[Speed Gibson,
Wednesday September 20, 2006 at 12:15am]
Vote No on Transportation Amendment
I'm going to make some endorsements this year, starting with the easiest vote in years: the proposed amendment to the Minnesota Constitution dedicating the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax (MVET) to transportation.
Even if that was as far as it went, I'd vote No. It's just bad government to enact ordinary spending policy as hard, inflexible constitutional law. The concept of a constitution is to provide a framework for government. Changes should be to correct and improve that framework, such as in the elimination of the obsolete (?) State Treasurer position. Even protecting the legislatively adopted definition of marriage doesn't rise to this level. Appeals, carefully considered appointments of new judges, and when necessary, impeachment of existing activist judges are adequate and proper remedies.
But this amendment goes further, by requiring at 40 percent of the money go to fund transit. This is well over 100 million dollars a year out of the 300 million dollars total. Clearly much of it is already ear-marked for light rail, as if the Hiawatha line isn't hemorrhaging enough money in operating losses already, not to mention three fatalities. And 40 percent is just the minimum!
Another problem I have is even defining this revenue as somehow transportation related. MVET is simply the sales tax paid when buying motor vehicles, and the latter are products just like other taxed goods and services in Minnesota. Is sales tax paid at restaurants dedicated to the Health Department? No, sales tax is sales tax, and it should all go in the General Fund. Dedicated taxes are really fees, like the annual vehicle registration, and should be handled as such.
Finally, this will leave a hole in the General Fund budget. Maybe not today if revenues continue their sharp rise in this expanding economy. But the minute they level off, watch out! Gone will be the flexibility to prioritize that 300 million dollars with education and public safety. Unless the Republicans retake the Governorship, House and/or Senate, the budget won't get smaller. No, taxes will go up by that 300 million, and probably more.
We do have a backlog of transportation projects, no question. But I don't see a crisis, and frankly, I don't see how much more summer road construction we could stand. I, for one, think congestion has eased in the Twin Cities in general. Our roads and bridges are being addressed even now, and if more money is needed, we could certainly spend a little less on "mass" transit with minimal impact.
The answer on all fronts: vote NO on the proposed transportation amendment. It's bad law, will increase wasteful spending on transit, and increase your taxes.
Even if that was as far as it went, I'd vote No. It's just bad government to enact ordinary spending policy as hard, inflexible constitutional law. The concept of a constitution is to provide a framework for government. Changes should be to correct and improve that framework, such as in the elimination of the obsolete (?) State Treasurer position. Even protecting the legislatively adopted definition of marriage doesn't rise to this level. Appeals, carefully considered appointments of new judges, and when necessary, impeachment of existing activist judges are adequate and proper remedies.
But this amendment goes further, by requiring at 40 percent of the money go to fund transit. This is well over 100 million dollars a year out of the 300 million dollars total. Clearly much of it is already ear-marked for light rail, as if the Hiawatha line isn't hemorrhaging enough money in operating losses already, not to mention three fatalities. And 40 percent is just the minimum!
Another problem I have is even defining this revenue as somehow transportation related. MVET is simply the sales tax paid when buying motor vehicles, and the latter are products just like other taxed goods and services in Minnesota. Is sales tax paid at restaurants dedicated to the Health Department? No, sales tax is sales tax, and it should all go in the General Fund. Dedicated taxes are really fees, like the annual vehicle registration, and should be handled as such.
Finally, this will leave a hole in the General Fund budget. Maybe not today if revenues continue their sharp rise in this expanding economy. But the minute they level off, watch out! Gone will be the flexibility to prioritize that 300 million dollars with education and public safety. Unless the Republicans retake the Governorship, House and/or Senate, the budget won't get smaller. No, taxes will go up by that 300 million, and probably more.
We do have a backlog of transportation projects, no question. But I don't see a crisis, and frankly, I don't see how much more summer road construction we could stand. I, for one, think congestion has eased in the Twin Cities in general. Our roads and bridges are being addressed even now, and if more money is needed, we could certainly spend a little less on "mass" transit with minimal impact.
The answer on all fronts: vote NO on the proposed transportation amendment. It's bad law, will increase wasteful spending on transit, and increase your taxes.
An issue for me (which is implied in your mention of the 40% minimum) is there is nothing preventing 0% being dedicated towards roads.
If the theory is we should dedicate "transportation tax" to transportation then the sales tax on cars should go 100% towards roads. Sales tax on trains should go to transit.
Government created the traffic headache by not adequately funding roads, bridges, and new construction. Now they need to take the responsibility and make them better.