Tim Pawlenty came to St. Cloud today to tout his bonding bill for the upcoming legislative session. Over at Build Our Party, Blue Man does an excellent job breaking down the inconsistency in the message of our esteemed Governor.
Check it out:
Governor Pawlenty wants us to believe that he is now serious about Transportation as nearly 40% of his proposal is geared around roads and bridges across Minnesota. The Governor touts that the Transportation initiatives in his capitol investment proposal are more than 4 times the amount in any bonding bill in the state's history.
Is it curious to anyone else that a Governor who has long touted a message of fiscal restraint and curbing spending is now heralding a bill with four times more spending than any previous bonding bill? It appears obvious to anyone who hasn't been living under a rock with their eyes closed and their fingers in their ears. Blue Man has the answers...
Recall the the Governor vetoed the Transportation bill last Spring (with Rep Dean Urdahl's support). When Pawlenty vetoed the Transportation bill last Spring, he left more than $270 million on the table for the state's trunk highway system, $162 million in County State aid, and $35 million in Municipal State aid for roads and bridges.
Keep in mind, the governor also vetoed $30 million in money for local bridges last Spring as well. Fundamentally, I oppose bonding for our roads and bridges. Let's be clear, the funding of these roads and bridges are very important, as evidenced by the 35W bridge collapse.
Governor Pawlenty called the proposal "fiscally responsible and it sets key priorities such as replacing more than 600 local bridges."
Fiscally responsible? Putting this on the "state's credit card" is far from fiscally responsible.
Also, by using bridges as the example, is he not politicizing the 35W bridge collapse for leverage on his bonding proposal? What Minnesota really needs is a permanent commitment to transportation funding, especially when we consider that our state falls $2 million behind on transportation funding every year.
Well of course he is politicizing the bridge collapse! However, rather than having our generation pay for the mistakes we have made, Tim Pawlenty is willing to have my children pay the bill so that he might win some political points. In fact, during a Republican held forum last month a local legislator proclaimed that children use the roads too.
In local news, the folks at St. Cloud Times Chat are wondering where our mayor is given that he has long claimed he would be the perfect person to lobby for the cities interests.
In local news, the folks at St. Cloud Times Chat are wondering where our mayor is given that he has long claimed he would be the perfect person to lobby for the cities interests.
6.
Jazzman from Saint Cloud
Comment Posted: 1/14/2008 1:19:11 PM
I thought Klies was supposed to be buddy's with TPaw? I thought Klies was supposed to be our big lobbyist down at St. Paul? Another failure of Klies???
14.
TOF from the North Woods
Comment Posted: 1/14/2008 4:28:45 PM
The Gov's budget is just a proposal. So why would he recommend more for a DFL area? It would seem more likely that he would reward his GOP supporters (e.g., Kleis) and then possibly agree to support Duluth later on in a bargaining process with the DFL. The government moves in mysterious ways.
17.
boatman from St. Cloud
Comment Posted: 1/14/2008 5:34:15 PM
k lies is doing a crackerjack job as St. Clouds Lobbyist.
Also, some cynicism over political aspirations:
15.
Trout Dude from W. Hemisphere
Comment Posted: 1/14/2008 4:48:20 PM
Tpaw will throw around pork like never before because he's a member of DFL-Lite, err the modern-day GOP. He's so busy sniffing McCain's jock and tryring to appear moderate and inclusive that he is a de facto Democrat.
Check out this link for a more detailed response (audio included) from Keith Langseth. Perhaps the Governor can work with Langseth on a comprehensive approach rather than a knee jerk reactionary approach to the state's transportation needs.
