The Arrogance of State Politicians

The state legislature raised the Minnesota budget 9.8% for the biennium, a significant increase. Year after year, the legislature consumes more and more of our incomes, forcing taxpayers to live on less and less. (When does the average wage earner receive this kind of raise?) And then they have the audacity to restrict local government officials to increasing their budgets by a maximum of 3.9%! That is a truck load of chutzpah!

The state budget would not be as low as a 9.8% increase if it were not for the Republicans and Governor Pawlenty. The Dems had proposed $5 billion more spending that was not approved into law. State Dems know no fiscal limits, but demand that board members of local government units be fiscally restrained. Talk about royalty and divine right of kings and queens! Talk about arrogance!

Senator Rick Olseen (D-17) and Rep. Jeremy Kalin (D-17B) are right there with their fellows in this chutzpah.

Kalin Responds: Part 1

Back on April 23, Rep. Mark Buesgens (Jordan) reminded us at the Post Review that Rep. Jeremy Kalin (D-17B) voted for a 42% increase in the gas tax.

While local writers have not be able to get Kalin to respond, his fellow Representative did. Thank you Mr. Buesgens. Read Kalin’s response.

As is typical, Kalin admits to only a 2¢ gas tax increase, ignoring the increase coming in October and the several cent increase in years to come. It just seems to be impossible for a Dem to tell the whole truth.

Then he proposes a 3 point plan to get the US Congress to reduce gas prices. By the time his proposal might be adopted, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve could be 100% full anyway so it would take care of itself. In the end, even he admits it might not drop the price per gallon any more than he raised our gas tax.

Second, buying directly from Iraqi oil fields may reduce our cost slightly, but then why should the Iraqis absorb the loss which is our gain? Is that fair? How long can we buy on the closed market? Closed markets are not open and free markets. Closed markets disrupt the economy.

Third, I too would like to see the US get out of the subsidy business. But if Kalin gets the feds to eliminate the $51 billion in subsidies to the oil companies, what do you suppose will happen? Gas prices will rise! It’s as simple as that.

So we can have $3.50 per gallon gasoline plus the hidden cost per gallon that we pay out of the other pocket to cover the $51 billion in subsidies. Or we can have $3.50 per gallon gasoline plus the recognizable cost per gallon that the oil companies will charge to cover the $51 billion in subsidies that they formerly got out of our other pocket.

If we should get rid of subsidies for BIG OIL then let’s get rid of the subsidies for BIG ETHANOL and BIG WIND.

Here in Minnesota, Kalin supports subsidized alternative energies (corn and cellulosic ethanol, wind) to help cut our dependence on foreign oil. With his 3 point plan, we are still as dependent on the foreign market as before and just as costly.

It would be far more effective if Kalin asks the feds to allow drilling in ANWR and off-shore and to create the environment in which new oil refineries can be built. Prices comes down when supply goes up. That is a basic concept in the OPEN market which he would understand if he were a true fiscal conservative.

So far, Kalin’s efforts are to pinch the oil hose to restrict the flow.

Kalin has the audacity to take BIG OIL to the woodshed for making a profit per gallon that is far less than state and federal gas taxes per gallon. He loves BIG GOVERNMENT and hates BIG OIL. His 42% tax increase is fine. BIG OIL's much smaller profit percentage is abhorrent. That’s chutzpah.

See this post.

Kalin on Sanctuary Cities

Minneapolis and St. Paul have adopted ordinances prohibiting their police officers from inquiring about the citizenship status of people detained for violations of the law. Thus these two cities are safe harbors for aliens in Minnesota illegally.

Representative Marty Seifert (R-Marshall) thought something should be done about this. He offered an amendment to a bill that would have reduced local government aid (LGA) to such cities and distributed that to the rest of the cities in Minnesota.

Seifert's amendment failed 66-67, with DFLers keeping the voting board open and urging their members to vote against the measure. All of Seifert’s fellow Republicans voted for the amendment, while all votes in opposition were DFLers. Seifert was able to persuade 18 DFLers to vote with him, but it wasn't enough.

Rep. Jeremy Kalin (D-17B) voted once again in lockstep with the DFL. That’s right—his yes vote would have passed this amendment. Instead of voting for those whom he was elected to represent in Chisago County, he voted for illegal immigrants (or as Chris Baker from KTLK rightly calls them, criminal aliens) in the Twin Cities. He voted against Chisago County cities receiving the redistributed LGA. Imagine a liberal turning down cash for his own district!

Check this out in the House Journal for March 3, 2008. Look at pages 8058-59 and 8094-95.

And then HF 3010, which would prohibit the enforcement of sanctuary cities laws such as Minneapolis and St. Paul have, was tabled by a 67-66 vote. Again Kalin’s vote prohibited debate and a vote on this bill.

Check this out in the House Journal for March 13, 2008. Look at pages 8750-51. Also look here.

It takes a lot of chutzpah to flaunt the immigration laws of the USA right from Chisago County. I think we need to ship Kalin to Mexico without a passport so he learns firsthand what a criminal alien is.

You can squawk to Kalin about his miserable failure by sending him an e-mail here.

Kalin’s Latest on Transportation: Part 2

This continues our comments on Rep. Jeremy Kalin’s (D-17B) March 20th column in the Post Review.

Kalin justifies voting for the T bill, saying, " . . . I know that the Transportation Funding bill will save us all money on our property taxes."

How many jurisdictions in Chisago County will actually be paying property taxes for a transportation project in their corporate boundaries that rightly belongs in the state highway system? If your city or township will not, then the T bill didn’t save you any property taxes.

Kalin claims "The best example of this [saving property taxes] is the new North Branch bridge." Would North Branch actually have borrowed $4.2 million to start rebuilding that bridge before 2012 when it is scheduled by Mn/DOT to be replaced? If they would, that would be their own choice to raise their own property taxes. But that is doubtful.

It seems Kalin uses this rather remote possibility to claim he saved North Branch residents from paying higher property taxes by voting for the T bill. So he attempts to win support for his T bill vote by setting up a highly unlikely scenario to make North Branch residents prefer the costly T bill instead of costly property taxes.

The figure of $4.2 million from the T bill doesn’t come close to building the $21 million bridge. What are the sources that will make up the difference? Kalin says, "The City has secured funding from Congress, from the County and from their own coffers." Why can’t he tell us when and how much will be provided from these sources? Is that too much to ask? And when will the bridge be built?

So will North Branch kick in property tax dollars after all to supplement the T bill? Will their share come from state apportioned gas tax revenue that cities with a population of 5,000 or more receive? Will Chisago County be kicking in property tax dollars for the NB bridge? If so, all of us in the county will pay some property tax toward the NB bridge and then Kalin’s statement is untrue. Why keep us in the dark while you pat yourself on the back for doing so much for us? I think you want us in the dark.

Kalin has the audacity to write, "The 2008 Transportation Funding bill saved taxpayers $4.2 million . . ." No, Rep. Kalin, the T bill actually will cost us $4.2 million plus the balance of $16.4 million to build the bridge. Remember, all this money is ours to begin with. You didn’t save us a dime. We will pay for it through the gas tax, property tax, federal income tax and a host of other taxes. All the money for the bridge will come from us through various forms of taxes.

It takes a whole lot of chutzpah to tell taxpayers that a politician saved us money when we will be the ones paying for the whole project.

By the way, your statement that ". . . the gas tax is dedicated by the Constitution to only roads and bridges . . ." is patently false. You also claim to be ". . . a fiscal conservative . . ." That too is patently false as demonstrated by your support of the T bill and this.