High: 13° / Low: 7° — Dude Weather Subscribe to Secrets Minneapolis / St. Paul
The Star Tribune's Minnesota Poll, now out-sourced to New Jersey, has been in heavy play this past week. For decades a valuable snapshot of Minnesota attitudes, the Poll, as many of you know, was seriously down-sized under McClatchy ownership and "right-sized" into oblivion by Avista Capital Partners. The Poll's most recent director, Rob Daves, was dismissed this year, the office shuttered and all institutional memory pretty well vacated.
With interim publisher, Chris Harte, cautioning his editorial section to avoid wild-hair liberal notions like calling for sufficient revenue to actually maintain the infrastructure we've got, I was intrigued to see that the question, "Would you be willing to pay more in gasoline taxes in order to pay for increased inspection and repair of bridges", produced a 46%/50% yes/no verdict from the public. Though reporter Pat Doyle noted that that breakout falls within the 4% plus-or-minus margin of error, meaning you could if you wanted see a split decision, the usual suspects jumped on the "no vote" to affirm their campaigns to keep Minnesota's finances just the way they are ... or at the very worst shift some cash from all those lavish public schools and over-paid teachers to freeway construction.
Proper allocation and all that, you know.
Every poll depends on who you ask and how you phrase the question. In this case, the "Minnesota Poll", contracted out to New Jersey-based Princeton Survey Research Associates, emphasized the hot-button word "bridge", whereas polls conducted in 2004 and 2005 and at various times through the late '80s and '90s emphasized either "road improvements" or "road maintenance".
Anti-tax crusaders and other status quo tub-thumpers will remain gleeful with the verdict because they can continue to make the argument that even after "goosing" the question with the word "bridge", the pro-tax crowd "only" registered 46%, give or take 4%.
But if you dial back through the history of Minnesota Polls asking residents/voters about gas tax increases, it is interesting how thinking has changed, or not, over the last two decades. For example, in 1987 the yes/no split was 46%/48%. In 1990 it was 52%/45%. In 1993, 66%/32%. By 2005 it had drifted back to 41%/55%.
While 2007's 46%/50% can be read as public sentiment against a gas tax increase, you could just as easily have said, "Public shows small increase in acceptance of gas tax hike," based on approval moving up from 41% to 46% in the past two years.
Or ... if you really wanted to stick a wrench in the spokes of the "non-partisan" Taxpayers' League you could could point to the 2004 Minnesota Poll, which was conducted while Gov. Pawlenty and his transportation guru, Carol Molnau, were floating the idea of leasing out Twin Cities' freeways to private contractors and charging tolls. In that context only 23% of Minnesotans favored increasing the gas tax.
With that in mind you could have had a headline on Sunday's poll saying something like, "Support for gas tax increase doubles since '04", and been correct, technically.
I called Rob Daves, still here in Minnesota and busy assembling soon-to-launch Daves & Associates Research. He had only positive things to say about Princeton Survey. "Great firm. They do excellent work."
He had been out of town this past weekend and hadn't seen the gas tax poll. I read him the question as asked.
He offered that readers might have gotten a truer historical comparison had the gas tax question been asked the same way it always has, or at the very least, been subjected to a "split-ballot sample", where half the 800-1200 respondents were asked the "road improvements" questions and the other half the "bridge" question.
That didn't happen. So what we're left with is a more or less an even split on the question of raising the gas tax, which is sufficiently fertile turf for legislation this winter. I mean, anytime you can get half the voters saying they'll pay more you've got more than adequate
political cover.
You are ignoring the obvious. Gas prices are at an all-time high and that is eating into many a SUV driving pocket. I'll bet the same poll will go to 40 yes/60 no a year from now if gas prices stay up. People have short-term memories about bridges that tumble.
Now that you are back on your raise taxes bandwagon, how about something constructive. Throw out an idea on how to address the problem. More revenue? Sure. But you are too smart to believe that is the only issue here.
I am your resident fiscal conservative and I remain in favor of an increase that is adjusted for inflation in the future. My only condition is that all gas taxes raised go to roads. Light rail will need to find it's own funding mechanism. I also would like to see an in-depth review of MNDot by an independent auditor (if such a thing exists in government). The issues there are far deeper than a part-time commissioner. The 494 Wakota bridge is just one of a number of failures.
Brian you can continue to stick with the poor government, no money, no funding bit -- problem is you won't be able to sell that routine. (And I am just as tired of the no new taxes bit from the right). Solutions are what is needed, not more partisan bickering.
LAMBERT: Dave, as I'm sure you know gas taxes go to transportation. Period. Light (or heavy) rail is, in the great scheme of things, a fraction of the money needed for road and bridge repair -- but it has been successfully demonized by the "small government" crowd, much like "welfare chiselers" were a huge part of "government waste", never mind they represented a fraction of the cost of a couple loosely audited Pentagon weapons systems.
Inflation adjustable ... fine. But it has to be adequate. A nickel is bullshit. It does nothing. And to date Pawlenty, etc. haven't sucked up the courage to even seriously consider that.
An underlying problem is that the less educated (as broken out by the latest poll and others) continue to swallow the rather knuckleheaded argument that "most of our taxes are wasted", a spin-off of government-hating demagoguery.
I wonder how many of those same folks are working the slots at Hole in the Wall later in the week? (That's a personal choice, thing, of course.)
Man, you run one crazy media blog. What was this about again? Oh right...taxes. Which are, um, in the media I guess...
LAMBERT: A closer re-reading will reveal the outlines of an argument that the Start Tribune's latest "Minnesota" Poll might have been more useful had it followed the same methodology as previous, self-generated, self-analyzed polls.
That, and the suspicion that, as noted previously, new Strib management is manipulating a go-soft on tax increase attitude, for whatever reason, possibly to avoid provoking wingers prior to a sale.
You are right though. It is crazy.
Are you really troubled that Minnesotans do not want their gas tax raised? Are you not willing to believe that the people of this state feel they are all ready paying enough taxes, and maybe feel other programs could be cut while roads could be better funded?
LAMBERT: Let's reverse the game. I say there isn't sufficient revenue to cover basic infrastructure maintenance. You, I gather, say money exists, only in other areas of the budget. Where would YOU suggest we dig to cover the close to $1 billion annually needed to do proper maintenance. Name a couple over-funded programs.
The truth is, transportation - all options including transit (and remember, roads are heavily subsidized) are under-funded and no true fiscal conservative can feel really good at night paying for everything via debt.
In regards to a gas tax, all proceeds (100%) already go, have to go and always will have to go to highway and roads, so that's the usual red herring.
And if you are STILL driving a huge SUV, at least for primarily hauling a single passenger, that's simply a selfish and short-sighted choice in this day and age. And frankly, stupid. That said, we could have long ago taken advantage of this stupidity with the gas tax increasing and adjusting for inflation the last ten years, as average MPG decreased and fuel use in vehicles has increased dramatically.
LAMBERT: Part of my frustration with the "small government", "no new taxes" crowd is their alternately cynical and Pollyannish view that very expensive infrastructure repairs nd improvements (and other fundamental social obligations -- adequate schools, police, etc.) can be accomplished without anyone anywhere(certainly them) experiencing an iota of pain.
That is not an adult world view. And to your point, I believe we can agree that Americans are never going to voluntarily reduce their consumption of fossil fuels. There has to be some ind of economic imperative, like higher prices. The question then becomes do we want to pay ourselves and improve our society or continue doing what we're doing, and pay Arab sheiks, Iranian mullahs, ExxonMobil, etc. so they can improve THEIR standard of living -- which largely involves buying up American companies and real estate?
A 25 cents a gallon gas tax increase (which today would raise the price back to slightly less than it was before Labor Day .... big whoop) would provide significant new revenue for Minnesota, employing significant numbers of Minnesotans, AND encourage the evolution from 13 mpg Tahoe to something less consumptive.
With all due respect its very simple...
Reduce government funded health insurance, government funded daycare, raise the requirements for welfare (maybe to more of a level of Wisconsins), eliminate instate tuition for illegal immigrants. We could revsit the racino idea. We could also stop banning illegal activities such as smoking so bars and restaraunts that make money for the state dont go out of business.
Those are just a few of my ideas so far.
LAMBERT: I'm guessing you have some dollar figures on how much Minnesota spends on health insurance. Are there hundreds of millions tied up in day-care? Education for illegal immigrants? Also, I believe most bars and restaurants, after first experiencing declining sales, have returned to pre-smoking ban levels.
As for the racino idea ... if you want to stick state-operated slot machines or blackjack games in every SuperAmerica and Holiday and continue to soak the chumps ... I might be down for that.
The key point Lambert started out with is that the Minnesota Poll was mis-reported in the STRIB. The poll does not, as the headline and lead of the article suggest, provide evidence that "Minnesotans are against a gas tax increase." Any polling expert will tell you that the poll does not provide support for that statement. The issue is a statistical dead heat, based on responses from 802 people.
Yet, the wishful thinking crowd--those that never let facts get in the way of pretending the world is the way they want it to be, rather than the way it is--will still begin posts with statements such as "Are you really troubled that Minnesotans do not want their gas tax raised?"
It become more clear everyday that the country is divided between those that struggle with addressing the world as it actually exists (mostly on the left) and those that hide their heads in the sand (or keep it in the clouds) and try to deal with an imagined world--one that is the way they would like it to be (mostly on the right).
LAMBERT: I used to be amused that the party running on the "We're the Adults Around Here" platform were so chronically irresponsible with money, ethics and reputation. Now it annoys the bejeezus out of me.
"money, ethics and reputation'?
I give you Wm. Jefferson, Wm. Clinton, and HR Clinton.
Grifmyth -
Those of you on the left have an idea of the way you want the world to exsist. Us on the right are not giving up on the way the founders of our country intended the world to exsist.
If the poll had slanted to the other direction on the gas tax there would not be one rebutal from any of you on the validity of the headline or the poll.
When the left challenges the hawks on the Iraq war (which should include Clinton and Kerry) the first response is "why dont you go enlist". My response to those who advocate higher taxes are "why dont you offer up your paycheck".
LAMBERT: My admittedly under-grad reading of the Constitution suggests to me that the founders preferred a nation where every citizen contributed according to their ability to the common good. I'm sure a talented tax accountant good get "aggressive" on that notion.
Brian -
What data have you looked at suggesting bars have not had any trouble. Sure big large downtown bars have had no trouble in the post smoking ban era, have you traveled by some of the boarded up buildings in ramsey and hennepin county that were once watering holes to the blue collar workers the left claims they represent? When they go on unemployment it will be Pawlenty and Bush's fault. I will agree with them on Pawlenty this time - he signed the smoking ban into law despite my several letters.
LAMBERT: Don't take it personally. I don't think Pawlenty reads my screeds either.
Tom O--
What the hell do you really think is going to happen if we "reduce government funded health insurance"? Do you think all the corporations that are fleeing health insurance coverage for their employees are going to suddenly get all warm and cuddly and reinvest in something they've gladly handed off to the public sector? Do you think that poor people are going to hold off on care any longer than they already do, and not go to ever more expensive emergency room care when they finally need treatment?
You seem like a guy who reads the bizness funnies; surely you've seen the wailing from various American-based companies about how insuring their workers has put them at an extreme competitive disadvantage versus all the other governments who insure their citizens. Now do you want to stipulate that those workers be insured by the folks who employ them or simply cut them loose and let them fend for themselves? And what about the mentally ill, who comprise a large chunk of the "welfare" insured you sneer about? Just cut 'em loose?
Finally, "government funded health insurance" has about a three percent administrative rate; HMOs are about 20 percent. It wasn't the governmnt that was backdating stock options to help give their now-disgraced CEO a billion dollars in bonus money; it was the nation's second-largest HMO, based right here in Minnesota. But since that's "the market" and "free enterprise," I don't imagine you mind your hard-earned health care premiums lining those pockets.
LAMBERT: I see no reason to add anything more. Other than while I'm less enthusiastic about Hillary the Inevitable than I am other candidates, I am encouraged by her fixation on a universal health care system. No other single "cure" could improvement the lot of individuals, families, small and large business alike. If it weren't for George and Dick's Iraq fiasco the cost of health care should be Public Interest Issue #1 until brought under control -- like other successfully functioning Western democracies.
The ossified right wing ideologues who troll your website for any violations of their I-got-mine-where's-yours? worldview have pretty much ruined it as a forum for media matters for this reader. I guess this is what happens to anything on the web these days. It's like trying to picnic on a fire ant mound.
As a liberal who reads your blog, I'm quite enjoying this bit of back-and-forth.
As I understand it, support for the 'no new taxes' mentality comes from people who feel that they're currently not earning enough in today's economy. They believe that they work hard, have put in their time, and deserve more than what they're receiving on payday.
Who can't agree with that? That would describe just about everyone on the planet. We all feel that, somehow, we're not quite getting what we deserve. I think we can all agree that there's something wrong with America today.
The big difference, though, between me and your conservative readers is that I don't see the government as the root of all my problems. In my opinion, Reagan's famous statement that "government is the problem" served as cover for a series of decades-long privitization schemes where a lot of big and small companies made a ton of money off through taxpayer subsidies (military expenditure chief among them, though you can also point to things like Enron, Halliburton, airline deregulation, auto manufacturers dependence on freeway development, real estate developer subsidies, ballparks etc.).
Face it, government is always a big player in our economies, and how we decide to spend our tax dollars can make a big difference in how much return we get out of our individual life choices. The big difference between a government and a corporation is that we, the citizens, can actually have significant influence over how government operates. You can't really say that about a company like Target.
The question we should be asking is: What sorts of government investments create the most benefit for the most people?
Health care and environmentally-sustainable transportation networks seem like two obvious places to start.
LAMBERT: The ironies of economic performance under conservative and "liberal" administrations are pretty stark. The Clinton era is a fresh and obvious example of comparative fiscal responsibility energizing almost all sectors of the economy -- read Alan Greenspan if anyone doubts it. But the pattern continues back through the decades with the exception of Jimmy Carter.
Republicans have -- to this point -- successfully marketed the idea that THEY are the meticulous adults when it comes to economic managment, when almost every indicator shrieks otherwise. Just as states with high(er) taxes (than what? you may ask, Texas, Florida, Mississippi) all have superior economic performnce. Far from being a detriment to economic performance, (barely) adequate taxation maintains social and other infrastructures conducive to business activity.
Another irony, as I've said before, is that conservatives, who like to wear their "business savvy" on their sleeves, are appallingly credulous when it comes to actually analyzing which policies produce the best results.
As an Edina resident, I can tell you my traditionally Republican neighbors, (who are socially liberal on almost every question, and therefore far more "left" than "right" even nthough they are reluctant to admit it), have been driven to distraction by the Bush administration's wholesale disregard for discipline and competence.
I agree with Jimmy. I mean, seriously..."bertram jr.?" You can't take seriously anyone hiding behind a silly nickname...
LAMBERT: "bertram jr" is obviously not well. But I believe he serves as an example and reminder of a certain dangerous pathology.
Brit - I like how you only reply to my posts.
If anything has put American companies at a disadvantage it has been organized labor and high tax rates. Personally I think the best health plan is the one we go out and buy ourselves.
And typical of your side that uses emotion to manipulate your side. (the mentally ill). There is also a large chunk of people on welfare that are able bodied adults that continue to make poor choices because there are absolutly no social consequences to any irresponsible behavoir. Being born in the US does not give you the right to healthcare, that is where we disagree. And actually another thing we should cut is the union government jobs. Also we should cut healthcare for elected officials just to be fair.
Oh and Jimmy - I do not "troll" this site. Mr Lambert and I have seen common ground on many (ok some) issues in the past. Is there something wrong with debate? Or are you trying to do what congress is trying to do and silence your opposition.
LAMBERT: Not to belabor the obvious, but I believe YOU were the one who brought up the cost to taxpayers of the mentally ill. That aside, are you seriously arguing that we leave the destitute and deranged to roam the streets waiting for private sector care?
And "organized labor and high tax rates" are he bane of American industry? Oh boy. You may need to dial back on your Jason Lewis dosage.
I think Tom O. summed it up nicely with the "you leftwing nutjobs have your own peculiar worldview wish " thing.
If media = market driven, clearly the left is, well, being left behind.
So sorry jimmy.
BTW, you calling the founders "ossified"?
Heh.
LAMBERT: Uh, "namzo", you have now been intellectually linked to "bertram jr". How does that work for you?
Namzo. Debates fine when it's honest. But it gets rather tiresome when it's the same fact-free one over and over and over and over...
Brian's post was about the intellectual dishonesty of the ersatz MN Poll, not the the thread bare welfare-bashing "debate" you and your peers hijacked it into. It's been eight years of shrill, spittle-flecked, sphincter-bunching kvetching from the very people who've gotten their electoral way and done nothing of value with the power.
How about just shutting up for awhile, at least until you come up with something fresh to say beyond cut taxes and throw the poor and dispossessed over the side.
LAMBERT: Uh oh.
Perhaps this will help:
Cut taxes taken to support the illegals and those that choose NOT to pull their own weight.
The church and charity are there for those that can't.
Not MY tax dollars.
Pretty simple, eh jimmy?
LAMBERT: On Planet Bertram Jr I gather everything is pretty simple.
Did this ever take off! I'd like to think I played some small part in all the bickering.
Brian in response to your response to me. I actually agree with you! 5 cents is too small an increase, even with inflationary adjustments.
I'm going to piss off my right wing friends, but I would take the last increase, inflation adjust it, and have that as a starting point for debate. That would suggest at least a 20 - 25 cent increase. At the same time, I would propose exactly what I was going to do with the money by discussing specific projects.
I get the argument that government may be over-spending elsewhere. Fine, then attack those areas directly and open the debate. Underfunding transportation in the meantime is not a fair compromise.
Brian we may actually agree on something!
LAMBERT: You may be on a slippery slope to full rational thinking, Dave. Congratulations.
I notice in the Strib's lead editorial a mention of Best Buy's time-shifting/tele-commuting program. Herein lies another significant alternative to reduce congestion and conserve fuel. test out some kind of incentive for businesses to allow employees to work from home. I'm stunned at the number of people who get in a car every morning ... to work at a computer.
There must be a way to incentive the tax system to encourage tee-commuting, and obviously it would have to fall to employers (conservative base). Employees would realize savings on less costs for driving, parking, etc.
I agree with Jimmy. I mean, seriously..."bertram jr.?" You can't take seriously anyone hiding behind a silly nickname...
LAMBERT: "bertram jr" is obviously not well. But I believe he serves as an example and reminder of a certain dangerous pathology.
~Posted by: Frogman of Grant at October 9, 2007 07:56 PM
brian -- did you even get the frogman's wonderful joke? give him a little love. it's not easy being green........
LAMBERT: Frogman? Love? Do I look like a herpe-phile?
Don't on hate herpes, it's treatable.
Unlike liberalism.
LAMBERT: As usual ... no idea at all what you're talking about.
Brian -
I am reading my posts, and I agree I started on the welfare kick, but I do not promote putting the mentally ill out on the streets. There are circumstances where public welfare is neccesary. (a smaller number of cases than my left of center friends will agree to though).
I am not just for advocating cutting MN healthcare for the so called deprived. I am for cutting it back from all forms of elected officialis including the governor. I am also in favor of trimming government waste from the inside meaning the unionized jobs at the state level.
Jimmy - The fairness doctrine hasnt reached the internet yet, so you will just have to get use to my threads as much as I will have to get use to your condensending, unhinged, emotionally manipulative, left speak.
On anther note Brian, I am not an avid Lewis listener, I have loyalty to my friends.
Love it!
The fairness doctrine hasnt reached the internet yet, so you will just have to get use to my threads as much as I will have to get use to your condensending, unhinged, emotionally manipulative, left speak.
"If it weren't for George and Dick's Iraq fiasco the cost of health care should be Public Interest Issue #1 until brought under control -- like other successfully functioning Western democracies."
Brian - The party is paying for their actions politically. When is the left going to hold those who voted for the fiasco responsible. Instead the left makes them front runners in the 2004 and 2008 election.
LAMBERT: My guy, Edwards, has at least apologized, frequently and profusely for his "authorization" vote. Ms. Clinton would do herself a favor by doing the same. But let's not forget that that "authorization" came with the assurances that Bush-Cheney would seek international support and do everything necessary to avoid conflict -- and the naive assumption that no President/Vice-President would ever intentionally cook intelligence (i.e. lie) to take the United States to war.
Remind me where Romney, Giuliani, McCain, etc. are on acknowledging the fundamental fraud?
Lets for the sake of argument assume Bush and Cheney cooked evidence.
Can we agree that the Johnson administration altered facts to escalate Vietnam? Dont we have a congres to challenge the President on these types of issuse? The democrats have never given Bush a pass on anything weather its judges, Attorney Generals, represnatives to the UN, why do they hide behind the "always trust the President" banner on the Iraq War? The senate was democratically controlled in 2002. Clinton and Kerry both outspoken in their eras against the Vietnam war found political gain to be pro war in terms of Iraq. They knew Bush was going to invade Iraq, and the campaigned along side him. If every good democrat had voted against the Iraq resolution, it would not have passed.
Your man Edwards has apologized, but he is not the front runner. Where is the momentum behind him? And to your point at least Edwards didnt spend 2002 campaigning to invade Iraq like John Kerry did, and to a lesser but still vocal extent Hillary Clinton.
The difference between Romney and Guillani is that they were not a US senator in 2002 to vote on the Iraq resolution. McCain is paying politically for his constant support for the Iraq war.
Now keeping with our assumption that Bush and Cheney cooked evidence, then where are the calls for impeachment?
LAMBERT: There are plenty of calls for impeachment. The last poll I saw put public acceptance of such a move higher than it ever was with Clinton. But Dem leadership has, correctly I think, decided it has to accomplish something -- a lot actually -- and that another impeachment circus, regardless of the validity this time, would be far too distracting.
Now ... after next year's election, there are all sorts of legal remedies for investigating and trying the cast of cronies ... while the long process of restoring fiscal and diplomatic order moves forward on the main tracks.
Lets for the sake of argument assume Bush and Cheney cooked evidence.
Can we agree that the Johnson administration altered facts to escalate Vietnam? Dont we have a congres to challenge the President on these types of issuse? The democrats have never given Bush a pass on anything weather its judges, Attorney Generals, represnatives to the UN, why do they hide behind the "always trust the President" banner on the Iraq War? The senate was democratically controlled in 2002. Clinton and Kerry both outspoken in their eras against the Vietnam war found political gain to be pro war in terms of Iraq. They knew Bush was going to invade Iraq, and the campaigned along side him. If every good democrat had voted against the Iraq resolution, it would not have passed.
Your man Edwards has apologized, but he is not the front runner. Where is the momentum behind him? And to your point at least Edwards didnt spend 2002 campaigning to invade Iraq like John Kerry did, and to a lesser but still vocal extent Hillary Clinton.
The difference between Romney and Guillani is that they were not a US senator in 2002 to vote on the Iraq resolution. McCain is paying politically for his constant support for the Iraq war.
Now keeping with our assumption that Bush and Cheney cooked evidence, then where are the calls for impeachment?
And we will all embrace the leadership of President Rudy Guillani and Vice President Thompson.
LAMBERT: Well, 29% of you will anyway.
Uh, you may want to be careful with such speculation.
Power to the People!
LAMBERT: You guys are good with the bumper sticker stuff. I'll give you that. Like the waving flag decal on an F-350 I saw, with the line, "Fear This!" underneath. Now THAT'S a thoughtful winning message sure to bind everyone together in the 'war on terror'."
Or maybe it was just meant for liberals.
In reference to the 29%....If Lambert to the slaughter has taught me anything, we should be skeptical of polls.
Books:
Cracking Spines by Max Ross
Music:
Hear, Hear by Staff
Art:
The Vicious Circle by 6 Critics
Secrets:
Secrets of the Day by Kate Iverson
Theater:
Seen in the City by Staff
Film:
Talk About Talkies by Staff
Weather:
Dude Weather by Jimmy Gaines
Humor:
Spazz Dad by Todd Smith
Cars:
Road Rake by Chris Birt
Commentary:
Read Menace by Tom Bartel
Society:
The Adventures of Melinda by Melinda Jacobs
Politics:
Defenestrator by Rich Goldsmith
Food:
Breaking Bread by Jeremy Iggers & Ann Bauer
Sports:
On the Ball by Britt Robson
Hockey:
Spazz Dad by Todd Smith
Style:
Hook & Eye
Misc:
Is This News?
Fiction:
Yo, Ivanhoe by Brad Zellar
Food:
Consider the Egg by Stephanie March
Baseball:
Warning Track Power by Brad Zellar
Wine:
Beyond the Cask
Food:
Food Fight!
Media:
To the Slaughter
Misc:
Outrage by Staff
Food:
Chef's Table
Guest Commentary:
Just Passing Through