Gov. Tim Pawlenty says he'll veto the dime a gallon gas tax increase headed to his desk, he still expects part of the bill to become law. Democrats in the Senate seem to think there's still a chance the governor will change his mind and sign the bill...at least that's what they say in MPR's Michael Khoo's report:

Of the state's eight major budget bills, transportation is now the only one to pass both houses and head for Gov. Pawlenty's desk. But it's not likely to get much further than that. Pawlenty has restated his intention to veto the bill, primarily because of the 10 cent gas tax hike. DFL Senate Majority Leader Dean Johnson, however, said he thinks Pawlenty can be prevailed upon to change his mind.

"Governor, this is a referendum on your leadership. Not on your political agenda, on the leadership of this state. That's what this is about," he said.

The bill passed in the Senate on a straight party-line vote with DFLers and the Legislature's lone independent in support. It originated, however, on the House side, where 10 Republicans defied Pawlenty and GOP leadership first to propose the gas tax increase and then to side with Democrats in passing it. The current gas tax stands at 20 cents per gallon and hasn't been increased since 1988.

That part of the bill the governor thinks will survive is something he proposed in the first place. As Khoo explains, if voters approve it, other areas of state spending will suffer:

Pawlenty has also proposed constitutionally dedicating the sales tax paid on car purchases to roads and transit. That idea, actually, is contained in the bill which he's about to veto. But since governors aren't allowed to veto potential constitutional amendments, Pawlenty spokesman Brian McClung said it will survive the veto pen.

"That was the cornerstone of Gov. Pawlenty's transportation package that he unveiled in December. And that will move forward. That's a good start towards getting a jump on our road projects," he said.

The dedicated motor vehicle sales tax would shift about $2.5 billion to transportation over 10 years -- but it's not a net increase in overall money to the state. It would come from funds that would otherwise have been used for other state needs, including education, health care or public safety.

And opponents will certainly point that out if the provision ends up on the ballot next year.

In a move that surprised no one, the House passed a new version of the handgun permit law and sent it to the governor's desk. Pawlenty says he'll sign it, and had this to say about the popularity of the bill on MPR's Midday program Wednesday:

"More people have been injured by light rail than the concealed carry bill."

Two people have been killed in light rail transit accidents. We know for sure that one person has been killed, allegedly by someone who got a permit under the concealed carry law. But I also found this on the Minnesota Safety Council Web site:

In 2001, 72 children ages 14 and under died from unintentional firearm-related injuries. Children ages 10 to 14 accounted for 54 percent of these deaths.

In 2002, more than 800 children ages 14 and under were treated in hospital emergency rooms for unintentional firearm-related injuries; 35 percent of these injuries were severe enough to require hospitalization.

The unintentional firearm injury death rate among children ages 14 and under in the United States is nine times higher than in 25 other industrialized countries combined.

Comparing the safety record of handguns to LRT may not be the best strategy. The House held a moment of silence for Billy Walsh, the Nye's bouncer killed by a handgun last week, before they voted to re-pass the gun permit bill. I wonder if any votes would have changed if they had had a chance to read the column by Walsh's friend Harry Kaiser in today's Star Tribune:

I wouldn't be writing any of this if Billy hadn't been shot. Ever since conceal-and-carry passed, however, I have feared some awful crime of convenience, especially involving alcohol. I know that conceal-and-carry is in front of the Legislature right now as lawmakers try to make it technically constitutional. I would like to argue against it coolly, cleanly and rationally. But I'm just so angry.

I thought -- why do you need to be clean and cool to argue against putting more guns on the street? What's rational about making it more convenient for people to instigate violence? I know how defenseless we all feel because all the "bad guys" have guns. But people have to start standing up and saying that we don't want the principle of self-defense to devolve into a kind of vigilantism, where everyone is packing, only because the "other guy" might be a criminal.

Everyone knows that "Guns don't kill people; people do," and that "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns." But it's not too late to return to a time where we only had the truly criminal-minded to fear, without potentially adding to the list everyone we tick off on the street or on the highway.

Click on the link and read that whole column and then talk to me about LRT.