Minnesota Governor Vetoes Transportation Bill
"Literally wielding a big red VETO stamp to appease the no-tax crowd that remains hell-bent on a something-for-nothing relationship with government, Gov. Tim Pawlenty deep-sixed the bipartisan transportation bill. 'How dumb can they be?' he sneered of the lawmakers who dared approve a tax hike to fix the state's roads.
But Pawlenty's veto didn't bury the transportation bill entirely. Under Minnesota law, a governor cannot stop a constitutional amendment from going on the ballot once it has been passed by the House and Senate. Thus, this November, voters will decide whether all the proceeds from the motor vehicle sales tax (MVST) should be dedicated to transportation. Given that the MnDoT describes its current financial situation as one of 'cash flow problems' ('A more accurate way to say it is that they're broke, pure and simple,' says Steve Murphy--DFL-Red Wing--the chair of the Senate Transportation Committee), there is overwhelming sentiment to approve the amendment."
He refuses to raise taxes to pay for billions in road improvements, yet voters may overrule him in November.
"Literally wielding a big red VETO stamp to appease the no-tax crowd that remains hell-bent on a something-for-nothing relationship with government, Gov. Tim Pawlenty deep-sixed the bipartisan transportation bill. 'How dumb can they be?' he sneered of the lawmakers who dared approve a tax hike to fix the state's roads.
But Pawlenty's veto didn't bury the transportation bill entirely. Under Minnesota law, a governor cannot stop a constitutional amendment from going on the ballot once it has been passed by the House and Senate. Thus, this November, voters will decide whether all the proceeds from the motor vehicle sales tax (MVST) should be dedicated to transportation. Given that the MnDoT describes its current financial situation as one of 'cash flow problems' ('A more accurate way to say it is that they're broke, pure and simple,' says Steve Murphy--DFL-Red Wing--the chair of the Senate Transportation Committee), there is overwhelming sentiment to approve the amendment."
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page
Related News Stories
Ad Hoc Ferry System Keeps Businesses Afloat - Jun 11, 2008
Sales Tax for Transit Catching on in Twin Cities - Apr 03, 2008
Minnesota Falling Short on Transportation Funding - Feb 21, 2008
Twin Cities Commuters Boosting Bus Ridership - Feb 09, 2008
Early Morning Commuters Take Toll On Suburban Roads - Oct 10, 2007
If you want others to stop petty comments lead by example...
..I'm not taking sides or entering this debate, but I am pointing out that if your complaint is about insulting comments you do yourself a disservice by using them yourself.
I admit it
The liberal shot I took at arcadia was not the most mature. I take it back. Also, self-righteousness is not exactly a sign of maturity either.
Exactly right, arcadia. And
Exactly right, arcadia.
And given the fact that this article is over a year and a half old, I would say quite prophetic.
We have more in common with Iraq than we realize. Our roadways and bridges are starting to resemble theirs. No surprise really, considering it is orchestrated by the same incompetent bunch!
The anti-gummint bots are out and about.
My, my.
AASHTO says it will take far more money than in the revenue stream and the anti-gummint bots think that the solution is smaller gummint.
Suuure.
Binary argumentation won't solve this problem.
Best,
D
Binary argumentation
Dano--you say that "Binary argumentation won't solve this problem," while basically positioning yourself on one side of the binary argument ["anti-gummint bots" (I'd imagine you'd include me on that list); Mother Jones piece fairly critical of public-private-parnerships].
I've usually found you to be more nuanced than that, so I was wondering where you actually stand on transportation PPPs and pricing, out of curiosity.
Regards,
Len
Binary clarification.
Len,
it's safe to assume that a drive-by commenter who throws in their standard small l talking point is engaging in binary argumentation. There is nothing in my argument that indicates that I'm positioning myself, BTW. Nonetheless, I would be most happy to have full, true cost paid by users of transportation including internalized costs. I don't really care how that is achieved, as long as equity and conservation is included.
Best,
D
Thanks for clarification
I appreciate the response, Dano. This might be one of those policy areas where we share some common ground.
Regards,
Len
Totally biased and WRONG
Whenever something bad happens, liberals instantly start screaming "If we could have had more money........!" The reality of the matter is that the Minnesota Department of Transportation probably has plenty of money to check and repair bridges, but instead pay 500 bureaucrats to sit in the office all day and surf the internet. When you have to hire 1000 staff to do the job of 500, money does tend to be short. If you think I'm just some conservative blasting the size of the government, this actually happened in the state of Missouri. AAA routinely rates Missouri roads and bridges as the worst or close to the worst in the country. When they audited the Transportation Department they found they employed 41 "public relations" staff and couldn't figure out what they do. They ordered the department to bring their ratio down to the equivalent ratio in neighboring Kansas (much better roads, much less money) to what I think was like 8 staff. They did a re-audit and found they didn't lay off a single one of those 41 and had just retitled them. This is an extreme case, but there are very few government departments that this does not happen to some degree in. More tax dollars won't help, they could have prevented this with an efficient operation.
You signed up for a Planetizen account
exactly how long before posting this comment? 5 minutes?
I see you have a longstanding interest in urban planning.
Does Karl Rove pay his minions to troll all internet discussion boards?
You didn't even read the article closely enough to notice that it was posted in 2006!
Please stop making petty comments and try to have a debate
Yes, anyone that can read sees the article is a year and a half old. That has what to do with my post? That's right, NOTHING. But if you read the whole article, the assumption being made is that it would take billions and billions of dollars to fix the roads. It might indeed take more tax money to improve the roads in Minnesota, but you did NOTHING to refute the point that they could also have been much better stewards of the money they were given. No amount of money is ever enough for an inefficient government agency. Other posts also insinuate that it is someone else's fault that the bridge collapsed. I'm saying that with the amount of funding the MN DOT has, there is no excuse for a bridge to get so bad, it doesn't stay standing.
Yes, I registered 10 minutes on THIS SITE before I posted my comment. That has NOTHING to do with my level of interest in urban planning.
Please stop making petty comments and try to answer my facts. Go look up some articles on the Missouri department of transportation and at least try to refute them. I know, you are probably a liberal, and that would be too much work.
By the way...I'm registered Independent and voted 70% democrat the last election.
Bridges don't collapse for no reason
To the commenters below:
Tax policy and spending priorities have consequences. I have no doubts that this latest tragedy is somehow related to state budget deficits, Iraq spending, unnecesssary tax cuts and the overwhelming incompetence of the current occupants of the White House.
Furthermore, this ARTICLE IS A YEAR AND A HALF OLD. It was posted on Planetizen in February 2006.
Considering that you both have been registered members of Planetizen for less than 2 hours, I guess you missed that minor point.
I see the right-wing propaganda machine already has its army out in force. Scary times.
Politicizing a tragedy
It's obvious to me that this fair and unbiased "news" article is saying that the person to blame for the collapse of the bridge is the governor himself for not approving a proposal to raise taxes. I raise an eyebrow when I see stories like this.
First, what did the bill say that was vetoed and what are the circumstances as to why it was vetoed?
Second, what or where there any rider bills attached to it that could make the bill unacceptable?
Third, the bridge was undergoing improvements at the time of collapse. If there was a need to raise taxes to pay for road repairs it appears that this bridge and this incident had nothing to do with that proposed tax increase.
Why associate the veto with bridge collapse?
Finally, how do we allow "news" sources who are supposed to be fair, balanced and unbiased in the reporting the news continue to spin a tragedy into a political vendetta?
If you want to blame someone then blame the people who built the bridge and examine the circumstances they worked under. I'm not a bridge building expert but the span that collapsed looked like it was built on a bare budget if you take a look at the structure underneath the bridge. Not a lot there for 4 lanes of traffic.
The problem looks like a structural issue and not a tax issue. A extra billion dollars for road work wouldn't have stopped this bridge from falling.
This is not a news story it is propaganda.