th, your state legislator, may have helped defeat a motion that would have allowed an up-or-down vote on HF 3010, a bill prohibiting sanctuary cities from harboring illegal aliens. Cities like Minneapolis and St. Paul have sanctuary policies that prevent police officers from inquiring about immigration status or enforcing immigration laws. These policies are allowing illegal aliens to openly enjoy the benefits of citizenship without the fear of deportation.

Legislators who support sanctuary cities are trying to stall HF 3010, hoping to simply allow the bill to die in committee. The recent vote was an attempt to pull HF 3010 from committee to the House floor for an up-or-down vote. But many DFL legislators voted to help defeat this motion.

Sanctuary policies cause a host of financial, legal and criminal problems that negatively affect the quality of life for legitimate Minnesota citizens. The recent bus crash in Cottonwood is a tragic reminder of this fact and should have been a wake-up call to our state legislators to get tough on illegal immigration. But some legislators don't seem to be getting the message.

TAKE ACTION

The following legislators voted to stop HF3010 from coming to the floor:

Similarily an amendment to the tax bill HF3521 was defeated that would have reduced local government aid to cities that declare themselves to be sanctuary cities or safe havens for illegals in Minnesota.  The amendment would have prohibited local government aid (LGA) payments to sanctuary cities. Minneapolis and St. Paul have sanctuary ordinances, and MPLS is set to receive $82 million and St. Paul about $57 million in state LGA payments in 2008. If the amendment had become law, failure to repeal those ordinances would have meant $139 million would have been disbursed to other LGA cities in Minnesota. Those voting against the amendment were the following:

A second amendment was offered that would have reduced local government aid (LGA) payments to sanctuary cities by 50%. Minneapolis and St. Paul have sanctuary ordinances, and MPLS is set to receive $82 million and St. Paul about $57 million in state LGA payments in 2008. If the amendment had become law, failure to repeal those ordinances would have meant $69.5 million would have been disbursed to other LGA cities in Minnesota.  This was also defeated by the following DFL legislators:

After the Transporaton Bill passed a myriad of letters were published by DFL Legislators in newspapers throughout Minnesota trying to do one thing -  Convince you in a time of recession, a time when families and taxpayers are struggling, a time when jobs are being lost that they had no choice but to raise taxes almost $7 Billion in Minnesota and that the impact really will only be around $50 per family.  Here are some examples:

The Reader's Forum: 3/13/08
Fritz: My  priorities are in the right place

To the editor:

I would like to respectfully disagree with Mr. Anderson when he said in a recent letter that my priorities are in the wrong place. They are in the right place; I'm working to create jobs, economic opportunity and improved health and safety for all of the residents of District 26B.

There can be no arguing with the fact that we desperately needed more money for our roads and bridges. This new transportation bill will bring over $15 million into Rice County over the next 10 years to repair and rebuild our deteriorating transportation infrastructure. It is estimated this will cost the average driver less than $1 a week, which I think most would agree is a reasonable price for improved safety and economic development. We're all paying for transportation costs one way or another; as a user fee, this is much fairer than turning to property taxes to fix local roads and bridges.

And where would Faribault be without the bonding bill? Since I came into office three years ago, this bill has invested well over $120 million into our community, creating jobs and improving our lives. This is one place where bonding is good policy and this year's bill is no exception.

http://faribault.com/main.asp?SectionID=26&SubSectionID=399&ArticleID=43309&TM=5456.572

"It is projected that a passenger car owner who drives 12,000 miles a  year and gets 22 miles per gallon would pay about $46 a year more in  gas taxes."  http://www.hermanreview.com/Hhome.html

and there are many, many, more............ but wait.  There was a recent snippet on the educational formula and perhaps some balance in the near future?  Well not without a cost silly taxpayers.  Here are the comments from tax and spend grab queen Rep. Mindy Greiling that came up with the $1 billion tax increase last year that went no where to pay for more education because the DFL have no clue on how to budget and prioritize:

State Rep. Mindy Greiling, DFL-Roseville, says "bipartisan accord is within reach on a new, simpler funding formula for K-12 education, one better tied to what up-to-the-standards schooling actually costs.

All that’s needed, she said, to sell the Legislature on the recommendations likely to come out of a task force she cochairs is (drum roll, please) more money. A cool $1 billion more per year, phased in over a few years, would do the job."

But lets not forget the the DFL are only talking about the gas tax increase.  They are not telling consituents the truth with all the other increases in the transportation bill because somebody else is paying for those right?

Here is some more spending tucked away in the transportation bill:

$4,299,000 for predesign, design, construction, and restoration of historic roadside properties on the Great River Road

$23,983,000 for design, construction, furnishing, and equipping a new Department of Transportation district headquarters facility in Mankato

$8,649,000 for design and construction of a new truck station facility in Chaska, in partnership with Carver County

$2,000,000 for design and investigative services of new truck station facilities in Rochester and Maple Grove

$18,197,000, this appropriation is to the commissioner of administration for repair and renovation of the exterior of the Department of Transportation Building

In addition to the gas tax, the sales tax, the wheelage tax you will find tucked away the following:

Of course, the lovely news on the gas tax: Rate of tax. The gasoline excise tax is imposed at the following rates:
(1) E85 is taxed at the rate of 14.2 17.75 cents per gallon;
(2) M85 is taxed at the rate of 11.4 14.25 cents per gallon; and
(3) all other gasoline is taxed at the rate of 20 25 cents per gallon

The special fuel excise tax is imposed at the following rates:
(a) Liquefied petroleum gas or propane is taxed at the rate of 15 18.75 cents per gallon.
(b) Liquefied natural gas is taxed at the rate of 12 15 cents per gallon.
(c) Compressed natural gas is taxed at the rate of $1.739 $2.174 per thousand cubic feet; or 20 25 cents per gasoline equivalent

In addition, the gas tax can be increased this way:

For fiscal years 2009 through 2012, the commissioner shall set the surcharge as specified in the following surcharge rate schedule.

(c) For fiscal year 2013 and thereafter, the commissioner shall set the surcharge at the lesser of (1) 3.5 cents, or (2) an amount calculated so that the total proceeds from the surcharge deposited in the trunk highway fund from fiscal year 2009 to the upcoming fiscal year equals the total amount of debt service from fiscal years 2009 to 2039, and the surcharge is rounded to the nearest 0.1 cent.

$50 per year?  Yeah Right!  Stop buying the lies and rhetoric of the DFL tax and spend.  This is only the tip of the ice berg this session.  Time to wake up Minnesota!  So at a time when Minnesota families are losing jobs, taxpayers are losing their homes and the money in your wallet is getting tighter with high gas, food and other prices - the DFL think it is alright to take more and more of your money.  The DFL spin and rhetoric that somebody else is paying is simply not true!  It is you who are paying and you who they are legally burglarizing your family's budget because the DFL can not prioritize or spend without raising taxes in Minnesota.