Editorials react to Pawlenty’s bonding bill

Gov. Tim Pawlenty released his $1.09 billion bonding proposal last week, a figure that includes the $965 million state limit in addition to other sources. Big ticket items in Pawlenty’s plan are $255 million in spending for bridges, an additional $161 million for transportation, and $258 million to the University of Minnesota and Minnesota’s state colleges and universities systems.

The following are highlights of editorial responses from across the state:

Bemidji Pioneer Editorial – Bonding bill too narrow in priorities

The bonding bill often is viewed as an economic stimulus by providing construction jobs statewide. While roads and bridges must be repaired, so also must communities have an infusion of infrastructure funds to stimulate local economies. The governor’s bonding bill is too narrow in scope, and we hope the Legislature will more equally balance state needs.

Winona Daily News Editorial – State suffering from neglect, little leadership

Nearly 40 percent of the governor’s bonding recommendations would be used to repair and replace bridges and roads. The total bill for that work is $416 million.

Consider it the price we must pay for years of neglect and a lack of leadership.

Star Tribune Editorial – Impasse is skewing bonding priorities

The very size of Pawlenty’s proposal — at $965 million, the maximum allowed under the state’s traditional debt service guideline — signals his desire for early and easy agreement with the Legislature on a bonding bill. That desire should be matched on all sides. Minnesota’s shaky economy could use the stimulus that would come from putting thousands of construction workers on the job by late spring. “Early is good,” Pawlenty said. Legislators should agree, and prepare to send him a bill by March 15.

Tower Timberjay Editorial – Wrong on bonding: On transportation, Pawlenty needs long-term solution, not a credit card

Taking transportation out of the equation by using a gas tax increase to fund those improvements would leave more money for regional building projects and provide two streams of employment to boost Minnesota’s increasingly shaky economy.

Given the attention focused the past year on the state’s transportation needs, it’s understandable that the governor would make it a priority. But roads, bridges and transit are long-term needs that require long-term solutions. The governor’s search for a short-cut is apt to be filled with more bumps than he anticipated. Minnesotans should insist he and the Legislature adopt a more comprehensive transportation plan.

Rochester Post-Bulletin Editorial – Gasoline tax is likely option for transportation funding

Pawlenty this week proposed that the state borrow $965 million to pay for a variety of public works projects as part of a state bonding bill. He’s proposing that nearly $225 million be spent on local bridges and an additional $30 million on local roads. Altogether, when state transportation improvements are figured in, the governor is proposing to essentially charge $416 million in transportation costs to the state’s credit card.

DFLers and many local government leaders are contending that this one-time spending wouldn’t even come close to paying for critical road and bridge improvements. They suggest that the only way to pay for ongoing improvements is to increase the state’s gasoline tax, which hasn’t been changed in 20 years. Minnesota’s current gasoline tax of 20 cents a gallon ranks 27th among other states.

An increase of 10 or 20 cents in the gas tax would be unpopular among the state’s motorists, especially at a time when prices at the pump are near or above $3 a gallon and rising. But right now, we can’t see a better alternative.