(Note: all quotes are from news stories posted on KARE11 website or Mr. Kupchella’s postings and/or emails.  Relevant links are displayed parenthetically next to appropriate passages.)

Well, good for Rick.  He and the KARE 11 staff up against lowly me.  At least that makes it fair.

While of course “taking no position on whether a gas tax is or is not a good idea,” Rick and the gang at we-KARE-oh-so-much-11 found it necessary to take a knee-jerk position questioning not the gas tax proponents facts and figures, but those of us who are critical of this latest Minnesota tax grab.  That is an operating premise worth considering when you’re watching the 10PM news around here.

Unfortunately, Mr. Kupchella’s other premise, the main one of the most recent story (“Gas Tax: Where Does the Money Go?”) has a fatal flaw, at least as it relates to little ‘ol me.  He suggests that viewers have become convinced that Minnesota’s gas tax is being diverted to bike paths and light rail “through talk radio” and other less incendiary means.  Odd, this is the same tactic employed by Rep. James Oberstar and State Sen. Steve Murphy when they were forced to set up their straw men after I criticized their endless ambition for tax hikes.  The only problem is I never said it. 

I have always stated clearly that the diversions were evident in the MVET (sales tax), the general fund, state borrowing, and of course, the massive transit redistribution from the federal gas tax - last seen being paid by automobile users right here in Minnesota.  Indeed, if you care to see just who subsidizes whom when it comes to transit versus cars, check out this link from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics.

Since Mr. Kupchella has seen fit to rebuke my views on transportation and taxes, let’s tackle his latest “response” to our show one by one.  First, the notion of our per capita tax ranking.  Let me stipulate that I do think KARE 11 used the per capita figure as it relates to Minnesota’s tax burden.  Just the wrong one. 

Can we be clear on this?  The question at hand is whether or not the STATE of Minnesota should have authorized tax increases totaling $6.6 billion dollars.  Local governments do not meet in St. Paul and do not raise statewide revenue for biennial budgets.  The unit of government now passing legislation to raise taxes is the STATE unit of government.  Therefore, the relevant question to ask is whether the STATE is overtaxing Minnesotans.  The only answer to that is the STATE tax burden per capita as reflected in the Census data.  We rank 7th highest according to the latest Census tax figures.  I provide it once again. (Link)

If you really want to “look at ALL the taxes levied by government authorities within the state,” as Mr. Kupchella suggests, you’d have to include those pesky federal gas tax dollars which are continually diverted for light rail transit as well as bike and trail paths (in fact, the last federal highway bill had $24 billion worth of such pork and $52 billion worth of transit subsidies).  KARE 11 does not, saying in their latest piece that “state gas tax money does not go to bike paths or light rail” and citing that “the state will spend less than $1 billion” (emphasis author) on our metro rail projects.

Now I’m confused here.  When it comes to including per capita taxes, KARE 11 wants to include other units of government to compute the figure.  But when it comes to light rail, it insists on using not only just the state monies, but just those funds coming from the state gas tax, even when general fund revenues (and state bonding) give millions to light rail transit.

Of course, including local taxes not only makes the tax burden look smaller, it defeats the very purpose of raising ever more state revenue if you believe that those local taxes “are increasing at tremendous rates to make up for what the counties say is a lack of state funding.”  As Mr. Kupchella inadvertently concedes (don’t you love the sound of that?), local taxes are fairly low, about the middle of the pack nationwide. Surely the KARE 11 staff isn’t suggesting that it’s OK to raise already high state taxes because our local levies are low…or are they?

Regardless, even if you accept KARE 11’s insistence on including the local tax data (oh just 12th highest, well good, for a minute there I was worried), it is fascinating that there are a myriad of other well respected organizations throughout the nation that put our tax burden a bit higher than 12th.  Because the Minnesota Taxpayers Association (MTA) does not is less a reflection on them as “liberals” as it is on KARE 11’s apparent desire to find the most favorable ranking for Minnesota government when compared to data from the likes of the non-partisan Tax Foundation, The Taxpayers Network, The Public Policy Institute of New York State, and The Business Council.

It should also be said that Mr. Kupchella’s attempt to categorize the MTA as “politically neutral” by citing their board, replete with members of the business community, as evidence, must be tempered with the now common knowledge that those leading the charge at the Capitol for the gas, license, and sales tax increase were none other than members of the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, no doubt, politically neutral as well.

Now it’s always nice when the other side makes the argument for you (better check those staffers Rick), but let’s take a closer look at their assertion of “KTLK’s ongoing mischaracterization of how gas tax money is distributed in the state." The fact is Minnesota’s Highway User Tax Distribution Fund (HUTDF) IS siphoned off at the expense of the Metro area in rather transparent fashion. The state’s Trunk Highway Fund gets only 59% of the revenues from motorists. (Link) Using Kupchella’s own figure of 45% of that, and you get only about 26% of the excise, gas and license revenue going to the Metro area from the Trunk Fund.  The Trunk Funding formula shortchanges the Metro, which again, is what I have always said.

Counties and municipalities do get most of the rest, with roughly “a third going to the seven country metro area” as Mr. Kupchella puts it.  But that only accounts for another 12% of the HUTDF, bringing the total to just 38% of the funds going toward where nearly 60% of the state’s population resides.  And of course where congestion is most acute.  This is bad enough, but apparently Kupchella & Co. can’t help themselves, continuing to rely on the proverbial bait and switch.  To wit:  “It’s also worth noting there are more than six times as many lane-miles of roadways outside the seven county metro areas as there are inside.”

Ah, yes.  But lane miles mean little if fewer people are using them.  What counts to traffic congestion experts, such as Rand in gridlocked California, is the vehicle lane miles or vehicle miles of travel per lane. (Link)
And here would there be much doubt that the metro area is king?

The transportation debate in Minnesota is multifarious and most of the time pits the usual political forces against one another.  By leaving the pending $1 billion pork strewn bonding bill (which could have been spent for roads and bridges, but instead will go for rail, zoos, bike paths, and happy trails) out of the debate, Mr. Kupchella has left his viewers wanting.  And by saying the vehicle sales tax or MVET diversion of at least 40% to transit isn’t really a “diversion” of funds because “that was decided by public vote just a few years ago” (actually it was just in ’06), Mr. Kupchella seems to be suggesting that anything the voters or politicians decide on is above reproach.  Strange idea for a newsman.

We could go on, such as his suggestion that we need $3 billion per year for transportation when “the whole state budget is less than $18 billion per year for everything.”  It’s much more than that, especially when you include federal funds for transportation, (Link) which are substantial.  But then you’d have talk about the billions spent from Minnesota’s share of the federal gas tax on light rail here and around the country.  No, better to just narrow the focus to where the state gas tax money goes and pretend an increase in the levy is simply unavoidable. 

Anyone except taxpayers and viewers who know a sleight of hand when they see it.  The complete picture would not have allowed Mr. Kupchella to piously proclaim that “anyone would be hard pressed to blame the shortfall on light rail,” but it would have been a more defensible piece.

Finally, Mr. Kupchella claims he is “rather suspicious of [my] purposes,” in effect, accusing me of bias.  He is right.  I have a bias in favor of less taxes and more freedom; in favor of limited government and more choice.  I see the world and the issues through this prism and judge it accordingly.  Unfortunately, our friends in the media have a bias too.  They see things through the prism of government and what the apologists for big government tell them.  I’m afraid that culture in the newsroom is so dominate that the directors, producers and reporters can’t--or won’t--even see it themselves.  The only difference in the two approaches to “journalism” is I just told you my bias, too many members of the media won’t tell you theirs.

And that’s too bad, because there is a vibrant market out there for the other side of the story.  The free market side as opposed to the bureaucrat’s side.  The small business side as opposed to lawsuit hungry attorney general’s side.  The property owner’s side as opposed to the environmental regulator’s side.  The automobile owner’s side as opposed to the smart growth mass transit side.  And of course the taxpayer’s side as opposed to the tax increaser’s side.

But as long as our local television news is filled with dinner time commentary from left-wing columnists, global warming hyperbole from so-called anchors, and “extras” whose first inclination is to find an easy straw man to knock down in defense of more government, the viewers in the Twin Cities will continue to turn to more straightforward news outlets, such as KTLK for instance.

Maybe this is all part of the recent KARE 11 campaign titled “Going Green.”  After all, more transit funding--of which the sales tax component of the legislature’s tax grab will fund--fits nicely with the new urbanist, smart growth, environmentally conscious crowd.  But the station may soon run out of colors if they’re not careful, because on this issue it appears they’ve already gone “Red.”

Jason Lewis
March 2008