Readers Write (March 23): National Endowment for the Arts, proposed fee on electric vehicles, GOP opposition to light rail and gas tax

The March 21 editorial cartoon by Mike Lester of the Washington Post Writers Group mocked the grant process of the National Endowment for the Arts, which is targeted for elimination under President Trump's budget proposal. In response, I've made the accompanying comic/information diagram on how NEA grants and funding actually get distributed (and benefit the art community).

Megan Dolezal is an artist and school administrator.

To Rep. Pat Garofalo, R-Farmington:

As a Minnesotan and reasonable believer in free-market economics, I feel the need to reach out to help on your omnibus transportation bill that includes a $75 electric car fee ("Yearly fee on electric vehicles proposed," March 22).

While electric vehicles do not contribute gasoline taxes to fix roads, I am not proportionately taxed for cleaning the air. My eight-seater SUV is not taxed on whatever happens to keep foreign oil flowing to my nearest station.

The negative externalities of my SUV are so great that we've collectively made a push to go electric, even if it means subsidizing such vehicles. If you're going to propose a tax on electric vehicles, make it fair and tax me for everything that I do to pollute the environment for your children.

• • •

No, this not about the money; it's a thinly veiled attempt to discourage the use of zero-emission and hybrid vehicles.

Owners of EVs already subsidize the state through higher registration fees based on value. As noted but poorly explained, the McFarlane study shows that the owner of a LEAF all-electric vehicle pays more to the state through value-based "fees" than the owner of a Chevy Malibu, Toyota Corolla or Nissan Versa does through the paltry gas tax. This disparity persists through a 10-year vehicle ownership period. (The full study may be found at http://bit.ly/2mRjXIR.)

Setting aside for a moment the lower lifetime carbon footprint of EVs (including manufacturing and disposal) and the reduction in local air pollution, this attempt to discourage use of alternative transportation technology fits into the playbook of so-called "conservative" organizations that oppose public transportation, renewable-energy initiatives and other strategies that threaten the hegemony of oil producers.

The other glaring irony is that this "fee" has been proposed by Republicans who hold themselves out as the party of tax reduction (except, apparently, when they receive marching orders from their sponsors). This whole thing stinks like an overloaded catalytic converter and should be vetoed if presented to the governor.

• • •

In the very near future, electric cars will run on power from wind and solar electrical generation. Xcel is expanding solar/wind faster than most Minnesotans realize. Do the House and Senate wish to tax our clean-energy future as well?

Here is my suggestion: Tax coal and natural gas, which accounts for 66 percent of the electrical power used by electric cars. Start taxing the fossil-fuel industry, not the clean-energy future we desire and deserve.

The city of St. Paul is working to attain zero carbon by 2050. Everyone should applaud such foresight. By 2050, solar and wind will be nearly free. Such is the power of new technologies and industrial innovation, when left free to flourish.

Tax dirty energy, and keep your hands off the clean alternatives and a resulting safer future for our children.

Minnesota House Republicans opposed to light rail must assume that Greater Minnesota residents never come to the metro area for anything ("GOP proposes $6 billion road plan," March 22). They must not shop here. They must not have family here. They must not visit recreationally. I say that because they must be assuming that Greater Minnesota wants nothing to do with transit — and that they don't mind the parking fees, the traffic jams and the stress of driving unfamiliar roads. That has to be it, doesn't it?

When my wife and I moved to Falcon Heights from western Minnesota, we chose our neighborhood based on transit availability. Having made heavy use of the Green and Blue lines since then confirms our thinking that Metro Transit light-rail serves ridership needs very effectively. Watching parents with strollers, users of power chairs, bicyclists and the diversity of general ridership underscores our belief that public transit deserves the funding support of the Minnesota Legislature.

As Minnesotans, we have been raised to believe in the power of "working toward the common good." That is what the Metropolitan Council is designed to do in planning how best to move millions of people, and that is what the Legislature was established to do in guiding our state toward becoming a better place in which to live. It's high time for our senators and representatives to dump petty partisanship in favor of following through in building those long-planned transit lines. It's not going to get any cheaper.

• • •

I write once again as the Legislature drones on about how to repair our roads and bridges without raising taxes. Once again I write to suggest that I would not even notice it if the gasoline tax were gradually raised over the next year by 5 to 10 cents per gallon. Gasoline prices jump around constantly due to the whims of the oil marketplace. I would much rather pay an extra nickel or dime per gallon and know that the Minnesota roads and bridges I use every day are being maintained.