Showing posts with label Tony Cornish. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tony Cornish. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 07, 2008

MN 24-B : Congrats to Branstad on NRA rating

The National Rife Association Political Victory Fund has issued it’s 2008 endorsements. Some of the ratings are to be expected (Al Franken getting an “F”) but at least in the Congressional races, their ratings are not biased toward either major political party as illustrated by Tim Walz (D-MN-01) and John Kline (R-MN-02) both receiving “A” ratings.

However, in the state legislature, there is a strong sentiment to support the Republican candidates … if all their endorsed candidates got elected, the Republicans would control the Minnesota House by a sizable majority. In fact, most of the DFL challengers got an “F” meaning “A vehement anti-gun candidate who always opposes gun owners' rights and/or actively leads anti-gun legislative efforts, or sponsors anti-gun legislation.” or a “?” meaning “Failed to answer NRA-PVF candidate questionnaire, often an indication of indifference, if not outright hostility, to gun owners' and sportsmen's rights.”

Yet, when a challenger to an incumbent, who has had strong NRA support in the past, gets anything other than a failing grade lets voter know that the challenger is worthy of consideration.
In Minnesota House District 24-B, the incumbent Tony Cornish, who is known for his passion for enacting Conceal and Carry legislation, received the expected “A+” rating.
But his challenger, John Branstad got a “C” rating.
That should be assuring to hunters in the district who enjoy their sport, but are also concerned with other issues … like tax fairness, funding for our schools so that we can be globally competitive and addressing our physical infrastructure needs.

No doubt, Cornish has used his strong NRA support to garner campaign donations. On public land throughout the district, Cornish has his red yard signs (white lettering and a “Sheriff’s star” in the center) littered as if a dog was marking its territory. Additionally, he has billboards and has been on the radio for months.
Those donations buy a lot of name awareness.
But voters need to ask, how will the state legislature react to the potential $2 billion dollar financial budget crisis ?
Cornish’s track record is one that has protected corporate businesses and the wealthy.

With a state unemployment rate exceeding 6%, this election will have a lot of important issues for voters to base their selection in addition to gun rights.
Branstad’s NRA rating is enough for sportsmen to look at his positions on the issues and realize that Cornish is not the only name on the ballot.

Saturday, June 28, 2008

MN-24-B : Honk For Tony Cornish

State Representative Tony Cornish (R-24-B) has the perfect vehicle for a rural legislator in perpetual campaign mode -- a Ford pick-up truck complete with an ample number of “Support the Troops” ribbons, a collection of decals that lets everyone know that he likes Ducks Unlimited, a placard with his picture and “Re-Elect Tony Cornish” on both side panels, and a single bumper sticker.

The bumper sticker is not a “John McCain for President, even though he is one of McCain’s original members of Team Minnesota.
The bumper sticker is not a “Dr. Brian Davis for Congress” as Cornish endorsed Randy Demmer.
The bumper sticker is not a “Coleman for Senate” … maybe he wants to drive the bus?
No, the bumper sticker says “HONK if you want to pay Higher Taxes”.

It’s great campaign rhetoric, but the wrong question is being asked.
It should say “HONK if you want FAIR Taxes”.

It’s not a question of whether any of us want to pay more taxes, but is the current tax system FAIR to all income groups ?

A quick look at Table 1-8 on page 20 and Table 2-2 on page 27 of the 2007 Minnesota Tax Incidence Study tells us that some are paying more and some are paying less. The study divided 2,363,258 households into ten equally weighted groups and then determined breakpoints by household incomes.

Group 1 Income of $10,175 and under Paid 19.3 % in taxes
Group 2 Income of $16,816 max paid 11.4 % in taxes
Group 3 $23,135 paid 10.9 %
Group 4 $29,766 paid 12.0 %
Group 5 $37,559 paid 12.6 %
Group 6 $47,192 paid 12.4 %
Group 7 $59,748 paid 12.3 %
Group 8 $76,437 paid 12.4 %
Group 9 $105,450 paid 12.4 %
Group 10 $105,451 and more paid 10.8 %
Overall the Total Group tax rate was 11.7 % meaning that because of the highest earners, the overall rate looks lower, but most of us are not in that income pool.

The Top 5 % (representing just 118,195 taxpayers) began income at $146,809 paid 10.4 % in taxes, while the Top 1 % (23,668 taxpayers) begain income at$354,758 paid only 9.3 % in taxes.

The obvious inference is that those with the greatest ability to pay actually contribute the least. Actually, there really isn’t any significant difference for most of us until the $100,000 threshold is reached … then the tax burden starts reducing.

Fair … you decide !

Will the next legislature address taxes ?
More than likely, but will it be any fairer ?
One group will most likely get a hearing is business since Governor Tim Pawlenty (R) has initiated a 21st CENTURY TAX REFORM COMMISSION. Business taxes contribute 22.6% to the State’s operating revenues, so if there is a reduction in business taxes, the funds will have to made up by somebody … or services cut.

The difference between taxpaying citizens and business is that taxpayers pay based on wages while a business pays based on profitibality ... its a fair system, unfortunately, with today's tight economy many businesses will be reporting lower profits (or even losses) ... the result is lower tax payments from the business component.

And will other operating costs go up …if you think about the price of gasoline in your vehicle, how do you think that price increase impacts all the state vehicles from snow plows to school buses.

Face it, the State is looking at difficult times ahead.
Will our legislators make changes that create a Fairer system ?

Let me offer one proposal that in and of itself would not be a tax increase but instead an elimination of a tax break. Currently, Minnesota Income Taxes follows the Federal Tax Code and allows contributions to retirement accounts (i.e. 401k) to be excluded from income, since it will be taxed when it is withdrawn. That would be fair if the monies are earned in Minnesota and the person spends their retirement years in Minnesota … if they move out of the state, then those deferred dollars might be taxable income in the other state …. in other words, Minnesota loses. The 2008 401K contribution limits for employee contributions is a maximum of $15,500 which many companies restrict to a maximum of 10% of wages. For example, if the wage was $40,000 then the max would be $4,000 deferred which may mean an additional $282 in taxes this year (but when the deferred dollars are used the full $4000 would not be taxable); if the wage was $354,758 then the maximum would be $15,500 or $1093 in increased tax payments. If you do not participate in a 401k plan, then there would be no impact. This small change would help the state now.

But one thing voters know about Representative Cornish is that he does not like taxes. His votes against the gas tax, the bonding bill and the omnibus tax bill indicate a strong support for the current system. Not necessarily a Fair Tax system but one that the affluent must appreciate.

I don’t know if Cornish will have any competition from the DFL, Independence or Green Parties, but this voter will be anxiously waiting to hear their tax policies.

In the meantime, I’m on the lookout for a bumper sticker for my Ford pick-up that says “HONK if you REJECT Tony Cornish”.

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

Tony Cornish Radio Spots Are Out of Tune with the District 24-B

By now most of know the news, yet the whining just continues.

Minnesotans will see their first state gas tax increase in 20 years as part of an ambitious $6.6 billion over 10 years for Minnesota roads, bridges and transit transportation solution. The basis is a 5.5 cent-a-gallon increase in gas tax by October 1st ; plus a gas tax debt surcharge phased in up to 3.5 cents would be established to repay the trunk highway bonds; and increase vehicle tab fees on newly registered vehicles. Additionally, it would authorize counties in the Twin Cities metropolitan area to impose a 0.25 percent metropolitan transportation sales tax without referendum and a $20 excise tax on vehicles sold at retail. In the other 80 counties a tax of up to 0.5 percent could be raised by voter referendum and only for a specific project.

Overall, a broad approach for a long overdue necessity.

But the cries from those who opposed grow louder every day. And not just in grousing on Internet websites, but now over the radio. My State Representative, Tony Cornish, is now on the radio announcing "I was voting for my commuters this is a bad bill it really doesn't help us and I wanted a rewrite."

Yet despite his cries, Cornish is a co-sponsor of H. F. No. 2219 which would have raised the gas tax by a nickel. So, is the extra half-cent worthy of all the belly-aching?

Affecting the price of gas has not always been a problem. Previously, Cornish introduced (with potential Congressional candidate Randy Demmer) H. F. 216 which increased the minimum ethanol content from 10 percent to 20 percent. In fact, ethanol is so good for our state, that the legislature increased the subsidy rate last year. So taxes are bad, but subsidies are needed ?

Yet, has Cornish addressed the concerns of Counties that are being impacted by the desire to produce more ethonol ? Nicollet County Engineer Mike Wagner said that the alternative fuel boom in southern Minnesota creates a new set of transportation problems. Specifically, county and township roads aren't built to handle the heavy truck traffic going to and from ethanol and biodiesel plants.

Further, Lehman Brothers analysts are concerned about overproduction of ethanol but that the “transportation bottlenecks are a bigger problem."

It should be acknowledged that others do not agree with Cornish.
State Senator Dennis Frederickson (R-New Ulm) saw the need for this investment as did State Representative Rod Hamilton (R-Mountain Lake). For anyone traveling out of Cornish’s district, they will quickly find themselves in Frederickson or Hamilton’s districts.
Even the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce disapproved of Cornish’s vote stating “Although not perfect, this transportation funding bill represented an important investment in the roads and transit systems that move Minnesota's goods and people. The bill included a 5 cent fuel tax increase; 3.5 cent fuel tax surcharge for bonding; 1/4 cent Twin Cities metro are only sales tax for transit; and, a transportation strategic management and operations task force to bring forward strategies that will improve efficiencies at MnDOT and the Met Council. All of these investments are important for building a maintaining a transportation infrastructure for today and beyond.

It’s time for Cornish to grow up and shut up. And believe it or not, Representative Cornish, there are residents in District 24-B that believe in safer roads and bridges and do not like the idea of the next generation paying through bonding.

These radio spots may be an early re-election campaign tactic, but this listener feels you are out of tune.