I didn’t like your Friday editorial concerning the gas tax bill. The major reason is that it was not a “gas tax” bill. The issue we were actually faced with was a “transportation bill” that included a raise in tab fees, a raise in driver’s license fees, a wheelage tax per vehicle and an optional county sales tax. All this was in addition to the gas tax. We were not offered an option with only a gas tax.

The second item I take issue with in your editorial was the statement that it was “ ... a 5 cent increase in the gasoline tax.” Actually, there was a 2.5 cent surcharge in addition to pay for the bonding portion of the bill, making it a 7.5 cent increase in the gas tax.

The third item that I take issue with and find misleading, is that your editorial stated that the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce and other businesses supported a modest increase in the gas tax. While this might be true, we never faced a gas tax. More importantly, the Minnesota Chamber, Minnesota Retailers Association and Minnesota Auto Dealers Association sent out a joint news release opposing the bill the Gov. Tim Pawlenty vetoed. This is the only transportation bill on the table.

The fourth item I take issue with is that you pretty much state that property taxes would go up to fund roads if the gas tax was not successful. Actually, if the transportation bill was successful and all the taxes went into effect, it would cost taxpayers more than a rise in property taxes.

What’s the problem with bonding? We bond for colleges, theaters, bridges and all sorts of things. Why should roads be a problem? Also, the money that the liberals are using for subsidizing “in-state tuition” for illegal aliens and putting more back on welfare and subsidized health care would more than make up for the amount they are looking for in the gas tax! There’s money there for replacing funding that the gas tax would have raised. They just don’t want to go there.

A Delevan man told me they didn’t mind a nickel gas tax if it would go for rural roads. Once again, it’s not just a gas tax. The metro complains about congestion, but just like they do with our rural nursing homes and rural schools, they already get the lion’s share of funding.

The fifth and final item I take issue with is the statement: “And finally, a vote for an override by south central region Republicans would be a vote for their constituents instead of a vote for their party.”

I am known for voting for my constituents and this issue is no different. I’m not voting to support my party or the governor. I am voting for my constituents. My constituents are overwhelmingly against a gas tax, especially with gas being about $3.16 as I write this letter.

Maybe we should put all local roads on the county tax roles with a referendum vote. Then those county commissioners that are begging me to vote for the bill can sell the 7.5 cent gas tax, a tab fee increase, an optional sales tax increase and a driver’s license increase to unwilling constituents?



Tony Cornish, a Republican, represents District 2B, which includes much of Blue Earth County, in the state House.