March 3, 2008
Mar 03 03:23 Hockey Arenas vs. Roads & Bridges Mar 03 18:18 Bonding Atrocities Mar 03 20:33 My Letter To Tarryl
Hockey Arenas vs. Roads & Bridges
I'm sick of hearing the DFL say that we can't mortgage our children's future by bonding for building roads & repairing bridges. My adopted state representative Steve Gottwalt chided the House DFL for that here. Now we find out that Keith Langseth plans on mortgaging our children's futures to build "hockey arenas and other projects":
Pawlenty pledges to veto hockey arenas and other projects that he considers lower priority. Langseth wants those arenas, such as ones in Bemidji and Crookston. An arena addition to the Duluth Entertainment Convention Center appears to be on everyone's list to pass.It's time that Minnesota taxpayers ask why the legislature is willing to bond for arenas but not for roads. Considering the fact that we've got a budget deficit, shouldn't we expect legislators to scrutinze items in the bonding bill even more than when we have a big surplus? Shouldn't we want the bonding bill to be used to make Minnesota more prosperous longterm rather than using it as the politicians' re-election slush fund. This leads to a bigger, more overarching question:
Shouldn't we ask what our state's priorities are? Isn't it perfectly reasonable to ask legislators to only bond for things that make Minnesota more prosperous, more safe or more inviting to entrepreneurial activity? I'd submit that bonding bills that create temporary bursts of employment should at least go for things that make improve Minnesota's educational & transportation infrastructure.
At minimum, shouldn't we expect the wants list to be talked about in terms of wants, not needs? We should expect legislators to stop talking like the sky will fall if their projects don't get built.
Most of the things in the bill are nothing more than monuments to politicians' re-election campaigns. The entire reason why the DFL pushed the Transit Bill through so fast was so they could say that they were funding roads & bridges with that bill, thereby allowing them to add more pork to the actual bonding bill.
It's guaranteed that the bonding bill won't be a penny less if we bond for roads & bridges or if we bond for arenas & civic centers. Taking that into consideration, shouldn't the bonding bill be used on the highest priority items?
Then again, prioritize is a four letter word in the DFL's dictionary. I won't hold my breath waiting for them to start prioritizing now.
Here's something else worth worrying about:
After Thursday's prediction of a deepening budget deficit and Monday's passage of a transportation funding bill that includes bonding money, Gov. Tim Pawlenty insisted that no more than $825 million be borrowed. But the senator in charge of that chamber's public works plans, Sen. Keith Langseth, DFL-Glyndon, said he plans to stick with the previously agreed-to figure of $965 million. The House will come up with its number Monday.The reason why this information is important is because of bond ratings. There was a time when Minnesota's bond rating dipped dramatically. After consultation with bond ratings organizations, they agreed that they'd never bond for more than 3 percent of the state's revenues for that biennium, thereby ensuring that Minnesota's bond rating would always be the highest possible.
When Sen. Langseth says that they'll ignore the $825 million number & would push for the $965 million mark, what he's quietly saying is that he's comfortable deciding to let Minnesota's bond rating jump for the sake of a short term burst in public works projects.
What this means is that the DFL is defying responsible limits on the bonding bill, thereby saddling 'the children' with even higher debt service than they accuse the GOP of saddling the next generation with.
Technorati: , Bonding Bill , Pork , Hockey Arenas , Civic Centers , Infrastructure , Transportation , Keith Langseth , Election 2008
Posted Monday, March 3, 2008 3:23 AM
No comments.
Bonding Atrocities
Thanks to Bill Kuisle's email this morning, I found out that the Senate's bonding bill is filled with transit bonding requests. First, let's keep in mind that the total Senate Bonding Bill is approximately $965 million. For all their talk about putting a priority on roads & bridges, there's an awful lot of transit projects & pork projects that they're requesting funding for. Here's an illustration:
Subd. 3.Urban Partnership Agreement $9,000,000Here's the description of this line item:
From the general fund for expenses related to technology improvements, telecommuting , and outreach efforts for the Urban Partnership Agreement. This appropriation is not available until the United States Department of Transportation authorizes funding under the Urban Partnership Agreement. This appropriation is onetime and is available until June 30, 2011.Here's another spending request & description:
Subd. 4.Greater Minnesota Transit $2,000,000Section 15 of the Senate Bonding Bill is titled Transportation. The total amount of money requested for Transportation is $21.5 million. By comparison, Section 16 of the Senate Bonding Bill is titled Metropolitan Council. Their request is for $136,620,000.
For capital assistance for greater Minnesota transit systems to be used for transit capital facilities under Minnesota Statutes, section 40.4174.24, subdivision 3c. Money from this appropriation may be used to pay up to 80 percent of the nonfederal share of these facilities.
Of that total, the Urban Partnership Agreement gets $20,675,000 . The Bottineau Boulevard Transit Way is slated to get $500,000 . The Cedar Avenue Bus Rapid Transit is requesting $6,000,000 to "acquire land, or an interest in land, and to design the Cedar Avenue Bus Rapid Transit in Dakota County. The Central Corridor Transit Way is requesting $70,000,000 "For one or more of the following activities for the Central Corridor light rail transit line that will connect downtown Minneapolis with downtown St. Paul: preliminary engineering, final design, property acquisition, including improvements and betterments of a capital nature, relocation of utilities owned by public entities, and construction. No more than $20,000,000 of the appropriation may be used for preliminary engineering."
It gets interesting from there, starting with $750K for the I-94 Corridor Transit Way , $500K each for the I-494 Corridor Transit Way , the Red Rock Corridor Transit Way , Robert Street Corridor Transit Way , Rush Line Corridor Transit Way & $1 million for the Union Depot .
I'll bet that people will be upset to hear that they're considering spending $11 million on Como Zoo Gorilla Exhibits . Excuse me??? They want to spend $11 million to "construct, furnish, and equip Phase 2 renovation of the polar bear and gorilla exhibits at the Como Zoo" when we're running a $1 billion deficit??? This is proof positive that prioritize is a 4-letter word in the DFL's dictionary .
Bemidji is requesting $22,000,000 to "acquire land, predesign, design, construct, furnish, and equip" the Bemidji Regional Event Center "to be located within the core of downtown Bemidji."
Folks, I've been through Bemidji. It's a beautiful place to vacation but, at best, this Regional Event Center will attract tourists by the dozens. This is the ultimate in pork, in my estimation.
This is Minnesota's equivalent of the Bridge to Nowhere.
Another $15.5 million total is being requested for Orchestra Hall , Shubert Performing Arts and Education Center , the Mayo Civic Center in Rochester & something called the Asian Pacific Cultural Center .
When I added these things together, I found that the DFL is perfectly willing to saddle our chjildren with $153+ millions worth of pork & transit projects. Remember that this is the DFL that chastized the GOP for saying that we shouldn't saddle our children by bonding for roads & bridge repair.
King & I have been saying for at least a month that not bonding for road didn't have anything to do with not burdening our children with debt, that it had everything to do with the DFL wanting to use the bonding bill to pay off their political allies.
This list of items proves that point.
Originally posted Monday, March 3, 2008, revised 04-Mar 3:57 AM
Comment 1 by Bob DeBoer at 04-Mar-08 01:58 PM
I am curious about the "(remember them?)" comment relative to the Urban Partnership Agreement and wanted to make sure that you are thinking of the right project.
The Urban Partnership Agreement is a new, one-time initiative of the Bush Administration and Minnesota has to provide $55 million in state matching funds to receive $133 million in federal funds. President Bush announced it in his State of the Nation on February 5, 2007 and Minnesota successfully competed with other states to receive federal funds and now must provide the state funding. The Bush Administration wants a demonstration of congestion reduction through a comprehensive approach:
--free flow (congestion) pricing
--transit improvements
--use of technology
--telecommuting
The BRT down the middle of I-35W should be a pretty efficient transit project coupled with the choice to buy free flow in a single lane and an attempt to replicate Best Buy's "Results-Oriented Work Environment" program with other employers in the corridor. USDOT is looking for a 15-20 percent reduction in congestion. I wouldn't call this a bonding atrocity and certainly wouldn't have it top the list. Gov. Pawlenty had the entire $55 million in his bonding proposal. The DFL-controlled Legislature passed about half of the money in the transportation veto override and now have the other half in House and Senate bonding proposals.
My Letter To Tarryl
I just finished writing an email to my state senator, Tarryl Clark. Here's the content of that email:
Tarryl, It was well over a year ago that we talked at the first of your joint townhall meetings with Larry Haws & Steve Gottwalt. That's when you first expressed concerns with Lt. Gov. Molnau as Transportation Commissioner. At that townhall, I asked if you'd conduct oversight hearings to identify wasteful spending. You said that those hearings would be held.I'll keep people posted on what type of response I get.
Why is it then that confirmation hearings weren't held last year before the budget forecast? Why is it that you didn't put even a priority on conducting confirmation hearings? I know that Steve Murphy chairs the Transportation Committee but I know that you're the assistant Majority Leader, too.
Please tell me why I shouldn't think that this isn't just a cheap political stunt meant to distract voters from focusing on the Transportation Bill.
Posted Monday, March 3, 2008 8:34 PM
No comments.
