|
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 11, 2008
Contact: Phil Krinkie
(651) 294-3590 ext 202
Bridges or Boondoggles?
The State bonds for zoos, arenas and trails. Why not bond for something important?
ST. PAUL – As it did in 2007, the 2008 legislative session will most likely come down to a showdown over how to pay for road and bridge projects. Like last year, Minnesotans will again see proposals to raise any tax that has even the slightest connection to transportation funding such as an increase in the gas tax, new wheelage taxes, dedicated sales tax increases and higher license tab fees.
As was clearly demonstrated last year, Governor Pawlenty and Minnesotans had no appetite for tax increases. 2008 should be no different.
Minnesota State Legislators should look to a source of funding that is routinely misspent on government boondoggles and has gone largely untapped when it comes to long-term capital projects that are clearly of statewide significance: Minnesota needs to start using state G.O. bonds for road and bridge projects.
Why aren’t we already doing this? “It’s simple,” says Phil Krinkie, President of the Taxpayers League of Minnesota, “legislators want to pay cash for highway projects in order to use the credit card for local pork barrel projects. If bonding bills were primarily made up of necessary road and bridge projects, there would be little room left for the “pork” that legislators bring home to their districts to help with their re-election efforts.”
Because the legislature has a self-imposed guideline to limit state debt payments to 3% of the State’s general fund, the 2008 bonding bill should come in at a maximum of $965 million. Of that number, state legislators should allocate a major portion of the bonding bill to road and bridge projects.
Krinkie concluded: “If increased transportation spending is really as much of a priority for state legislators as they say it is, then sacrificing Faribault’s Paradise Center for the Arts, the Hyland K70 Ski Jump in Bloomington or the St. Louis County Equestrian Facility, just to name a few, shouldn’t be a problem.”
###
At the Taxpayers League's press conference on January 11th, a copies of a Minnesota Free Market Institute analysis were distributed that made the case as to why Government Obligation (G.O.) bonds should be used for road and bridge projects.
Also at the press conference Taxpayers League President Phil Krinkie pointed to a number of road and bridge projects that should be included in future bonding bills and also projects that state legislators have historically used the bonding bill to fund.
Local Pork Projects
v Hyland K70 Ski Jump – Bloomington
v St. Paul RiverCentre Loan Repayment
v Duluth Zoo Polar Bear Exhibit
v Spicer Historic Military Plane Enclosure
v Target Center Bond Repayment
v State Fair Fish Habitat Display
v Anoka County Bike and Pedestrian Trail
v Rochester National Volleyball Center
v St. Louis County Equestrian Facility
v Austin Area Success Center
Roads and Bridges
v I-35 from Proctor to Duluth
v Highway 61 Hastings bridge
v Highway 71/197 in Bemidji
v Highway 52 Lafayette bridge
v Highway 52 Cannon Falls interchange
v I-35E Cayuga bridge over the Mississippi
v Highway 14 Waseca bypass
v Highway 36 Stillwater Lift bridge
v Highway 19 in Redwood Falls
v Highway 610 between I-94 and 169
|
