Dems on the Defensive

It all started with the Post Review’s Pat Tepoorten’s well-written, easy-to-comprehend opinion piece on the Transportation bill. There was some lively interaction with his commentary and each others’ comments, but no one answered Tepoorten. Among other points, Tepoorten said the annual cost of the T bill for a family of four is $500.

Senator Rick Olseen retorted to Tepoorten, saying he should report the facts, but Olseen failed to show that Tepoorten did not have the facts. Olseen asserted the cost for the average driver is $37.

Then R. J. Proulx took Tepoorten to task for making ". . . it sound like the measure calls for a one-year tax hike of $6.6 billion." Proulx failed to read Tepoorten’s clear presentation that he was writing about a $500 yearly cost. Tepoorten broke it down to an understandable amount for a family of four.

Robert G. Walz next minimized the cost by supporting the few pennies gas tax increase in the Transportation bill while attacking some Republicans who did not support it.

Joe Johnson argued for paying that measly $40 extra per year.

Carl Hasselquist just loves more taxes.

Meanwhile, Wade Vitalis, Kalin’s campaign manager, kept after Tepoorten in the comments section without ever coming close to engaging his commentary on the $500 annual cost.

Recognizing that the Democrat letter writers were stuck on the $40 figure as the annual cost of the Transportation bill, Bob Barrett pointed out there is a much higher cost than $40 for a family. His letter generated considerable interaction in the form of comments appended to his letter. However, no one answered Barrett’s or Tepoorten’s contention.

Then Mic Dahlberg, a retired Chisago County engineer and director on the Chisago County DFL executive board, contended his two-car family will pay about $71 per year. He debunked Tepoorten and Barrett’s estimate of a much higher figure with a whole lot of party line obfuscation.

And now once again, Bob Barrett tries to get these Democrats to acknowledge they are misrepresenting reality by grossly understating the true cost of the T bill to a family of four.

Kudos to Tepoorten and Barrett. For too long, the Dems have owned Chisago County and the press. Now that truth is being written and published, the Dems come out in full force to line up behind their Senator. Neither Olseen nor his defenders can admit the T bill will cost a whole lot more than his declared $37 per year. They just don’t want us to know how much it will actually cost taxpayers. It’s obvious Tepoorten and Barrett struck a nerve when all these Dems get in defensive mode!

Tepoorten and Barrett are clearly the hands-down winners in this debate. Thanks guys. And thanks to these Dems for the rants. It makes great reading to see how Dems avoid reality! In their haste to defend one of their own, they forgot to do some simple math. If every one of Minnesota's 5.2 million people paid $37 annually for 10 years, that would provide just $1.924 billion against the $6.6 billion. That's a measly $4.676 billion short of making payment.

The Dems compulsion to use fuzzy math leads them to be dishonest with numbers. It also makes them fiscally irresponsible.

Correcting the [Accurate] Record

In an August 20 letter to the editor in the Post Review, Rep. Jeremy Kalin (D-17B) wrote a loser of an editorial. A response from Flambeau correctly identifies that columnist Pat Tepoorten had nailed it in his column.

Kalin agreed Tepoorten was accurate, but wrote, "However, I feel compelled to correct the record on a couple of items," which as stated, implies he is correcting Tepoorten’s record. He didn’t correct Tepoorten’s record. Rather, Kalin used Tepoorten as a springboard to talk more about tax relief.

Kalin has every right to write about tax relief. In fact, I want him to write more. What I don’t like is he used Tepoorten to try to "correct the record" as if Tepoorten were wrong. That is being dishonest and damaging to an accurate columnist. Tepoorten addressed one point in his column, that is, who should be credited/blamed for the property tax cap of 3.9%, showing that Kalin and Olseen were taking credit for it and blaming the Governor, depending on who their audience was.

So often when Kalin writes (and Wade Vitalis, for example, these comments at the end of Tepoorten's column) he muddies the water. Little is stated clearly. Nothing is documented so it can be checked. And it is stated in such brief fashion that important points that would make it understandable are left out.

Most importantly, when a legislator frequently takes to writing letters to the editor (for example two recent ones, here and here), he is on the defensive. Explaining legislation in a defensive mode is a losing battle.

A legislator has the bully pulpit from which to expound whatever he wishes. Local papers give weekly column space for legislators. He has his own web page to explain everything in detail. He has state legislative web space available to him as well. He doesn’t need space in letters to the editor. That should be reserved for the citizens who do not have a bully pulpit.

But Kalin has a problem no matter what he writes. The more he writes, the more he tries to explains things, the worse it gets. So we won’t get detailed explanations. He will continue his hit and run communications, fashioned after the model of the leftist drive-by media that Rush Limbaugh loves.

___________________________________________

Update

Columnist Pat Tepoorten takes Kalin to task for Kalin's abuse of Tepoorten.

Kalin Responds to Tepoorten

On July 3rd Patrick Tepoorten commented on Minnesota’s Next Generation Energy Act of 2007 which was referenced here in this blog on July 12th. Subsequently, Rep. Jeremy Kalin (DFL-17B) posted a press release on July 16th which can be read here. On August 8th, Tepoorten analyzed Kalin’s post which can be found here under the title "Not sure the argument."

Tepoorten demonstrates conclusively that Kalin failed to analyze his article correctly and missed his point.

If our state representative cannot accurately identify and represent the argument in this brief and simple article, how can he analyze a complicated bill in behalf of Chisago County voters? Fair and accurate analysis is essential in the realm of ideas to be able to interact at the next level of discussion. How can Kalin develop or support good energy policy if he cannot understand the simple argument of a local news reporter and commentator?

Being a typical politician, Kalin devoted just 3 paragraphs taking Tepoorten to task, while not answering him, and then in the rest of his press release touted his own energy bill. This is known as diversion; drag in a red-herring to side track the real issue and sound good in the end even though one has not answered the original points.

At any time, Kalin could have issued a press release on his own energy bill without using Tepoorten’s commentary as a springboard. Kalin can tout his energy bill all day and it will not answer what Tepoorten said about Minnesota’s Next Generation Energy Act of 2007.

I am interested in reading a Tepoorten article analyzing Kalin’s energy bill.

The Facts Ma’am, Just the Facts

Responding to Reporter and Commentator Patrick Tepoorten’s article, Senator Rick Olseen (D-17) said, "Tepoorten should report the facts" and "I would like to point out the facts" and charged Tepoorten with ". . . irresponsible journalism . . . " Did Olseen really give the facts—all the pertinent facts about the issues he addressed? No!

According to Senator Olseen, a person ". . . driving 15,000 miles with a fuel economy of 22 miles per gallon, would spend about an additional $37 due to the increase in the gas tax." He opined, "I don’t think that’s too much to ask for safe roads and bridges for our families."

Using his figures for a year of driving, that’s 682 gallons of gas at 5.5¢ tax per gallon. That $37 is correct for the first year of driving, but Olseen didn’t say anything about the second year and the third and the fourth year.

You can read all the facts for yourself online in the transportation bill. The gas tax increases by 2¢ per gallon within 21 days of the passage of the bill, making it effective in early April (see lines 17.5-17.13 of the bill). Then it increases another 3¢ on October 1 (lines 16.31-17.4). Then in the succeeding years, a surcharge is added each July 1st (lines 6.29-7.18).

• 2009 0.5¢
• 2010 2.1¢
• 2011 2.5¢
• 2012 3.0¢

While taking Tepoorten to task, Olseen didn’t tell his readers about the future surcharges, but he should know because he voted for them.

Then too, the $37 increase for the first year isn’t just a $37 increase. That amount is for your personal driving. Olseen didn’t tell you that all the goods and services you buy will also have the gas tax increase which will be passed on to you, the customer. The electrician, plumber, UPS driver and cartage truck will see an increase in the gas tax that they add on to the cost of doing business. So you will actually see double or triple the $37 increase.

There is more. Low income people will receive a $12.50 credit per person to help offset the gas tax increase (16.10-16.30). Guess who pays that? You’re right, the middle and high income earners do. So add that to the $37. But even the low income bracket will pay the extra cost passed on in the goods and services they use.

This paragraph is added on March 16. I forget to mention the following tax increase when I made this post. Vehicle license tab fees (otherwise known as highway user taxes) have been increased at least $25 (14.15-16.9). For a two-car family, that's at least another $50 per year. That additional cost to owners of vehicles providing goods and services will be passed on to consumers as part of the cost of doing business. This will hit the lower income earners too.

There’s more he didn’t tell his readers. The tax on propane and natural gas you use for heating, cooking and grilling is increasing (17.11-18.6). And of course there is an increased gas tax to transport those energy necessities to you.

There’s more he failed to mention. Rental cars have a higher fee (18.7-19.2). And then there is the potential of a sales tax on vehicle purchases (24.27-25.11).

All this adds up to a figure significantly higher than $37. Tepoorten is far more accurate than the Senator. Politicians should spend more time telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and less time taking an accurate commentator to task.

Senator Olseen wrote that he is proud of his vote. If so, why does he have to attack an accurate commentator?

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.

More on Kalin's Post

After I wrote the previous post, I found that Patrick Tepoorten had written a commentary for the Post Review that also analyzes Kalin's post at his legislative web site. Tepoorten elaborates on their exchange.

T Bill to be Adjusted

The $6.6 billion Transportation bill (HF 2800, 4th Engrossment) had the following language regarding an increase in the vehicle license tab fees:

15.19 EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective the day following final enactment,
15.20 and applies to any annual additional tax for a registration period that starts on or after
15.21 September 1, 2008, through August 31, 2009.

The language of the bill could be interpreted to limit the increased license tab fees to be applicable for one year. The DFL failed to recognize this limitation when they passed the bill, but is now setting about to make sure this increase in license tab fees is permanent. They have inserted the following language in HF 3800, 1st Engrossment:

58.25 Sec. 6. Laws 2008, chapter 152, article 3, section 1, the effective date, is amended to
58.26 read:
58.27 EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective the day following final enactment,
58.28 and applies to any annual additional tax for a registration period that starts on or after
58.29 September 1, 2008, through August 31, 2009.
58.30 EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective the day following final enactment.

You can find this information at Minnesota Democrats Exposed. This change must be passed to collect the higher vehicle license tab fees after August 1, 2009.

Senator Olseen had contended with Commentator Pat Tepoorten that the T bill would cost taxpayers a small $37 per year for the increased gas tax as if that is the only tax increase. A whole bunch of DFL supporters lined up behind him.

Most everyone will also pay more for their license tabs. Of course that was already in the bill that was passed, but Olseen didn’t own up to it. Well, now Olseen will own up to it in a round about way when he supports this change. Of course he won’t acknowledge it publicly.

The T bill will cost the average person a whole lot more than $37 per year. It has been estimated that the increase for license tabs will cost Minnesota drivers $1.979 billion over the next ten years.

Most of us knew Olseen was blowing smoke in Tepoorten's face and ours. Olseen gets his comeuppance now. Sometimes things have a way of sneaking up on a politician and biting him in the behind!

AlGorithms

Here is a blog that goes hand in hand with Pat Tepoorten's comments on the Minnesota Energy Plan. The author just introduced this topic and will make future comments. Notice his play on the word algorithm, which is defined as a set of rules to solve a problem. Al Gore has it all solved with his set of rules.

Notice also a web site mentioned in this article. How the temperature of an area is measured affects the temperature that is recorded in the records. Look at the absurd conditions in which many official thermometers are placed. No wonder temperatures are skewed. "Houston, we have a problem!"

Local Commentator

Pat Tepoorten writes for the Post Review. He also writes an editorial column entitled The Upsider.

For his comments on the Minnesota Energy Plan, check out this site.

Also, check out Pat's blog.

Global Warming Intimidation

Many thanks to Patrick Tepoorten who pointed to an article on global cooling—that’s right, global cooling. Look at the last portion of the article which I believe is the most significant part of the piece—even more significant than the noted dropping temperature.

The author tells of a behind-the-scenes effort to intimidate a writer to change his article which gave too much encouragement to global warming skeptics. Jo Abbess, global warming activist, attempted to get Roger Harrabin to tone down his piece.

She bragged to her fellows:

Climate Changers,

Remember to challenge any piece of media that seems like it's been subject to spin or scepticism.

Here's my go for today. The BBC actually changed an article I requested a correction for, but I'm not really sure if the result is that much better.

Judge for yourselves...

Read the above declaration to her fellow global warming activists here and then some comments about Jo’s action.

The main article mentioned above points out that Jo Abbess did not like this article written by Roger Harrabin which reported a dropping of the world wide temperature. Jo didn’t like its message so attempted to get it changed. The editor and author explain the controversy here.

When Abbess threatened to discredit and expose Harrabin as someone who has been influenced by the global warming skeptics, she is avoiding data and evidence and making a personal attack to stifle that evidence. Evidence of cooling in the face of the ardently held view of warming unhinges these people. Refutation of fact cannot be accomplished so they resort to public embarrassment of the one propounding the evidence. This is a form of blackmail in which the activist threatened to deprive the reporter and/or commentator of his reputation.

Global warming has been sold to us without evidence and even contrary to evidence. It is popularly held among the elite to the point that politicians such as President George Bush cave to it to some degree and Senator John McCain talks the line, thinking he needs to in order to be elected.

Americans like to perceive themselves to be devoutly scientifically oriented. In reality, a large number of Americans are scientific dolts. They have no clue how to think within the guidelines of the scientific method and postulate a theory based on testable, repeatable evidence. Rather, they buy into a philosophy without any evidence. They believe in global warming on blind faith.

These same people condemn the religious for doing that. By their own practice, they are the new religionists, clinging to blind faith. Watch out for religionists because anything can be justified in the name of religion. Data and hard core evidence will not stand in their way to protect their goddess, Gaia. Ultimately, their ardently held religious view is dangerous to scientific investigation into true cause and effect because it also tends to forms of blackmail.