Tuesday Talk: Can We Recover from Pawlenty’s Disinvestment?
July 27th, 2010 at 7:30 am By Rachel WeeksGovernor Pawlenty’s conservative legacy of disinvestment in our state – particularly in our education system – has left Minnesotans with large gaps to fill. A recent report from the College Board Advocacy & Policy Center reiterates how education in the US is lagging far behind other industrialized nations. With the need for advanced education in the workforce on the rise, quality investment in education – and the future of our state – becomes ever more crucial.
How do you see the way forward? What will it take for Minnesota to recover from Pawlenty’s disinvestment in education?
When you mention “…disinvestment in our state.” does that imply that Pawlenty is investing in other states? Sure, it would be a good investment to put more money in certain aspects of education, but where do you think that money should come from? It is implied that we should disinvest in other areas of the state budget or tax people or businesses more and use the money for education. It is also implied that we need to spend money to catch up with other countries. What is the per capita spending in those other countries on education and how does that compare to Minnesota?
Sure we can recover…at a cost. Therin lies the irony of the Pawlenty “no-tax” no investment policy.
The roads are a great metaphor for this direction. When kept in repair and maintained, the cost is far less than having to tear up the entire roadway and replace it. Maintenance is ALWAYS cheaper than major replacement in virtually every endeavor.
So it will be with other areas of our state’s activities; we can fix and repair the damage (eventually)…but at a cost far greater than we could or would if we just continued to keep services, infrastructure, and quality of life at the same high level we had before Pawlenty got his hands on it.
Myles, are you enjoying your LRT? Our transportation money has been siphoned off from our roads and bridges to light rail by your liberal progressive Democrats.
Let’s be more precise when we talk about this. You mentioned this same pseudo-fact/fallacy last week when you posted comments. Maybe it’s the idea of “transportation” that is getting confused. If I understand correctly, in this state, the gas tax is the primary vehicle (pun intended) for funding maintenance, repair and expansion of roads, highways and bridges. None of that particular pool of money is “siphoned off” for LRT. I’m not a particular fan of LRT, but let’s just make sure we’re clear: LRT is a legitimate component of a comprehensive transportation system — emphasis there on “comprehensive” and “system.” The truth of the matter, on this particular issue, is that we have neither the real estate, nor the money to use freeways alone to get people and products around where they need to go. So, therefore, we must, we MUST, think creatively and move ourselves via a more complex transportation “system.” I’ll say this again: I’m not a huge fan of LRT, but it is a legitimate element of a comprehensive transportation system. If you want to be critical of LRT, that’s fine. But you really should come up with something more accurate, and persuasive, than repeating the fallacy that money for LRT is “siphoned off” from money for roads and bridges.
Can I get an “amen?”
Perhaps Mr. Downing is referring to the constitutional amendment approved on 2006. This is the verbiage from the ballot.
“Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to dedicate revenue from a tax on the sale of new and used motor vehicles over a five-year period, so that after June 30, 2011, all of the revenue is dedicated at least 40 percent for public transit assistance and not more than 60 percent for highway purposes?”
As stated in the amendment, not more that 60% may be deposited in the Highway User Tax Distribution Fund, and not less than 40% must be allocated to transit. Therefore, the maximum percentages that will be allocated to the Highway User Tax Distribution Fund and the minimum percentages that will be allocated to transit are 60% and 40% respectively.
I look at it this way. “Roads and bridges” is a concept that for some people is interpreted as “transportation.” However, “roads and bridges” does not equal “transportation.” Transportation is a much more broad concept (think airports, freight trains, transit, riverways, and yes, roads and bridges, too). In other words, “roads and bridges” is a sub-set of the larger concept known as “transportation.” Given that, it’s a little clumsy to say that “money for roads and bridges gets siphoned off to go to transportation. We have to evolve beyond our limited experience of driving our cars to get around and thinking of that as how all “transportation” is conducted. It’s not, nor should it be. We can’t float barges over roads and bridges, and we can’t land airplanes on roads and bridges, and importantly, we can’t transport all of the people and products where they need to go utilizing only roads and bridges. Transit, along with all the other components of transportation, must be part of our thinking — and funding — if we’re to have a functional economy in this state.
We all need to get past our bias in favor of driving in our cars because that is merely one piece of the transportation pie. It’s ok if we drive in our cars, of course. But we can’t ALL drive in our cars over the same roads and bridges at the same time, while trying to transport our goods, too.
Transit has a role and it makes sense for the Highway User Tax Distribution Fund to apportion dollars for transit. All of those people using transit are not in their cars clogging the roads and bridges and, as a result, all users of the roads and bridges can more efficiently get where they need to go. Why? Because transit options took a bunch of people off the roads and in doing so, effectively increased the capacity of the roads to handle people in cars and trucks delivering goods and services. Transit and roads/bridges work together in concert making the “transportation system” more efficient. That’s why the “siphoning off” argument made by Mr. Dowling (and other conservatives) is so silly. And inaccurate.
Reducing the annual state budget increase from 10%/year to 2%/year is not a disinvestment. It is simply a transition from an unsustainable path to a more sustainable path for MN.
According to an another posting on this website, Minnesota leads the way in declining revenue. Far from “doubling” the size of government, as some conservatives claim, it has been reduced by over 5% since 2002.
I think we can recover but it is going to take strong political will, courage, increased taxes imposed on a progressive rate, and a sensible vision. New, fair taxes need to be imposed on all the private wealthy individuals who have been getting tax breaks in the last 10 years. It’s time they paid their fair share. (Wealthy individuals pay less in terms of percentage than the middle and low-income population. Warren Buffet famously said that his secretary pays a higher tax rate than he does. Not fair.)
But raising taxes is only one part of the equation. The other is laying out a comprehensive plan as far as possible–a vision, if you will–of what we want our state to do and to provide. A vision that takes in public education and higher education, health care, infrastructure, and all the other things that make (or used to make) this state such a desirable place to live and Minnesota such a prosperous state. Well educated citizens, plentiful jobs, providing the opportunity for all to rise on the economic ladder, clearing away all the obstacles that keep so many people from reaching the point where they can even enter the race.
We need an educated and courageous Legislature and Governor who will take on the hard issues, and that means Democratic legislators and a governor.
Tom Emmer could only set up back into the 19th century. We need to look back and see what our elected leaders did back in the 1970s when Minnesota was called “the Minnesota Miracle.” Nobody calls it that anymore.
It is going to take an awfully long time to recover partly..we never will recover the full amount. The voters should have realized that Pawlenty was never the caliber person to govern a state and for future reference.. he never will be!
We will not recover!…….We will spend some great amount of money trying, however, the class war is over and they won. The conservative christians have joined the greedy right wing and will continue to “starve the beast” and leave us with a manageable population unable to think critically and looking for a savior(or demagogue) to save them.
The focus should be on saving what we can of the environment(especially clean water) and preparing for a bigger meltdown than we have ever seen. If you hoard books, hoard “how to” books!
God Bless America!
Oh Herb, your first and last sentences are so correct. If you had just left out the athiest tyraid. Yes the Rich Republicans are half the battle, but equally unhelpfull to us are the Rich Elitist Democrats who pull all the strings in our party, same old, same old. You surely don’t understand your enemy (republicans). You see they fight the same class warfare as we do, those predominantly poor Christian masses, (including use to be Democrat Christians), are being dominated and usurped buy big money on their side. Together these 2 groups make up 38% of our population, then there are those of us in the other 62%. The almost poor, the poor, and the really freakin poor and now you understand how your hatred undermines the unity we need to beat these rich B*****d’s, their’s and our’s.