Sean Duffy Makes Passionate $690,000,000 Plea for New St.Croix River Replacement Bridge

For a country that is so steeped in debt is this a priority or an expensive convenience?
A constituent seeks to find the truth in the muddied waters of Washington politics



Unless you live near St. Croix County you probably won’t hear much about the debate to replace the old Stillwater Bridge which connects Stillwater MN (pop. 18,000) and Houlton WI (pop. 400), but you might raise an eyebrow to its hefty price tag of $690,000,000. Now to be fair, as the debate goes, the bridge does physically connect the far outskirts of the Minneapolis/St. Paul area (15th largest metropolitan in the US) to the fastest growing county in Wisconsin – St. Croix County. The Wisconsin side of the newly proposed bridge is about 6 miles north of Hudson’s I-94 bridge to Minnesota and south of Somerset (pop. 3000) and about 15 minutes from New Richmond (pop. 8500).

The 1931 Stillwater bridge is old and its functionality is dated – snarling traffic in Stillwater at peak hours. Yet, as early as April 2011, the Minnesota Department of Transportation deemed it safe. So safe in fact, in their MnDOT Condition Report, the opening sentence states rather frankly “The Stillwater Lift Bridge is safe”.
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projects/liftbridge/pdfs/ConditionSummaryApril2011.pdf

So why all the hoopla? The US Senate passed the bill by unanimous consent, the House passed it by wide margins too 339-80, and even President Obama signed off on the bill. Technically the bill (s.1134) isn’t even a funding bill; it only removes the barriers that the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act instilled that prevent the bridge from being built. With thousands of bridges deemed obsolete and potential ready to collapse by the Obama administration how can we possibly pay for all of them?

My curiosity further grew when a Democrat on the Minnesota side of the bridge, Betty McCollum (D) MN 4th district, voiced strong opposition to this monstrosity and a striking contrast to Republican Sean Duffy’s viewpoint that didn’t quite seem to follow the conservatism he proclaimed to follow that got him elected to office. In fact, if a politician didn’t have a D or R after his name, you would swear that McCollum was the Republican and Duffy was the Democrat based on their bridge beliefs.

Something doesn’t make sense to me and it all gets back to what is being connected by the bridge and maybe more importantly why. So, on the unordinary hot spring day of March 28th, I set out with stopwatch in hand to get down to basics and try to make sense of something that didn’t compute. Surely we are not debating that a population of 300 needs to be connected by a $690,000,000 bridge. The answer needs to be further upstream maybe Somerset or more likely New Richmond with a growing population of 8500, but what are the facts and does that make spending that kind of money more palatable.

Here are the results of my time trials:

From I-94 and I-694 (E. of St. Paul) to downtown New Richmond             30:24

From downtown New Richmond to I-694 and Hwy 36 (NE of St. Paul)      30:33

What does this mean? It certainly means that you are not going to beat me to downtown St. Paul if you take the Stillwater Bridge from New Richmond instead of taking existing routes. You aren’t going to beat me to Minneapolis either. In fact, you aren’t going to beat me anywhere in the Twin Cities and if you happen to it will only be by the short distance of driving up I-694 or about 2 minutes.

The very basis of the reasoning to spend $690,000,000 on a new bridge was to join the fastest growing county in Wisconsin to the 15th largest metropolitan area in the United States, as argued by our Congressman Duffy, and that basis was proven false. The bridge does indeed join the two states, but the cost/benefit rational makes no sense what so ever. This bridge which destroys the pristine waters of the St. Croix River is a bridge of convenience, it is a bridge of many wants, it replaces a MnDOT approved existing bridge and most importantly in a country being rebuilt on a mountain of debt it is a bridge that is unaffordable and impractical.

Extra:  Time trials from I-94/I-694 to Roberts to New Richmond

Sean Duffy Votes For Payroll Tax Cut Extension - Adds $143 Billion to National Debt

With nearly a 2 to 1 passing vote margin in both the House and the Senate and a flick of the wrist by President Obama the governing bodies of the United States delivered a gift wrapped addition to the national debt for the American public. The $143 billion compromise extends the ‘temporary’ payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits to the end of the year and will leave Congress with the same dilemma we’ve seen before – either play the Grinch before Christmas or to cave, yet again, on the hard decisions.

I just don’t understand the reasoning and officially none was really championed by either party more or less because both want it quickly off the radar. Democrats are for it, of course I’ll remind everyone that Democrats had controlling power in Congress when it was passed and sign by Obama on Dec 17, 2010 and now the majority of Republicans have caved in to continually damage any chance of fiscal recovery in my lifetime.

Here’s the long winded 13:10 video of the WH response including my favorite comment (early on) that “this bill moves the country forward”, to what I do not know.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2010/12/17/president-obama-signs-tax-cuts-and-unemployment-insurance-legislat

What’s the line up for Christmas 2012 look like? Set to expire at year’s end we have the Bush tax cut extensions (yes, it’s still out there and yes both party’s are afraid to touch it). Next, we have the National Debt Ceiling Cap – here again we classic “Duffy Confusion”, where he voted to give the authorization to President Obama and I’m assuming he didn’t expect him to use it, rrrright! Finally, we have the 2% FICA payroll tax extension which apparently has been permanently attached to unemployment benefits; I guess in the eyes of Congress the two were made for each other and everybody gets a little something.

Why pick on the Duffster? He’s just giving his constituents in the 7th district what they want, right? I’m not so sure about that, if people fully understood the severe dampage that putting an extra $40 in your pocket meant rather than paying it into FICA they would be telling him where to stick his vote. And don’t you Pat Kreitlow fans worry; his tiring Obamanomic retread ideals will get equal play. For now let’s move forward and secure the facts from omission.

Extras: House voted on February 17, 2012 293 – 132 for bill passage. Notable No votes – Michelle Bachmann (R) and Ron Kind (D) whom S. Duffy replaces in St. Croix County through redistricting.

Julie Lassa Throws Dave Obey Under the Bus

News From 91.3 KUWS
Lassa: She's own person, distancing herself from Obey
Story posted Friday at 3:33 p.m.
http://www.businessnorth.com/kuws.asp?RID=3584

9/11/2010

The leading Democrat in the race to replace Wisconsin Congressman Dave Obey is not planning to ask him to campaign for her if she wins Tuesday's primary. Mike Simonson reports from Superior.

Since deciding in May not to run for re-election after serving northern Wisconsin in the U.S. House since 1969, Obey won't be a center piece of State Senator Julie Lassa's campaign. Lassa says she appreciates Obey's service but will campaign apart from him.

"The page has now turned and we're beginning to write a new chapter and I'm hoping to be able to write that chapter with the people of this district to making sure they have someone who will be a strong and independent voice."

Lassa says she'll quote "clean up Washington" if she's elected in November. Republicans are blaming Obey as head of the House Appropriations Committee for running up the federal deficit. Meanwhile, Lassa's Democratic primary opponent Realtor Don Raihala of Superior says he doesn't see Obey as a liability.

"Absolutely not. Dave Obey is very popular. I mean you don't stay in office for 41 years without that kind of influence so, no he wouldn't be a liability."

This is Raihala's first run for office in Wisconsin.

Lassa Puts Positive Spin on Job Killer Known as Cap & Trade

There is no pretty way to disguise the planned energy policies and agendas of the Obama administration. No candidate would dare to campaign on the need for your energy costs to increase because it’s the right thing to do, however Julie Lassa is doing just that.

She talks about reducing the demand for fossil fuels and putting people to work in the clean energy field, but doesn’t it also mean that those employed in the ‘dirty’ energy field are also about to be reduced. Is she forgetting that dirty energy employs 1000’s in the seventh district of Wisconsin and many 100,000’s nationwide. I don’t believe those high paying union workers in the coal and oil industries are comforted knowing that last year a bill was passed extending unemployment to three years for jobs lost to green energy.

It is an inarguable truth that the passage of global warming legislation kills dirty energy jobs and increases the costs of the energies you consume; what is debatable is just by how much. Wisconsin’s only oil refinery, Murphy Oil, is in Superior and their website, Fuel America, has this to say about it:
If you are one of the many hard-working Americans who depend on their cars to get to work, school and home, you will shoulder the lion’s share of the cost of a climate change bill being considered in Congress.
The Waxman-Markey (H.R. 2454) and Boxer-Kerry global warming bills would increase energy costs, increase U.S. reliance on imported energy, reduce economic output, and jeopardize American jobs at the worst possible time – when we are fighting to climb out of a severe recession. Higher energy prices cause a ripple effect throughout our economy, increasing the costs of goods and services we all use and need

The same sentiments can be said about affordable electricity. In a popular interview, found on the internet, President Obama says, “Under my plan of a cap and trade system electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket”. It’s bad enough being in a recession, now we have to worry about paying for our increased energy bills.

Growing up on a farm, Julie Lassa should know that farmers despise high diesel prices. As a matter of fact, I would have to say the vast majority of Wisconsinites are not welcoming four dollar gasoline or higher electricity rates with open arms because of this type of legislation.

This can’t possibly be what the majority of the citizens of the United States want, is it?

Since the House version of Cap and Trade is hung up in the Senate, it is your duty to tell Russ Feingold, with your vote, that you don’t want this type of bill. When the bill gets back to the House for tweaking make sure that your next elected Representative has the courage to squash it out.

Cap and Trade Hurts Superior [everyone]

Cap & Trade Hurts Superior

For decades oil and coal have supported Superior with high paying jobs and tax revenues. Now is the time to support them with your vote this election cycle. The future success of the planned oil refinery expansion and the continued success of regional coal supplier Midwest Energy are now in the hands of the voter. Simply put, if you want gasoline and electricity rates to remain relatively affordable, vote for a candidate that opposes the Cap and Trade of carbon emissions.

It makes very little sense for the United States to take on the world’s perceived problems by saddling its citizens with outrageous energy taxes while enormous countries like China, Russia, and India are unwilling to participate on the same scale. Even more preposterous is to implement these types of policies when our country is at its most trying point of economic recovery.

Both Superior energy companies share similar viewpoints on Cap and Trade, but Murphy Oil’s viewpoint is more public and direct to the point as stated in the following two paragraphs from its fuel America website, Stand With Us Against Higher Fuel Prices:

If you are one of the many hard-working Americans who depend on their cars to get to work, school and home, you will shoulder the lion’s share of the cost of a climate change bills being considered in Congress.

The Waxman-Markey (H.R. 2454) and Boxer-Kerry global warming bills would increase energy costs, increase U.S. reliance on imported energy, reduce economic output, and jeopardize American jobs at the worst possible time – when we are fighting to climb out of a severe recession. Higher energy prices cause a ripple effect throughout our economy, increasing the costs of goods and services we all use and need.

Leaders in both political parties agree on the bills damaging effects, yet differ on their support. President Obama said “under my plan of a Cap and Trade system electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket”, yet fully supports its implementation. John Boehner, House minority leader, calls it “a punishing tax on American companies and consumers”.

With passage of Cap and Trade legislation looming on the horizon and its fine regulatory details hidden in thousands of pages of text creating an air of uncertainty; it is no wonder that companies are holding their cash reserves rather than expanding their workforce or facilities.

Julie Lassa and Russ Feingold openly support a Cap and Trade system that will ultimately result in drastic cost increases of the energies you consume. Use your vote this fall to let them know that cap and trade not only hurts Superior, but the entire recovery of the United States.