The T Bill Continued

There has been a lively discussion over at the Post Review. Bob Barrett responded to Senator Rick Olseen’s earlier justification of his vote on the Transportation Bill and that stimulated numerous comments.

As usual, Barrett states things quite clearly and accurately and then Wade Vitalis mucks it up.

Barrett showed how costly the Transportation Bill is for taxpayers compared to how cheap Senator Olseen characterized it.

The T Bill will cost $6,600,000,000 over ten years. That is the real cost to taxpayers. The $41/year gas tax is just one of the revenue streams that will pay for the total package.

Forget the gas tax increase, it is extremely easy to calculate a per capita cost for the entire package. The population of Minnesota is currently 5,200,000. In the next ten years, the population will increase and thus lessen the per capita tax burden somewhat, but let’s use the current figures. The total transportation bill will cost $1,269 per person in the next ten years.

That is $127 per person per year which is more than the $41 gas tax increase which will help pay for the $127. To fund the total package each year, each of us must pay $86 more in taxes on top of the $41.

A family of four will kick out $508 in various forms of taxes in each of the next ten years to cover the cost of the transportation package. This figure is exactly what Patrick Tepoorten stated in his article that Olseen disliked, which Barrett addressed. Tepoorten also gave the income range of taxpayers who would pay the $500. That is the average cost per family in the middle income bracket. Others will pay less and some more.

Tepoorten is justified by these figures. Barrett is justified. Barrett’s calculated cost is actually too low, so the err is in his favor.

Vitalis (in his comments on Barrett’s letter) never could figure out what Barrett was talking about and then got sidetracked, talking about tax rates.

Tax rates might be unfair, but Vitalis uses that to obfuscate his failure to answer Barrett. Inequitable tax rates are simply a red herring dragged in to divert attention from a failed answer.

We have a couple of conclusions we may draw from this. Some Democrats will do about anything to keep a person from doing simple mathematical division so the true cost will never be realized by the general public. Or we may conclude that Vitalis doesn’t even realize how much the T bill will cost his family.

Vitalis complained to Barrett, "For some reason you took 10 years of gas tax and made it one number. No one pays for all their gas all at once - so why calculate it that way?" Well, whether Vitalis pays out $500 per year or $5,000 in the next ten years to cover his family’s share of the T bill, either way he will have $5,000 less in his 401K or Roth IRA. And so will the rest of us, because too many Dems can’t be honest with numbers.

Kalin doesn’t know Barrett answered him

The following letter to the editor from Kalin (D-17B) appeared in the October 18, 2007, issue of the Chisago County Press. It is reproduced here for the convenience of the reader since it is not online.

Let’s stick to the facts
To the editor:
I am writing to correct factual misstatements in Bob Barrett’s letter last week’s County Press. He disagrees with my effort for more accountability from MnDOT, and I respect him for expressing his views. However, I want to be sure that we are all working from the same basic facts.

First, stipends for the losing bidders of the I-35W design competition were originally set at $300,000 for each of the three losing design teams. Later, that amount was increased to $400,000 and then finally set at $500,000. Assistant Commissioner Bob McFarlin explained the increase due to adding a "light-rail ready" component to the bridge. However, on Public Radio’s Midday show on October 1, Linda Figg, the lead designer of the winning project, said the light-rail ready addition was "very easily incorporated into the design." McFarlin has yet to clarify the increased stipends in light of Ms. Figg’s statement.

Second, the letter writer accused me of making "false allegations" that a MnDOT employee spent as much as $26,000 of public money on personal travel. I only wish it were false. Sonia Morphew Pitt is being investigated by James Nobles, Legislative Auditor, for exactly this reason. Further, Mr. Nobles publicly stated that MnDOT likely violated the law by not alerting him of the possible violation when they learned of it. I have spoken personally with Mr. Nobles, and asked him to also verify that Ms. Pitt, the director of emergency management for MnDOT, is trained and certified in emergency management. An initial report is due in several weeks.

My hope is to have a bipartisan discussion about the best transportation policy options to make Minnesota’s roads, bridges and transit safe and well-maintained. To do so, we must all work from a common ground of verified facts.

Rep. Jeremy Kalin

___________________________________________

Kalin is correct that facts are essential to a discussion about transportation. But Kalin can’t seem to get it straight what Bob Barrett wrote.

Point 1
Kalin claims Barrett "...disagrees with my effort for more accountability from MnDOT."

Barrett actually agrees with him for he previously wrote, Kalin "...rightfully complained that a MNDOT employee responsible for emergency management stayed at an east coast business conference and couldn’t be bothered to come home for 10 days after the bridge collapsed. This is a good and important question and deserves, at minimum, an honest answer."

Barrett is right. Kalin is wrong.

Point 2
Without any stated acknowledgment, by using the word "stipend" in the most recent letter, Kalin accepts Barrett’s corrective that "bonus" was the improper term for the stipends paid to the losing bridge bidders.

Barrett is right. Kalin now accepts the right term without acknowledging correction.

Point 3
While Barrett stated factually that "Stipends are common in very large design-build transportation projects and are paid out for legitimate public purposes," his main point was that Kalin used the term "excessive bonus" which makes it sound "...much more sinister..."

Barrett won this one as well, because Kalin stripped the prejudicial terminology from his discussion of the stipends in his letter above. (Kalin’s stipend paragraph above is written factually.) Kalin has a right to question the size of the stipends, but the size of stipends is dictated by state law. See here. As a Representative, he should know that.

Point 4
Kalin claimed Barrett "...accused me of making "false allegations" that a MnDOT employee spent as much as $26,000 of public money on personal travel" (italics added). Kalin misquoted Barrett who actually said Kalin made "...false accusations that this employee spent $26,000 of taxpayer paid travel on what Kalin referred to as "personal pleasure"." Kalin originally said, "...up to $26,000 of her taxpayer-paid travel was for personal pleasure" (italics added, see source).

Bear with me. Let’s sort this out to learn Kalin’s methodology of fudging on the facts.

Point 4a
Barrett is right again. Kalin now tones down "personal pleasure" to "personal travel." That doesn’t sound as bad.

Point 4b
The $26,000 comes from a Star Tribune article which states:

"Since July 2006, Pitt has scheduled 17 out-of-state business trips for herself, including an eight-day training session that was scheduled to start today in Emmitsburg, Md., for "crisis communication during emergency situations."

Including per diem payments, hotel, air fare, registration fees, ground travel and other expenses, all the trips combined cost at least $26,400, documents show."

Clearly not all $26,400 was for personal pleasure because at least one training session is identified. Kalin hedged his words by saying, "...up to $26,000 of her taxpayer-paid travel was for personal pleasure" (italics added, see our earlier comments).

Kalin hedged his words, but clearly intended to make this sound as bad as possible. Barrett identified it as a false accusation because he apparently looked at the intent of the statement.

Barrett is right because Kalin’s intention is obvious, while he tried to cover it up with "up to."

Kalin wants facts, but Kalin can’t even represent Barrett accurately. There is major spin in almost everything Kalin writes.

A Good Assessment

The following is a letter to the editor in the October 11, 2007 issue of the Chisago County press. Since it is not online, it is reproduced here for the benefit of our readers.

Kalin should redirect energy

To the editor:
Instead of working towards a solution in regards to the bridge tragedy Rep. Kalin continues to politicize the tragedy for partisan political gain. Unfortunately much of what Kalin had to say in last week’s paper was nothing more than speculation, innuendo, falsehoods and political spin.

Just four months ago Rep. Kalin voted to spend over $4.1 billion on various transportation related projects (few of which were related to safety) and now he can’t find the rationale for approving what he referred to as an "unprecedented" cash advance of $200 million to kick start the building of a new I-35W bridge until federal money shows up. It seems that Kalin thinks the public should be concerned because MNDOT didn’t have $200 million sitting in the bank on July 31 waiting for a bridge to fall down. Maybe someone should tell Mr. Kalin that a bridge falling down IS "unprecedented" in Minnesota and his help may be required to get a replacement bridge built.

Among the other complaints Kalin had from last week is that "excessive bonuses" of $600,000 are being paid to the losing bidders of the I-35W bridge rebuild. I realize that Mr. Kalin has no background in bridge building or finances, but that’s a poor excuse for not being truthful on the issue. The fact is that these payments are called "stipends" and not "bonuses". Stipends are common in very large design-build transportation projects and are paid out for legitimate public purposes. But, admittedly, the term "excessive bonus" sounds much more sinister in the paper.

Continuing on, Kalin then rightfully complained that a MNDOT employee responsible for emergency management stayed at an east coast business conference and couldn’t be bothered to come home for 10 days after the bridge collapsed. This is a good and important question and deserves, at minimum, an honest answer. However, not stopping there, he went on to make false accusations that this employee spent $26,000 of taxpayer paid travel on what Kalin referred to as "personal pleasure".

The rest of Kalin’s article was nothing more than an Eddie Haskell like exercise of telling people what he thinks they want to hear under the guise of sounding thoughtful and dispassionate. It’s too bad this energy can’t instead be used on the productive work of getting a new bridge built and making our roads and bridges safer.

Bob Barrett
Shafer

The Refuted Dem Had to Write Another Letter

The following letter in Chisago County Press, July 12, 2007, is printed here since it is not online. It responds to Bob Barrett’s letter which refuted Wade Vitalis’ original complaint.

___________________________________________

Response to Gov. Pawlenty letter
To the editor:

I recently wrote a letter to the editor which contrasted the successful approach of Mayor Michael Bloomberg, in wake of similar fiscal challenges, with the unsuccessful approach of Governor Tim Pawlenty.

A writer responded critically to the comparison and conveniently glossed over the key points, like:

The fact both men were elected from the same political party - Republican.

That Mayor Bloomberg has a job approval rating of 70-75 percent and Governor Pawlenty doesn’t!

That for the first time ever, Minnesota’s unemployment rate exceeded the national average and that our growth has fallen for two consecutive years, leaving us ranked 30th in the country when we’ve been historically in the top 10.

Though these facts are troublesome enough, the key element in my letter was the lack of business savvy by Governor Pawlenty to understand what we already know as residents and businessmen in Minnesota - we have a "brand."

Minnesota’s "brand" has been education, transportation, public service and recreation with an intentional focus on shared prosperity. By focusing like a laser on these brand characteristics we have prospered.

The best and most successful corporations in the country spend millions each year to preserve, promote and build their "brand." Why should Minnesota be any different?

Bloomberg remarked, "The difference between having the courage of your convictions and being pig-headed is in the results."

In the face of these results, higher unemployment and low growth, my question was how can anyone not think Governor Pawlenty is being a bit pig-headed himself?

Wade Vitalis
Shafer

___________________________________________

That Bloomberg was a Republican in 2002 is hardly significant. He had been a lifelong Democrat. Now the former Democrat and erstwhile Republican is an Independent, proving, along with the 18.5% tax increase, he was not a typical Republican.

The letter writer’s doom and gloom of "...higher unemployment and low growth..." is not shared by analysts. Forbes Magazine recently ranked the fifty states for the best business climate. Moving Minnesota from 14th place last year to the present 10th best spot in the nation, Forbes ranks it high as a good place for business, in comparison to other states. New York state moved from 35th place to 33rd in the over all rating. Hmmm, Minnesota is in 10th place and New York state is 33rd. Minnesota is in trouble indeed! And its Pawlenty’s fault!

Forbes ranks Minnesota number one in quality of life. Both states are right in the middle of the pack, tied at 26th place for growth prospects. If this is doom and gloom for Minnesota, then New York is in trouble. The touted wizardry of erstwhile Republican Mayor Bloomberg has produced a 5.2% unemployment rate for NYC in June. Compare Minnesota’s 4.5% unemployment rate.

It must be Pawlenty's fault!

Response to the letter from Vitalis

This blog entry features a letter in response to Vitalis’s letter posted here. Since the July 5, 2007, response letter is not on the Chisago County Press web site, it is presented in this column for the convenience of the reader.

___________________________________________

Different view on raising taxes

To the editor:

I would like to suggest the following to the letter writer from last week who was irritated by the fact that Governor Pawlenty chose to cut spending in 2002 instead of raising taxes by 18.5 percent like New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg did when faced with a similar budget problem. Calculate the total amount of taxes you’ve paid since 2002. Write a check for 18.5 percent of that amount and mail it to the Minnesota Department of Revenue, St. Paul, MN 55145.

As for me, I’m OK with saving this money while still achieving private sector job growth of 135,000 jobs (vs. 151,000 for NYC) in a market that has 3 million fewer people than NYC. I’m also OK with our $1 billion budget surplus (some reports have this figure as high as $2 billion) instead of the NYC budget surplus of $1.3 billion. Considering the fact that Minnesota’s annual budget is about $44 billion less than NYC ($16 billion vs $60 billion) most people would say our $1 billion surplus is quite an accomplishment.

It’s too bad that, for the letter writer, political agendas such as being chairman of Rep. Jeremy Kalin’s political campaign (http://www.cfboard.state.mn.us/) get in the way of a fair and accurate communication of the numbers.

Bob Barrett
Shafer

___________________________________________

While neither letter writer gives the source for the numbers presented, if the numbers are accurate, Barrett has given a good answer to Vitalis. Both NYC and Minnesota recovered from significant red ink. Both accumulated more than a billion in reserve. Both added to the work force. But Minnesota did it without raising taxes. The state reigned in spending and the market went to work to provide the revenue for the state. It worked! Congratulations Governor Pawlenty and all Minnesotans who labor.

It is exceedingly difficult for so many Democrats to understand that a lower tax rate creates more taxable dollars. But JFK knew.