Translating Political Language into English for the Common Folk
From Logical Lady Sue Jeffers
In the land of ten thousand taxes and fees, left-leaning legislators of both major political parties govern us. Minnesota consistently ranks among the highest taxed states in the nation. The business climate and job and housing markets look bleak. Government expansion, regulation and intrusion are reaching a breaking point.
For the most part, Minnesotans go ahead with their daily lives blissfully unaware of the grisly details of government’s operation, with only a vague notion of the larger situation based on sound-bites from the nightly local newscast.
This legislative session, the big issue is transportation. “Transportation” is has become a buzzword, and a dangerous one at that. For most of us, transportation is an automobile, so when we hear government officials talking about transportation, naturally, we think of congestion, roads and bridges. Bridge safety is a powerful new concern in the public consciousness that easily comes to mind when transportation issues are mentioned.
When politicians hear and use the word transportation they do not mean roads and bridges. They use transportation as a catchall term, often used by design, to obfuscate the truth.
Furthering the obfuscation this legislative session will come in the form of diversions like, who takes the blame for the bridge collapse; firing the DOT commissioner; compensation for the bridge survivors and is the NTSB credible. Knowing there’s a great big pile of money at stake, all interested parties are queuing up to get their piece of the government pie.
While it is important to understand the problem, diversions and possible solutions, it is even more crucial that we understand the terminology. Let’s start by clarifying words that politician’s use and what these words really mean.
“Transportation”- They really mean light and heavy rail transit, buildings (like a bicycle station with public showers for dirty cyclists, for example), bike paths, nature trails, buses and then, if there are any scraps left over, roads and bridges.
“Comprehensive transportation package” - This definitely doesn’t mean roads. This means even more money spent on light and heavy rail and various transit buildings instead of roads and bridges. Whenever you hear “comprehensive” and “package” coupled together with any other word or phrase, there is also a plan to raise taxes bundled into that “package.”
“Maintain fiscal discipline” – This means 8-10% spending increases for the state budget, when inflation is around 2% and taxpayers are seeing less and less real return for their work. Only in government is this called fiscal discipline.
“Appropriate levels of funding” – See above. Yes it is yet another way to say “tax increase.” We will never hear how much is “enough” because there will never be enough, they will always need more.
“Reasonable gas tax increase” – This can not exist without spending reform and accountability first. Any gas tax increase is regressive and hurts families and small businesses the hardest. Ironically it doesn’t matter that 57% of the public does not support a gas tax. What they mean by “reasonable” is the highest amount they could get away with at the moment.
“Multi-modal system” – I so love it when we come up with fancy new terms. Translation: trains, trams, trolleys, light and heavy rail transit. Maybe a bike path. Roads and bridges are definitely not the priority when this kind of language is used.
“Revenue Raiser” – Easy one (and also a Democrat favorite) This is just a fancy way to say “tax increase.”
“Real money” – This one is my favorite. Minnesota has a general fund budget of $34.5 billion. That is just the starting point, our legislators spend much more on top of that. This is apparently not “real money” to them. Real money really means a tax increase.
“Quality of life issue” – Politicians love feel-good words. This one is often used to justify - you guessed it - tax increases. More of our “real money” can then be wasted on solutions we already know won’t solve the problems of congestion and safety.
“Bipartisan agreement” – Hold onto your wallets! This means that all sides agree on the plan to best stick it to the general public and they now have even more of our money to waste on the latest boondoggle.
The outrageously expensive transportation legislation of 2007 that included a metro-wide sales tax increase, a gas tax increase, and a “wheelage” tax (translation: a new tax on your vehicle, “just because”) and a license tab fee increase. It will be reincarnated bigger and more expensive in the 2008 version.
The general public is about to be inundated with a PR campaign pushing costly, wasteful and unproductive non-solutions. Of course, they won’t call it that. They’ll call it “A bipartisan plan for improving our quality of life through a comprehensive transportation package that maintains fiscal discipline and raises revenue with a reasonable gas tax so our multi-modal transportation system is appropriately funded.”
Translation: Big Tax Increases coming in 2008. Congestion and road and bridge safety will continue to deteriorate.
In the land of ten thousand taxes and fees, left-leaning legislators of both major political parties govern us. Minnesota consistently ranks among the highest taxed states in the nation. The business climate and job and housing markets look bleak. Government expansion, regulation and intrusion are reaching a breaking point.
For the most part, Minnesotans go ahead with their daily lives blissfully unaware of the grisly details of government’s operation, with only a vague notion of the larger situation based on sound-bites from the nightly local newscast.
This legislative session, the big issue is transportation. “Transportation” is has become a buzzword, and a dangerous one at that. For most of us, transportation is an automobile, so when we hear government officials talking about transportation, naturally, we think of congestion, roads and bridges. Bridge safety is a powerful new concern in the public consciousness that easily comes to mind when transportation issues are mentioned.
When politicians hear and use the word transportation they do not mean roads and bridges. They use transportation as a catchall term, often used by design, to obfuscate the truth.
Furthering the obfuscation this legislative session will come in the form of diversions like, who takes the blame for the bridge collapse; firing the DOT commissioner; compensation for the bridge survivors and is the NTSB credible. Knowing there’s a great big pile of money at stake, all interested parties are queuing up to get their piece of the government pie.
While it is important to understand the problem, diversions and possible solutions, it is even more crucial that we understand the terminology. Let’s start by clarifying words that politician’s use and what these words really mean.
“Transportation”- They really mean light and heavy rail transit, buildings (like a bicycle station with public showers for dirty cyclists, for example), bike paths, nature trails, buses and then, if there are any scraps left over, roads and bridges.
“Comprehensive transportation package” - This definitely doesn’t mean roads. This means even more money spent on light and heavy rail and various transit buildings instead of roads and bridges. Whenever you hear “comprehensive” and “package” coupled together with any other word or phrase, there is also a plan to raise taxes bundled into that “package.”
“Maintain fiscal discipline” – This means 8-10% spending increases for the state budget, when inflation is around 2% and taxpayers are seeing less and less real return for their work. Only in government is this called fiscal discipline.
“Appropriate levels of funding” – See above. Yes it is yet another way to say “tax increase.” We will never hear how much is “enough” because there will never be enough, they will always need more.
“Reasonable gas tax increase” – This can not exist without spending reform and accountability first. Any gas tax increase is regressive and hurts families and small businesses the hardest. Ironically it doesn’t matter that 57% of the public does not support a gas tax. What they mean by “reasonable” is the highest amount they could get away with at the moment.
“Multi-modal system” – I so love it when we come up with fancy new terms. Translation: trains, trams, trolleys, light and heavy rail transit. Maybe a bike path. Roads and bridges are definitely not the priority when this kind of language is used.
“Revenue Raiser” – Easy one (and also a Democrat favorite) This is just a fancy way to say “tax increase.”
“Real money” – This one is my favorite. Minnesota has a general fund budget of $34.5 billion. That is just the starting point, our legislators spend much more on top of that. This is apparently not “real money” to them. Real money really means a tax increase.
“Quality of life issue” – Politicians love feel-good words. This one is often used to justify - you guessed it - tax increases. More of our “real money” can then be wasted on solutions we already know won’t solve the problems of congestion and safety.
“Bipartisan agreement” – Hold onto your wallets! This means that all sides agree on the plan to best stick it to the general public and they now have even more of our money to waste on the latest boondoggle.
The outrageously expensive transportation legislation of 2007 that included a metro-wide sales tax increase, a gas tax increase, and a “wheelage” tax (translation: a new tax on your vehicle, “just because”) and a license tab fee increase. It will be reincarnated bigger and more expensive in the 2008 version.
The general public is about to be inundated with a PR campaign pushing costly, wasteful and unproductive non-solutions. Of course, they won’t call it that. They’ll call it “A bipartisan plan for improving our quality of life through a comprehensive transportation package that maintains fiscal discipline and raises revenue with a reasonable gas tax so our multi-modal transportation system is appropriately funded.”
Translation: Big Tax Increases coming in 2008. Congestion and road and bridge safety will continue to deteriorate.
Labels: Priorities, Transportation
posted by The Lady Logician at
9:15 AM
1 Comments:
Great article Sue. I agree with all but one definition: "Bi-partisan." In this legislature bi-partisan means it is 100% of the DFLers and one nut case republican. Usually Ron Earhardt (If it is new environmental legislation, then it might beTim Pawlenty).
By
Anonymous, at 7:04 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home