Captain's Quarters -

"Let's find out what caused the bridge collapse -- and then let's find out what Minnesota did with its $2.2 billion annual MnDOT budget instead of discovering and repairing the problem with the St. Anthony Bridge."

Touche' - couldn't have put it better myself. We already have dedicated road funds that were supposed to handle this. My biggest issue is what the priorities were that ranked higher than this bridge.

Gov. Pawlenty will use this information like a billyclub. The other good news is that Gov. Pawlenty is holding fast against a special session until the DFL leadership agree to a limited agenda.

If people want safer bridges and better roads, you have to pay for it somehow. Pawlenty's bonding approach merely puts the day of reckoning off, and while I suppose some like that I doubt their children will.

starfleet - that's why we don't want to squander our money on mass-transit.

our children shouldn't have to pay for the choo-choo train.

further confirmation that people get it. money is very, very, very rarely the problem. the problem has always been the people spending it.

bulbasaur, when 93.5% of transportation expenditures is already going to roads and only 4.9% goes to mass transit, the problem isn't that transit is getting too much, but that the state's transportation needs as a whole aren't being fully funded. That's why Pawlenty has chosen to borrow via bonds to try and keep up with an increasing backlog of deferred maintenance and inadequate roads and bridges.

starfleet_dude, implicit in your position is the assumption that the current monies are being well spent and all the priorities are right. We question that assumption. We suspect it's false, and want to check it before considering new taxes.

Hey, Captain: Whatever it was that caused the bridge to collapse, it wasn't me. And I don't want to pay for your new bridge. I don't hear you demanding that MnDOT return the $250 million federal "gift" to rebuild it. You're no Conservative. You're a hypocrite and a fraud, sucking-off the same Washington tit as the worst of them. Start a campaign to return the money now.

Hey Redman, have you started your campaign to return all federal money for interstate highways in your state? You understand that I-35W and this bridge was part of the federal interstate system .... right?

If the feds want to have a federal interstate system and regulate it, then they should fund it. There's nothing hypocritical about that -- and since I-35 actually does run from Texas to Minnesota, it actually crosses state boundaries and is an interstate system, which qualifies as a federal jurisdiction.

Or perhaps you're just too dense to understand what the "I" in I-35 means?

LarryD, the state is already borrowing money to pay for projects like the reconstruction of the Crosstown commons. In just the metro area alone there are plenty of other bottlenecks and old bridges which need work that isn't being done because the money just isn't there period, not because some outstate road is getting some undeserved maintenance.

Every Liberal's nightmare is running out of other people's money to spend whether an allowance from their parents or the government teat forever afterwards.

Imagine how "good" public edjumication, uh, education would be if only more billions were forced down that NEA rat hole. Just ask all those politicians, lobbyists, and journalists in Washington, DC anxious to get their kids into DC public schools. Only $6,000 plus spent per head per year in taxpayer loot though the switchblade skills learned can come in handy during a brief inner city lifespan.

Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 08/09/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

"Every Liberal's nightmare is running out of other people's money to spend whether an allowance from their parents or the government teat forever afterwards.

Posted by: viking01 at August 9, 2007 10:05 AM"

Squandered public funds are still squandered public funds. They are not going where they need to go and does not change the fact that the work still needs to be done.

If the tax is insufficient to bankroll the road upkeep and upgrading, arguments like yours will always submarine intelligent discussion. Unless, ofcurse, that is your intent.

Ignorance, maybe. But playing dumb is something I never expected from you. The fed reimburses states thru the highway trust fund, the fed does not dictate what the state should build or when with their share of the trust finds; the state does. But you already know that. Why play stupid?
There was more money to fix that bridge in the state budget than China has Chins. You're just an idiot. That's a fact, and now also an apologist for fraud. You're no different than sister Sheehan. RETURN THE MONEY or quit playing Conservative.

"bulbasaur, when 93.5% of transportation expenditures is already going to roads and only 4.9% goes to mass transit, the problem isn't that transit is getting too much, but that the state's transportation needs as a whole aren't being fully funded. That's why Pawlenty has chosen to borrow via bonds to try and keep up with an increasing backlog of deferred maintenance and inadequate roads and bridges.

Posted by: starfleet_dude at August 9, 2007 8:51 AM

starfleet_dude, implicit in your position is the assumption that the current monies are being well spent and all the priorities are right. We question that assumption. We suspect it's false, and want to check it before considering new taxes.

Posted by: LarryD at August 9, 2007 9:30 AM "

Here are the two arguments that address both sides nicely, in my opinion.

For fans of limited government, this discussion should highlight a big part of what's wrong with government in America. How is it that we send in billions of dollars each year to all levels of government, yet they (apparently) don't have enough money to keep bridges in good repair? Or, looking at it another way, they have money to fund Horse and Buggy Museums even while the roads leading to them crumble beneath us.

What do you want your government to do for you? If you want cradle-to-grave nanny state, if you want a government that has money to spare for every pork barrel boondoggle that spendaholic politicians can devise to buy more votes, then by all means: raise taxes.

However, if you think that government should do only a few things - but do them reasonable well - then raising taxes probably isn't a good idea.

Let's say that Minnesota DOES raise taxes as a "memorial" to the people who died in the bridge collapse. Does anybody REALLY think that 100% of the funds raised will go soley to bridge and road maintenance, repair, and replacement?

(crickets chirping)

Didn't think so.

Halffasthero, if there's money being spent on highways and bridges that don't need it, where are all those yellow brick roads then? When 93.5% of the money spent on transportation in the state goes to roads to begin with, those who say they have questions about "priorities" had better back it up with at least one or two examples of highway projects that aren't necessary.

Yahhhhhh...and I remember that the overwhelming majority of Hennepin County voters were against the Twins stadium bill? And that didn't stand in the way of Pawlenty signing the bill that took away their right to vote on the tax referendum that funded the stadium that makes Twins owner Carl Pohlad about $350,000,000 richer-at the taxpayers expense.
Don't underestimate the ability of Governor Pawlenty to cave.

Geez. halfasthero I'm sooo offended by your pompous and personal blather. Al Gore and Chuck Schumer must be proud of you!

Simply giving bureaucrats more to squander sure torpedoes your "intelligent discussion." More heroin always cures the addiction once they've O.D.d on the extra smack. Put a more lipstick on the failed bureaucratic pig and maybe it'll fly?

Get rid of the layers of needless federal bureaucracy and replace insulated federal desk warmers with locally responsible engineers and maybe things will be run better than slAmtrak. "halfast" might soon be out of a job, however.

starfleet_dude,

You keep asserting that the transportation system in Minnesota is badly underfunded and is in need of major repair yet I and others have shown you how wrong your assertions really are.

Check out MnDOT's website and look at the all the past, present, and future transportation projects and you will see what Minnesota is doing to maintain and improve it's infrastructure. Every year there is a lot of maintenance and construction of roads, bridges, and other infrastructure all across the state. New roads and bridges have been constructed to handle increased traffic in high density areas, old bridges have been repaired or replaced (and in some cases expanded), city, county, and state roads, highways and freeways have been upgraded and expanded, and future construction projects are already in the planning stages.

Minnesota is NOT, I repeat NOT, neglecting it's transportation infrastructure. The state has, in my 47 years as a resident of this state, been constantly maintaining and improving that infrastructure. Anyone who lives in any metropolitan area here in Minnesotan can attest to that fact. Your repeated calls for increased spending will not do much to improve our system but will cost the taxpayers a lot of money that would be better spent on their own needs.

The call for higher taxes is as predictable as sunrise. At the same time, we have billions of dollars going to earmarks (like Ted Stevens $250 million for a bridge to nowhere and Murtha recent $150 million for his cronies). The transportation bill passed last year was a pork laden monstrocity.

Before you come crying to me for more money, you need to be able to convince me that you're spending your current money wisely. Today, that's far from the case. What they're basically saying is that if we give them more money, they'll promise to spend at least some of it wisely. Sorry - no sale.

Ray, the high-profile projects like the reconstruction/redesign of the Crosstown commons are being paid for by borrowed money ala Pawlenty's bonding. Those bonds will have to be paid for out of future state revenues of course, and in the meantime there are other older bridges needing work in the near future like the Lafayette bridge in St. Paul and the new Stillwater bridge.

As to Minnesota keeping up, the fact is that since the 1980s congestion has been steadily getting worse in the metro area as population has grown and sprawled all over the seven-county metro area. Sure, there's been plenty of work done but overall the system of roads in the metro isn't as able to handle the demands placed upon it as it used to be. Minnesota can keep borrowing money and defer maintenance, but the consequences of that will be a crappier commute and a greater squeeze on funding as the bills on those transportation bonds come due.

You claims are based on reports of increased congestion and the fact that money is borrowed to fund project? That's not proof of anything.

Be realistic. Almost every city, county, and Sate in the Us is experiencing a population increase. As the populate increases, traffic will increase accordingly. Minnesota understand that relationship, this is why several expansions of highways and freeways occurs almost every year. The fact that Minnesota is experiencing an increase in population is testimony to the desirability of living here. If Minnesota was neglecting it's infrastructure, people would move away and the population would decrease, as would traffic.

Borrowing funds is a time honored and proven method of providing funds immediately to pay for the construction projects. Think about home loans as an example. How many people can afford to pay a million dollars to build a new hose? Not too damn many.

The same is true of states and the major construction projects they administer. All construction projects require payments be made after it is completed, and in a lot of cases payments are made before the construction begins. The state must have the funds available to cover the costs of planning and implementing those projects. These projects can cost hundreds of millions of dollars and no state government has that much money on hand.

Most projects are short term, meaning they are completed in just a few weeks or months. That short completion period doesn't leave enough time to collect the necessary funds via taxes and this forces the state to borrow the capital to cover it's debts.

All state "borrow" funds through the use of short term loans to pay for that construction. Without the use of short term loans, the necessary funds wouldn't be available and the construction would not occur. Borrowing funds is not an indication of an underfunded highway department, it is an indication of just how well that department is striving to meet the needs of the state.

Remember, tax revenue is not collect as one big amount payed at the beginning of the year, it is collected slowly every day from the taxes payed by the residents so increasing taxes will not stop the need to borrow funds. The " borrowed" funds get repaid in installments EVERY YEAR from the tax revenue collected over that year, so trying to claim that we are only fostering the debt off on our children is patently false.

Nothing you have stated as "proof" of us neglecting our infrastructure is even correct, let alone definitive.

"Halffasthero, if there's money being spent on highways and bridges that don't need it, where are all those yellow brick roads then?

Posted by: starfleet_dude"

I don't know where it went. That is the million (or perhaps billion) dollar question. How was the priority set? With the money they were given, critical works should always be given priority and it was clearly missed here. Foreseeable? Maybe, maybe not. i don't know enough yet but the funding appears to be sufficient. Pawlenty did have a self-inflicted cash flow problem (not just he but both branches of gov't are to blame for that) but that does not mean an increased tax problem necessarily.

"Geez. halfasthero I'm sooo offended by your pompous and personal blather. Al Gore and Chuck Schumer must be proud of you!

Simply giving bureaucrats more to squander sure torpedoes your "intelligent discussion."

Posted by: viking01"

And the bureaucrats squandering money fixes our roads how, exactly? The money is gone and the roads still need immediate repair - rebuilt in the case of the collapsed bridge. You are missing my point entirely and reading only what you want to read in order to beat up on "lefties". You can scream all you want about being overtaxed by a bunch of con-men who are out to feather their own beds - both parties are guilty of that - but it does not solve anything does it? And I would like to find out how the money got spent which is my original post. I hope you read that before posting.

Ray, in keeping with Ed's reasonable request to keep comments short and sweet, here's some history about the matter of how transportation needs are being funded in Minnesota:

The Road to Perdition

For the shorter version, here's he closing paragraph of economist Ed Lotterman's article in today's Pioneer-Press:

Commissioner Molnau has been stalwart in supporting her boss's peculiar position that, even as the economy is strong, we should not spend more money on roads and bridges unless we can somehow pass the bill to our kids and grandkids. Voters tacitly endorsed that position last November. But voters are fickle and the outcome is likely to be different in 2008.

Give it a rest half-ast.

I may disagree with starfleetdude on many things but he's at least grasping that if the money isn't sourced properly there's little point on shoveling more cash into the fire. Those sensible enough to see their taxes mis-allocated or embezzled know that a Tea Party of the Boston variety has worked before and a bit of tough love applied to current politicians couldn't hurt. With San Fran Nan and Dingy Harry or for that matter Senator Stevens mal-serving their constituents, the military and the nation through lackadaisical budgetary attitudes increases the likelihood of that tough love being applied to them more and more every day.

I have no need to "scream." Thanks. My kids will probably do well enough to support themselves quite well with careful, reasoned spending while subsidizing those of yours who probably won't.

Cap'n Ed: If the government of Minnesota is listening, the message is no new taxes. Let's find out what caused the bridge collapse -- and then let's find out what Minnesota did with its $2.2 billion annual MnDOT budget instead of discovering and repairing the problem with the St. Anthony Bridge.

Most (if not all) of Cap'n Ed's commentary on this issue has been restrained and measured, so I'm disappointed to see this.

Without knowing why the bridge failed, without knowing what other projects highway funds were expended upon, without knowing what needs to be spent over what period of time to bring the rest of the system up to scratch ... a tax hike is already ruled out.

This is the mind-set that makes deferred maintenance such an attractive option for politicians.

James,

Wow -- I really didn't mean to write that. Obviously I needed a cup of coffee before posting that. I've edited that last paragraph to what I originally meant, and thanks for pointing that out.

"I may disagree with starfleetdude on many things but he's at least grasping that if the money isn't sourced properly there's little point on shoveling more cash into the fire. Those sensible enough to see their taxes mis-allocated or embezzled know that a Tea Party of the Boston variety has worked before and a bit of tough love applied to current politicians couldn't hurt."

A) I never mentioned "shovelling mroe cash on the problem". I simply said the money is spent, how the hell was it spent on other projects before this? Automatically pointing to the left does not locate the problem (your earlier post).

B) with regard to politicians and the Boston Tea party, you are absolutely correct. Your lips to God's ears, no less.

The constituency was mal-served long before Nancy and Harry however. They were not majority leader when Ted as well as thousands of other unnecessary earmarks got sleazed through on bill after bill. But that is digressing from the original post.

Cap'n Ed : then let's find out what Minnesota did with its $2.2 billion annual MnDOT budget instead of automatically assuming we need to demand even more money from taxpayers.

Glad to hear it, Cap'n!

90% of government is a non-controversial (or, at least, only slightly controversial!) exercise in basic management skills, with the other 10% being the policy questions that get people excited.

Facts -> Analysis -> Decision -> Action is definitely the proper sequence!

Captain Ed: Playing dumb is something I never expected from you. But live and learn. RETURN THE $250 MILLION NOW.
Yes, the bridge is part of the interstate compact. However, the fed reimburses states through the highway trust fund, the fed does not dictate what the state should build or when with their share of the trust finds; the state does. But you already know that. Why play stupid?
There was more money to fix the I-35 bridge in the state budget than China has Chins. You're just an idiot. That's a fact, and now you expose yourself as an apologist for fraud. You're no different than those democrats Stevens or sister Sheehan sucking-off the federal tit for every nickel and dime. RETURN THE MONEY or quit playing Conservative.

Funding long term capital assets like bridges and highways should be funded with long term liabilities (bonds as least in part).
You don't pay cash for your house do you?

If 4.9% of the gas tax is going to anything besides roads, then that is 4.9% too much.

If your choo-choo trains can't make it without subsidies, then too bad.

Let's not forget the hundreds of examples of bridges to nowhere and 4 lane highways to nowhere as well.

Politicans waste much of the gas tax money building roads and bridges that aren't needed, or at least are being built much bigger than needed, because it will win them votes from vital constituencies.

As near as I can determine, sfdud is actually arguing that the fact that govt is willing and able to spend more money than it receives in taxes, is proof that we aren't taxed enough.