A little indication of the vote for and against the Gas Tax. With names.
The Argus Leader’s story this AM had hints of who was for and who was against the package of revenue increases that legislators voted on yesterday (as I’m sitting listening to nearly 4 hours of testimony and voting):
The Joint Transportation Committee voted 11-6 to pass a bill that would raise road taxes in two stages, with half the increase imposed next year and the other half in 2012. The measure’s proposals include boosting the state gas tax by 10 cents a gallon and increasing annual vehicle registration fees by $18 for a typical car by 2012.
“It’s not popular. It’s not fun,” Krebs said. “But it’s what’s responsible.”
Senate Majority Leader Dave Knudson of Sioux Falls, a committee member who is running for governor, voted against the proposal. He tried to persuade the panel to recommend smaller increases in road taxes and fees.
“I am very skeptical there is much support for this outside the 11 committee members,” Knudson said. “It’s a serious overreach.”
Knudson pointed out that proposals for a smaller 3-cent hike in the gas tax and a $10 increase in vehicle licenses narrowly failed in the Senate last year. He backed those measures, thinking the rate hikes were reasonable.
Update – someone who listened to it all earlier than I did gave me the tip off on who supported the gas tax hike-
Aye’s – Ahlers, Elliott, Fryslie, Krebs, Lange, Lucas, McLaughlin, Merchant, Putnam, Street, and Vehle
No’s – Cronin, Juhnke, Knudson, Steele, Vanneman, Verchio
There’s a lot more to pick the votes out of, as there were many parts to the package, but this was a big one. (And you read it here first.)
All 6 Democrats voted to raise taxes, along with 5 Republicans. 6 Republicans voted against it.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
The real story about why we have to read this story year after year, is in the comment at the end of the story from Rep Bernie Hunhoff about the Rounds/Daugaard administration: “unless Gov Mike Rounds makes roads and bridges a priority, there is little chance that legislators will take up the banner of raising taxes for them.”
So long as the administration sits on the sidelines while roads crumble and DOT costs and expenditures rise, it is unfair to criticize either side of the legislators in this battle. Looks to me like they are all correct. There is a problem, and there will be no answer. The Governor is busy buying insurance agencies and the Lt Gov is busy raising money and nobody in their administration seems very interested in governing. So legislators will keep getting kicked for trying to solve a problem that has been created, lingered and fostered by the Rounds/Daugaard administration. I think it is a good time to go see if the labs are ready to chase some pheasants – it’s nice to work behind animals that know how to get the job done.
it flat out doesn’t matter how worthy the DOT is of extra revenue, or how important it is. there isn’t any to give. the taxpayers are bleeding to death. how dull can our legislators be?!
to help make ends meet, i’ve taken a part-time job as a process server. that is, i serve people with summonses to appear in court because they have unpaid loans and credit cards. ugly job, i know. but it has allowed me to see what people in minnehaha county are going through. their sales taxes are going up. property taxes. utility rates. unemployment surcharges. credit card rates. everything is going up except their incomes. they are getting crushed under the weight of this economy. the “high and mighty” sioux falls has even applied for emergency funding from the federal government because of “significant poverty, unemployment, rate of home foreclosures, or general distress.”
it’s just plain stupid to suggest that those people pay even more, especially when the government flat out refuses to pull back on its own spending, and especially not when the economy is in the tank.
get a clue, legislature!
There again is Mike Vehle, Pat Powers’ District 20 guy. And don’t try and deny it this time Pat, remember your letter to the editor of the Mitchell paper in the spring of 2008?
Steve –
Considering the alternatives at the time, he was the better option. If I recall, the letter I wrote was as follows:
It was with some interest that I read the letter to the editor published this past Saturday by Steve Sibson, since he used the forum as his soapbox to complain about myself and anyone who bothers to call him to account for his narrow and often undecipherable viewpoints.
From his letter to the editor, his schizophrenic indecision over what office he’s choosing to run for, and equally frenetic change of the party banner he’s choosing to run under, it’s clear to see that he’s not running to make South Dakota a better place. He’s not running to raise awareness of a specific issue that he is concerned about. He’s running to promote “the Tao of Steve.”
Now, I’m sure there are some who might believe good government is about leveling accusations of cultural Marxism, secular humanism and calling people “RINOs” (Republican in name only) with every breath. I’m sure there are those who flip-flop their political affiliations with the frequency that some change their underwear. I imagine there are people out there that believe preschool is a government plot to indoctrinate toddlers to socialism and one-world government.
If that is your philosophy, then by all means, I urge you to support Sibson and his “Tao of Steve.” I can assure you that you will absolutely get the representation you deserve.
But if you believe the strength of our nation lies with the individual and that each person’s dignity, freedom and ability and responsibility must be honored and you believe that free enterprise and encouraging individual initiative have brought this nation opportunity, economic growth and prosperity, then I’d urge you to vote for Mike Vehle, the Republican in the District 20 Senate seat.
Because even for those of you who might not be a fan or supporter of Mike’s, you at least have to consider the alternative; and that’s an alternative that’s just too hard to swallow.
Yes, at the time, with Mike Vehle being the alternative to someone who couldn’t decide what party he wanted to represent, Mike was the better option.
But then again, It’s not as if you’ll actually run for something. You’ll talk about it to attempt to garner attention. Aaaaannnnd as the time approaches to do something about it, you’ll back down.
Unless you’d care to prove me wrong.
Lee,
Actually knudson made the comment you were referring to.
Its time for a sales tax on gas so that our party doesn’t have t
Have to kill each other when we need an inflation adjustment.
An added nickle tax for a gallon of gas would pay for 1 single pothole ruined tire & rim in about 8 years. Well worth it.
An added $18 for a new car in 3 years? I just bought a new $17,000 car, and it took all of 3 seconds for the dealer to throw in about $200 worth of accessories, on top of the $1000 I negotiated off the price.
But WAIT! I have an idea!
All of the legislators who vote for the tax increase get the funding sent to their districts. All the legislators that voted against the increase see their funding fall this year. I wonder how their constituants would like not having their roads & highways plowed because the DOT lost funding?
Pat, thanks for reprinting the letter. It shows how wrong you were. Vehle has proven himself to be a flaming RINO. True Republicans would have been better off supporting me, even if I ran as an independent.
I am usually of the opinion that a person of a known character is far better to deal with than a good deal of those in Pierre who run on some symbolistic good guy, all smiles, gonna bring home the bacon without any concern for a responsible government. I darn sure don’t have to wonder how Sib would be voting or what he really believes. BTW Pat (*****I imagine there are people out there that believe preschool is a government plot to indoctrinate toddlers to socialism and one-world government.****) are you one those who believes if the government does it, wants it or mandates it, it is right and good for all? Sorry Pat, off topic I know.
didn’t say you were off topic, sibby. just want the bickering to stop. i think you go too far in attacking pp. and not in a million years would i have gone out of my way to write a public letter of support for vehle, as pp did. (and you’re both going out of your way to criticize each other. as i said: distracting.)
(I don’t know that I’d call it pro-vehle, as much as anti Sibby. -pp)
I can’t believe the Vice-Chair of the SD GOP voted for this!
Can someone tell me why we elect legislators to represent our party?
This upsets me.
Shantel Krebs must not be really conservative??? I don’t really know anything about her.
shantel not conservative? it may just be more an issue of being insensitive to the plight of the people, struggling through this economy.
the idea of raising revenue for our roads is not necessarily a liberal one. gotta maintain the roads, somehow. but in a down economy, and when there is plenty of waste on non-essential programs, raising taxes sounds like an un-conservative idea to me.
“shantel not conservative? it may just be more an issue of being insensitive to the plight of the people, struggling through this economy.”
lexrex,
Conservatives are often charged for being “insensitive to the plight of the people”, by the big-government Progressive left. When members of the GOP vote with the Democrats, they have left the conservative ranks and have become fellow Progressives. That is what we call RINOs. Progressives are insensitive to all people as they are against individual natural rights, and are instead promoters of collectivist control of our lives and property by the state.
It is now time to stop assuming Repubicans are conservatives. The battle lines need to be drawn by those who adhere to the Progressive movement’s darwinian increase of state control versus limited government true Americans. It is time to have principle-based debates, and stop with the Democrat/Republican fraternity fight.
***It is time to have principle-based debates, and stop with the Democrat/Republican fraternity fight.*** OMG Sib, how are we gonna entertain the herd with principle over the animal house.
thankfully, there’s going to be a strong candidate in district 10, who opposes these increases. he won’t get to vote on the proposal, but hopefully his candidacy will hold shantel’s feet to the fire.
lexrex,
That is good to hear. And there is an effort to find true fiscally responsible candidates in South Dakota, and then support them…and it is not coming from the GOP.
Even though Knudson is playing politics with this, he’s right. Add on some cuts from the rest of state government and I believe most conservatives could support this. There is no doubt that we have to maintain our roads or it will be more expensive in the long run to maintain them. Our registration fees are really low when compared to other states around us and could stand a small increase. Being conservative doesn’t mean you have to oppose any and all increases. As to the individuals advocating taking roads of the trunk system I would ask where?