The people who want the government not to spend "somebody else's money" (new taxes) on public purposes now seem to have agreed on their story about investing in transportation. Let's spend somebody else's money (tax revenue already appropriated to a public purpose)!
And why not? It worked in Minnesota with the tobacco fund and medical provider taxes, moving supposedly designated health-related revenue into the general fund to balance the budget. And it works with the federal earmarks process.
Meanwhile, cyclists are scratching their heads — or would be if we weren't wearing helmets — at the news bike trail spending is responsible for the declining state of transportation infrastructure.
Katherine Kersten took up this line of reasoning a few days ago, and a relatively subdued Mark Gisleson took it apart — thereby freeing me to agree with Kersten, sort of. The Strib ran my letter today agreeing that earmarks are an issue, but not one that accounts for the majority of underfunding.
The Minnesota Taxpayers League is also on the case, with a "Test of your Minnesota Transportation IQ." Dave Mindeman at mnpACT expands on the League's answers. Here's a sample:
Question 6: How much money has been diverted from transportation funding to spend on bike and walking trails?
TLM Answer: Out of the Federal Transportation bill, about $180 million was spent in Minnesota on bike trails, transit, and other non-road projects while the state has appropriated about $25 million in recent years.
RESPONSE: The question talks about biking and walking trails, yet the answer lumps in "non-road projects". But aside from that, the Taxpayer's League apparently believes that transportation budgets mean "roads only". The truth is, we cannot asphalt our way into a more prosperous future. Here is a quote from the MNDOT site about transit: "The financial benefits of public transit to individuals are being underscored by the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), which recently began a program in some cities to offer mortgages up to 8 percent larger than under a traditional loan to buyers who live near a bus or train line. The program is based on studies showing that people who commute on public transportation can save $200 to $250 per month, compared with the cost of owning, maintaining and insuring an automobile." Investment in transit is an investment in quality of life.
After making an argument for the broad benefits of property taxes underwriting roads, logger Matt Abe blames light rail.
Would the Legislature please grant an exemption to these oppressively-taxed groups from propping up economically unsustainable light rail trains, which benefit only a small percentage of the population to the detriment of the roads and bridges that we all depend on?
Conrad deFiebre of MN 2020 succinctly takes on three funding myths. (Although I thought a myth was the product of tradition and ignorance, not deliberate and repeated misdirection.)
And the Pioneer Press, in one of those mutli-topic editorials, corrects the Wall Street Journal's mistaken contention that "Minnesota spends $1.6 billion a year on transportation ... but nearly $1 billion of that has been diverted from road and bridge repair to the state's light rail network that has a negligible impact on traffic congestion.''
Now, I'm off to the State Fair, on a bike, taking a taxpayer-funded transit route. Matt Abe, you can have my parking place.
