Blaming and Gaming the Blame Game

Excellent Post If I had the ability to draw cartoons like the esteemed Ken Avidor, my editorial cartoon would be the fallen down bridge with a donkey and elephant pointing fingers. 

I think part of the conversation we need to have with transportation funding is the issue of constantly building new, while neglecting the existing.  New projects get ribbon cutting ceremonies, resurfacing existing roads don’t do that. 

I agree that we need to spend more money on transportation infrastructure, but that doesn’t mean giving MNDOT a blank check.  They need to be accountable for their spending and contracting processes – just as any state agency should be. 

It’s also worth adding that there’s going to be litigation up the wazoo about this.  It would be news if people didn’t try to take political advantage of this situation, and it would be news if people didn’t try to litigate. 

Yes, a great post Miss these kind of posts at BQ. 

Tinkelberg made some very good observations.  Can’t really say it’s Pawlenty’s and Molnau’s “fault” but they’ve been pushing their policies for a long time as legislators and now heads of state.  Of course they didn’t embrace these policies knowing that some catastrophe would happen on their watch.  But they didn’t really look at the long term either. It’s too easy in politics to go with the short term gain and push problems off on future administrations.  I worked in state government over a decade, I saw that happen all the time.  That’s the budget shell game politicians play at local, state, and national levels.  Just think about all the areas that is happening in now.

I think it was avoidable because, as Tinkelberg said, all previous administrations should have taken the steps along the way. It was all the decisions, seemingly unconnected, along the way that finally came together on 8/1/2007 in Minneapolis.  It could just as well have been somewhere else. This is what the civil engineers are warning about.  These kind of infrastructure failures will continue to happen unless we get serious about funding.  It’s the old adage of ‘pay me now or pay me more later’ and as we found out part of the payment includes loss of life and serious injury.

But it does require looking at the longstanding conservative ideology of ‘no new taxes’ and, as the Regean legacy left with us, that government is the problem.  These popular political soundbites have real consequences.  What are our priorities for government funding?  And yes, everything is on the table.  I’m sick of hearing from some conservatives that it’s all the fault of social welfare spending (and they ignore the fact that conservative social organizations get money for social services as well) .  And from the liberals that it’s all the fault of corporate welfare.  It is neither one nor the other by themselves. 

I hope that the answer to Eric’s question: “Can we be grownups about it, acknowledge that political points will be scored, but also be serious citizens about — and try to rise above — the scorekeeping and learn the right lessons?”  is finally a resounding ‘yes’.

Ah, fairness: Minnesotamonitor style. Perhaps I missed it somewhere amidst all of this fairness, but where is the mention of the fact that the Democrats are responsible for skimming the maintenance and construction budget to finance their pet projects such as light rail?

The voters just approved a constitutional amendment in an effort to force money meant for roads and bridges to be spent on roads and bridges.

Surely you do not mean to suggest it was Pawlenty or Molnau, or any other Republican lawmaker that was tucking the “and transit” caveat into every single bill purporting to build or maintain roads and bridges?

It would be interesting to see a breakdown of where our transit dollars have been spent over the past ten years….

monitorexposer Stop making stuff up. Give up the obsession with the light rail train. You were wrong, live with it.

“It would be interesting to see a breakdown of where our transit dollars have been spent over the past ten years…. “

Are you kidding?

Transportation, the ball o’ wax “where is the mention of the fact that the Democrats are responsible for skimming the maintenance and construction budget to finance their pet projects such as light rail?”

Well, it’s not a fact.  It’s simple not true.

Article XIV of the Minnesota Constitution dedicates the Motor Fuels Tax to the “Highway User Tax Distribution Fund”, of which 82% goes to the “Trunk Highway Fund”.  That’s the money that goes to all state and federal roads in Minnesota, and it cannot be used for anything else.  In addition, we have put in vehicle and driver’s registration and varying amounts of the sales tax on cars – in short, all taxes on cars are dedicated to roads.

The sales tax is a bit more debatable, but since there is nothing else that has its sales tax dedicated to supporting the infrastructure it needs I don’t see why cars are all that special.  For example, there is no dedication of the sales tax on sporting goods to create playgrounds.

The last time I bothered to calculate it was year 2000, but in that year we spent about $3 billion on “surface transportation” – roads, buses, and trains.  Of that, $1.1B came from sources other than cars themselves.  This is mostly in the form of property tax that is used to support local roads.

It is utterly unreasonable to see the car as anything other than a highly subsidized form of transportation.  If the same ratios hold, we can expect something like $1.5 billion to come from general funds (non-car taxes) this year statewide and go into roads.  If the state were to insist that this subsidy to transportation should be spent in some other way that is more efficient, there is more than enough money to build a tremendous rail system.  However, the fact that it comes from property taxes collected in every municipality and all 87 counties means it is not in one pot to be spent in one way.  You will note that it was Hennepin County that ponied up the big money for Hiawatha – the state bonding request was relatively small.

Good comment

To what percentage of income is government entitled? Most politicians and people have avoided the topical question, prefering to answer the question “how much of OUR MONEY should government take from us?”

The latter is the question which has been just below all discussions of tax policy in the last quarter century.  Some conservatives might answer this question `as little as possible’ while some liberals might answer it `as much as can be put to good use’.

I say it is now time to answer the topical question in a way not determined by our emotional attachment to values such as frugality or charity (called by their detractors selfishness and naivet

Wabit, that was a good post. Very excellent.  I’m cribbing next time I run for something.

Hmmm. “Article XIV of the Minnesota Constitution dedicates the Motor Fuels Tax to the “Highway User Tax Distribution Fund”, of which 82% goes to the “Trunk Highway Fund”.  That’s the money that goes to all state and federal roads in Minnesota, and it cannot be used for anything else.  In addition, we have put in vehicle and driver’s registration and varying amounts of the sales tax on cars – in short, all taxes on cars are dedicated to roads.”

Where did the other 16% of the HUTDF go?

“The sales tax is a bit more debatable, but since there is nothing else that has its sales tax dedicated to supporting the infrastructure it needs I don’t see why cars are all that special.“

Have you noticed that >90% of the people in this country, um, have one?

How about the fact that building and maintaining roads and bridges employs millions?

In any case, it surely appears that the Democrat legislature agrees with you.

Who else are you going to blame? The theme of every news media account has been: little people=heroes, big government=evil, at-fault, bureaucrats. It’s no wonder Republicans want big government to go away. 

So if the government is evil there are two ways to deal with it, 1) make it good (fix it) or 2) make it go away. The Democrats select #1 and the Republicans select #2. The problem is that the Government is never going to go away so option #2 is off the table. What the Republicans really mean is they want to replace it with something different which is just another way of selecting option #1. 

Until both parties agree that they are both working for the little people=heroes (option #1) rather than furthering personal and party interests, politicians shouldn't be surprised when the little people=heroes are blaming them when bridges drop from the sky.

Don’t do the regressive gas tax: Do property-tax relief plan instead That’s the answer here.

The richest Minnesotans have had one heck of a free ride with all the tax breaks and gimmes they’ve got from the Carlson and Pawlenty administrations.  Time for them to give some of it back, with the DFL’s middle-class property-tax relief plan that creates a special bracket for the wealthiest Minnesotans.

There is the fed as well Consider the “pet projects” of the Cheney Administration including Haliburton and Blackwater. Minnesota has an economy the size of Finland, but we’re constantly bled dry by the fed for Washington’s insatiable love of global hegemony. We could expand our state’s tax revenue while cutting taxes if our economy weren’t held captive by a decaying and beauracratic federal system.

Well… Pawlenty and Molnau didn’t make the 35W bridge fall down. In fact they had their fingers crossed hoping it wouldn’t. But that’s all they did to prevent it happening. The truth is their draconian cuts and roadblocks to transportation funding are sowing the seeds for many more bridge collapses in the future – on someone else’s watch. They are guilty in tragedies yet to happen.

Then there’s the fact that Molnau is not competent to run a state department – or to deal with anyone without biting his/her head off. She needs to go. Now.

Excellent Post If I had the ability to draw cartoons like the esteemed Ken Avidor, my editorial cartoon would be the fallen down bridge with a donkey and elephant pointing fingers. 

I think part of the conversation we need to have with transportation funding is the issue of constantly building new, while neglecting the existing.  New projects get ribbon cutting ceremonies, resurfacing existing roads don't do that. 

I agree that we need to spend more money on transportation infrastructure, but that doesn't mean giving MNDOT a blank check.  They need to be accountable for their spending and contracting processes – just as any state agency should be. 

It's also worth adding that there's going to be litigation up the wazoo about this.  It would be news if people didn't try to take political advantage of this situation, and it would be news if people didn't try to litigate. 

Yes, a great post Miss these kind of posts at BQ. 

Tinkelberg made some very good observations.  Can't really say it's Pawlenty's and Molnau's “fault” but they've been pushing their policies for a long time as legislators and now heads of state.  Of course they didn't embrace these policies knowing that some catastrophe would happen on their watch.  But they didn't really look at the long term either. It's too easy in politics to go with the short term gain and push problems off on future administrations.  I worked in state government over a decade, I saw that happen all the time.  That's the budget shell game politicians play at local, state, and national levels.  Just think about all the areas that is happening in now.

I think it was avoidable because, as Tinkelberg said, all previous administrations should have taken the steps along the way. It was all the decisions, seemingly unconnected, along the way that finally came together on 8/1/2007 in Minneapolis.  It could just as well have been somewhere else. This is what the civil engineers are warning about.  These kind of infrastructure failures will continue to happen unless we get serious about funding.  It's the old adage of 'pay me now or pay me more later' and as we found out part of the payment includes loss of life and serious injury.

But it does require looking at the longstanding conservative ideology of 'no new taxes' and, as the Regean legacy left with us, that government is the problem.  These popular political soundbites have real consequences.  What are our priorities for government funding?  And yes, everything is on the table.  I'm sick of hearing from some conservatives that it's all the fault of social welfare spending (and they ignore the fact that conservative social organizations get money for social services as well) .  And from the liberals that it's all the fault of corporate welfare.  It is neither one nor the other by themselves. 

I hope that the answer to Eric's question: “Can we be grownups about it, acknowledge that political points will be scored, but also be serious citizens about — and try to rise above — the scorekeeping and learn the right lessons?”  is finally a resounding 'yes'.

Ah, fairness: Minnesotamonitor style. Perhaps I missed it somewhere amidst all of this fairness, but where is the mention of the fact that the Democrats are responsible for skimming the maintenance and construction budget to finance their pet projects such as light rail?

The voters just approved a constitutional amendment in an effort to force money meant for roads and bridges to be spent on roads and bridges.

Surely you do not mean to suggest it was Pawlenty or Molnau, or any other Republican lawmaker that was tucking the “and transit” caveat into every single bill purporting to build or maintain roads and bridges?

It would be interesting to see a breakdown of where our transit dollars have been spent over the past ten years….

monitorexposer Stop making stuff up. Give up the obsession with the light rail train. You were wrong, live with it.

“It would be interesting to see a breakdown of where our transit dollars have been spent over the past ten years…. “

Are you kidding?

Transportation, the ball o' wax “where is the mention of the fact that the Democrats are responsible for skimming the maintenance and construction budget to finance their pet projects such as light rail?”

Well, it's not a fact.  It's simple not true.

Article XIV of the Minnesota Constitution dedicates the Motor Fuels Tax to the “Highway User Tax Distribution Fund”, of which 82% goes to the “Trunk Highway Fund”.  That's the money that goes to all state and federal roads in Minnesota, and it cannot be used for anything else.  In addition, we have put in vehicle and driver's registration and varying amounts of the sales tax on cars – in short, all taxes on cars are dedicated to roads.

The sales tax is a bit more debatable, but since there is nothing else that has its sales tax dedicated to supporting the infrastructure it needs I don't see why cars are all that special.  For example, there is no dedication of the sales tax on sporting goods to create playgrounds.

The last time I bothered to calculate it was year 2000, but in that year we spent about $3 billion on “surface transportation” – roads, buses, and trains.  Of that, $1.1B came from sources other than cars themselves.  This is mostly in the form of property tax that is used to support local roads.

It is utterly unreasonable to see the car as anything other than a highly subsidized form of transportation.  If the same ratios hold, we can expect something like $1.5 billion to come from general funds (non-car taxes) this year statewide and go into roads.  If the state were to insist that this subsidy to transportation should be spent in some other way that is more efficient, there is more than enough money to build a tremendous rail system.  However, the fact that it comes from property taxes collected in every municipality and all 87 counties means it is not in one pot to be spent in one way.  You will note that it was Hennepin County that ponied up the big money for Hiawatha – the state bonding request was relatively small.

Good comment

To what percentage of income is government entitled? Most politicians and people have avoided the topical question, prefering to answer the question “how much of OUR MONEY should government take from us?”

The latter is the question which has been just below all discussions of tax policy in the last quarter century.  Some conservatives might answer this question `as little as possible' while some liberals might answer it `as much as can be put to good use'.

I say it is now time to answer the topical question in a way not determined by our emotional attachment to values such as frugality or charity (called by their detractors selfishness and naivet

Wabit, that was a good post. Very excellent.  I'm cribbing next time I run for something.

Hmmm. “Article XIV of the Minnesota Constitution dedicates the Motor Fuels Tax to the “Highway User Tax Distribution Fund”, of which 82% goes to the “Trunk Highway Fund”.  That's the money that goes to all state and federal roads in Minnesota, and it cannot be used for anything else.  In addition, we have put in vehicle and driver's registration and varying amounts of the sales tax on cars – in short, all taxes on cars are dedicated to roads.”

Where did the other 16% of the HUTDF go?

“The sales tax is a bit more debatable, but since there is nothing else that has its sales tax dedicated to supporting the infrastructure it needs I don't see why cars are all that special.“

Have you noticed that >90% of the people in this country, um, have one?

How about the fact that building and maintaining roads and bridges employs millions?

In any case, it surely appears that the Democrat legislature agrees with you.

Who else are you going to blame? The theme of every news media account has been: little people=heroes, big government=evil, at-fault, bureaucrats. It's no wonder Republicans want big government to go away. 

So if the government is evil there are two ways to deal with it, 1) make it good (fix it) or 2) make it go away. The Democrats select #1 and the Republicans select #2. The problem is that the Government is never going to go away so option #2 is off the table. What the Republicans really mean is they want to replace it with something different which is just another way of selecting option #1. 

Until both parties agree that they are both working for the little people=heroes (option #1) rather than furthering personal and party interests, politicians shouldn't be surprised when the little people=heroes are blaming them when bridges drop from the sky.

Don't do the regressive gas tax: Do property-tax relief plan instead That's the answer here.

The richest Minnesotans have had one heck of a free ride with all the tax breaks and gimmes they've got from the Carlson and Pawlenty administrations.  Time for them to give some of it back, with the DFL's middle-class property-tax relief plan that creates a special bracket for the wealthiest Minnesotans.

There is the fed as well Consider the “pet projects” of the Cheney Administration including Haliburton and Blackwater. Minnesota has an economy the size of Finland, but we're constantly bled dry by the fed for Washington's insatiable love of global hegemony. We could expand our state's tax revenue while cutting taxes if our economy weren't held captive by a decaying and beauracratic federal system.

Well… Pawlenty and Molnau didn't make the 35W bridge fall down. In fact they had their fingers crossed hoping it wouldn't. But that's all they did to prevent it happening. The truth is their draconian cuts and roadblocks to transportation funding are sowing the seeds for many more bridge collapses in the future – on someone else's watch. They are guilty in tragedies yet to happen.

Then there's the fact that Molnau is not competent to run a state department – or to deal with anyone without biting his/her head off. She needs to go. Now.