Observations on the Override

So, everybody is all excited one way or the other because the legislature finally overturned one of Governor Plenty’s vetos.

Much of the attention is being given to the new gasoline tax increase. Somehow a few more cents on a gallon seems minimal when compared with the ups and downs [mainly ups] in gasoline prices brought on by other factors, but we will all notice it a bit, I guess. What we sometimes forget is that all of this increase goes to roads and after seeing a lot of our roads, it is hard begrudge additional funding there, although we may feel that the choice of projects is sometimes dubious. Of course, it would seem that the fact that various others who don’t pay their full load of gasoline taxes [bicyclists, pedestrians, drivers of hybrid cars] will use some of these roads needs to be examined, but that would have continued to be a problem even if this bill had not become law.

The bill should have been defeated because it increases metro sales tax for that old ripoff, transit. But that doesn’t seem to be what motivated the governor or the GOP legislators.

There are 85 members of the DFL in the House, 48 of the GOP, and one without a caucus to belong to. A caucus that wants to be a majority caucus needs to be more inclusive and not take on its own members unless they do something beyond whatever the party’s pale is. With several veteran members about to give up what are not really safe seats, the GOP cannot really afford to lose many more if it wants to make the net gain of 20 seats in November.

What I really cannot understand is that Marty Seifert and the Republican House leadership seem determined to punish the six of their number who voted for the override. All six have suffered a loss of committee or leadership assignments. [For a comprehensive list, see this from Minnesota Monitor.]

The GOP leadership is not taking this action against somebody who voted to support organized labor, family farms, progressive taxation, or even abortion rights. They’re taking this action against somebody who supported something being advocated by the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce. Yes, read that again. They supported the Chamber of Commerce, the people whou usually are the supreme arbitrating oracle of right and wrong for their party and they are in trouble for that.

Go figure.