Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know I feel terrible. Clearly the lack of cash spent in the last year or so of Pawlenty's governance is what caused the bridge to collapse. Because bridges collapse due to a year or two of wear and tear, not decades of neglect.
If only this state had a history of high taxing, high spending DFLers in control of the budget purse, our bridges and other infrastructure would naturally be in great shape. I mean, 30-40 years of constant spending, it's not like that money would just go to waste. You would have seen results. But alas, it is our curse to live in a conservative ruled, tightfisted state.
Damn it, if only there were more DFLers in this state, we'd have the wonderful bridges we deserve. Well, at least we've had low taxes for the last 30-40 years, as an offset to poorly repaired roads and bridges.
/\Sarcasm doesn't hide amnesia. It isn't the four years of Pawlenty that caused disinvestment in our infrastructure, it is the lack of any DFL governor since Perpich. The bridge began its structurally insufficient stint in 1990. A series of Republican and Independent governors (for what will have been a total of twenty years) have refused to increase the gas tax, limited the license tab fee and stalled LGA. Sometimes it pays to pay. Any increase in your taxes has been mainly in local and municipal governments trying to maintain the expectations established in the 60 years of more liberal governance.
There are still many facts that are coming out now and will come out later that should help shape how the tragic Interstate 35W collapse occurred, and depending on what facts eventually come out, some facts may implicate that Pawlenty's politics came into play. The most recent article from the Star Tribune suggests that, despite interviews with two engineers to the contrary, money was a consideration in the treatment of the 35W bridge in the last year. I don't know anyone who works at Mn/DOT, but apparently the 35W bridge was the most studied bridge in Minnesota, presumably because deficiencies were noticed. Internal documents unveiled in the article list several instances where money was a factor in the decision-making process:
"We regret the additional work this has caused you and others in the district," Peterson wrote in an e-mail, "but I'm sure you agree that based on this new information it [is] appropriate that we postpone the project until we can determine if another option may [be] as safe and a more cost effective approach." (emphasis added)
Minutes show that MnDOT officials saw a benefit to immediately reinforcing the bridge because it could choose the exact time, conditions and method of work. ... "If we wait until an inspection finds a crack before we reinforce the steel, then random chance and weather will dictate ... This will negatively impact cost, quality and safety," according to minutes of the July 2006 meeting. (emphasis added) Even though this is the flip side of the cost debate, it still shows that cost was a factor.
Of course, I would be remiss if I did not mention state bridge inspector Dorgan's ardent disagreement that cost was factor in the decision. At the same time, what engineer would want the deaths of 13 people on his conscious because the powers that be required him to take a more "cost-effective" option. Not saying that I don't believe him, but he obviously has an interest in saying that he did all that he could.
This will be more fuel for the fire for conspiracy theorists who claim that the governor's political mantra, "no new taxes," teamed with the lieutenant governor having dual political and administrative roles, could have lead to the lieutenant governor quashing certain suggested actions in the MnDOT. (I have read several reports that she was not afraid to throw around her weight.) Generally, heads of state government agencies are advocates for their agencies, but Molnau obviously has a self-interest in party politics and Pawlenty's success. How a farmer without a college degree ends up leading a specialized and highly technical agency like MnDOT should make even the biggest Pawlenty supporter wonder. (Aren't there plenty of conservative engineers to choose from?)
Again, I'm not saying that this is how it went down--there aren't enough facts to support this--but if there was collusion, this is likely how it would happen. Also, it's not like we are going to find a Pawlenty e-mail that tells the engineers to do nothing on the 35W bridge. However, depending on the existing fiscal and political pressures in MnDOT, there could, eventually, be some facts to suggest that the policies in place may have had an impact on MnDOT's decision making. Then again, maybe not. But I still believe it's too early to exonerate any of our political leaders until the cause(s) is (are) uncovered. It just seems as though Pawlenty supporters want to dismiss any critism of Pawlenty as party politics when we really don't know enough either way to make a judgment.
Here is the article from the Star Tribune referenced above: Phone call put brakes on bridge repair. Regardless of your position on partisan politics, the decision not to reinforce the bridge in the last year very well could have prevented the disaster, depending on what NTSB tells us.
Last edited by AVguy; 08-18-2007 at 09:25 PM..
Reason: Added Star Tribune web site
I've been tossing around a macroeconomic thought lately that is prompted by people claiming that money collected from taxes gets "wasted" by the government. (Not trying to pick on you in particular, SlyFrog, but we discussed some economic theory a while back.) There are plenty of economic- and business-savvy posters on this board, so help me out on what I am missing.
When people talk about the government wasting money, I assume that they mean that government is spending money for uneconomic purposes. (Sample arguments: highways are more cost-effective than light rail; trim the fat and give the money back to private citizens; etc.) Most conservatives will agree that money should be spent to build and maintain highways because it serves the public, is more cost-effective than other options, and cannot be covered by the private sector. In this vein, many conservatives loathe social programs because they "waste" money on our society's economically unproductive members. My question is how is giving them money considered a bad economic decision?
The number one driving force in our economy is the consumer. (Agreed?) So long as American consumers keep spending money, then we keep our GDP up and keep money floating around the economy. Though we do encourage some saving, incentives for saving is fairly limited, and given the amount of debt incurred by our society as a whole (through mortgages, student loans, credit card debt, etc.), the percentage of saving makes up a very small percentage of the average person's income allocation.
So why in the world do I bring this up? Social programs, handouts if you will, funnel money straight into the consumer spending portion of our economy in a real macroeconomic sense. Money from taxes paid by the rich, who happen to save more money than average Americans, go to people who necessarily have to immediately spend money received in order to survive. How many section 8 folks have Roth IRAs, traditional IRAs, 401(k)s, and college savings funds? Very few of course. It seems pretty clear that these handouts go straight into the economy, instead of saving instruments like savings accounts, and contribute to the economy and are reflected in economic indicators.
In this sense, it would seem that the government cannot economically waste money because all government money ends up in the pockets of private citizens. If we happen to raise the gas tax by five cents, then we will have money for more construction, which leads to more jobs for construction workers, more money spent on raw materials, more money spent on special consultants, so on and so forth, which all leads to increased spending, increasing the GDP. (I've never heard anyone say that the military-industrial complex was a burden on the economy!)
And besides, it's not like the government is an actual entity possible of selfishly spending money on itself to the exclusion of both the public and private actors. You won't see the government at Best Buy on a Saturday afternoon buying a second 32" LCD HDTV for his bathroom. Even if the government could spend money in this manner, it increases the money infused into Best Buy, which is a private actor. Eventually all govenment money goes to private actors, so aside from any inefficiency in collecting and releasing the funds (when I cut to the department of revenue this year, it was cashed within a week), I am curious to hear how it is economically wasteful for government to collect and spend tax money.
I can't believe the people posting in this room? Must have mutliple aliases with all the the "me-too-isms."
Pawlenty is like the admiral in the Pirates of Penzanze. He sticks close to his desk and doesn't do anything.
So if not spending money for programs that needed $, then he's your hero. BTW, the bridge collapsed for LACK OF PROPER FUNDING AND POOR INSPECTION. Who's responsible for that? Answer--Governor Pawlenty.
I'd call him "Pawlenty of Nothing." {as in Plenty of Nothing}
here here.
Its Giuliani Syndrome. No one likes him, something bad happens, and everyones talking about what a super guy he is.
I've been tossing around a macroeconomic thought lately that is prompted by people claiming that money collected from taxes gets "wasted" by the government. (Not trying to pick on you in particular, SlyFrog, but we discussed some economic theory a while back.) There are plenty of economic- and business-savvy posters on this board, so help me out on what I am missing.
Since you asked reasonably and intelligently, here are my thoughts.
When a lot of people speak of "waste," they do not necessarily care that it gets recycled back into the economy. What they care about is that it gets recycled back into the economy by other people, who did not work to earn the income that they put back into the economy, and also therefore did not deserve the consumer goods that were purchased with the money.
That's my general estimate as to one group's general thought.
Perhaps a more intelligent (or at least more nuanced) thought regarding the subject I have heard is that waste equals inefficiency. One theory is that government should exist to do only those things that can not reasonably be done by the private market efficiently, or where monopolies might develop, etc. Further, it should only do critical things - we do not really need the government to take on the business for private space flights for ordinary citizens just for enjoyment purposes.
When you overtax, and when the government takes on too big a role, you end up paying for government itself. You do not get efficiency out of the economy; instead of having someone out producing real value with their time and effort, you end up with growing numbers of people who do not really produce anything of value with their time (or who produce at a much lower marginal rate of value). You get government employees who are redundant, or who work in areas that are nowhere near necessary. The government becomes a job in its own right, and people (outside of the government as well) spend more time trying to figure out how to get money out of the government than they do actually working to create something new and put new value into the marketplace.
You end up with the joys of Halliburton.
Of course, the rest of the population pays for this.
Finally, in the saddest bit of all, there is never enough money, and the money that the government does get is misapplied (due to "mission creep," again, the government is not limiting itself to critical needs). So you see money going to support the National Endowment for the arts, or building the new Twins stadium. Meanwhile, while you are paying for a stadium to watch grown men play a game, you don't have enough money left to pay for bridge repair.
For a lot of people, the answer is not just, "Pay for both." Nor is it, "Don't help the rich, billionaire owner pay for his stadium, but pay the hospital bill for the person who doesn't pay taxes and has no health care, but not the bridges."
I applaud you both for taking the time post thoughtful comments and "raise the bar" for the rest of us. You both raise some valid points. At some point large government always runs the risk of becoming redundant and self serving; and worse yet, beds down with big business (so glad you mentioned Halliburton, SlyFrog). In such cases the public interest is not being served. I think AVguy has it right, though, in regard to spending on social programs. The best way to protect against government waste/inefficiency is to focus government spending on social services and infrastructure. It produces the largest benefit for the population across the board.
It may be too simplistic, but keep in mind that "pre-Dubya" the economy was up, social spending was up, and government was operating at a surplus and reducing national debt. Now valuable money is funneled into a war machine that brings no immediate economic benefit home and swells the pockets of a few corporations that charge grossly elevated prices for "contractors" who fall outside of the military hierarchy. What if we kick out Halliburton and take the savings to actually pay our soldiers what they deserve? ...Sorry - got side-tracked!
Here's another thought that might belong to a new thread: What are your thoughts on sales tax? I'm out here in Oregon (hope to be in Duluth someday) where the public fights a sales tax tooth and nail - and at the same time complains about the obscene property and income tax rates. Personally, I'd gladly trade for a well thought out sales tax that exempts food and medical. I just don't buy the idea that it disproportionately hurts the lower class. You control your own tax rate. Don't want to pay too much tax on you auto - don't buy the Beemer. Don't want to pay as much tax on clothes - skip the designer jeans and go to Costco/Target etc. Some might call that unfair; I call it living within your means. This comes from someone who is in the lower middle-class income range.
AVguy and SlyFrog:
Here's another thought that might belong to a new thread: What are your thoughts on sales tax? I'm out here in Oregon (hope to be in Duluth someday) where the public fights a sales tax tooth and nail - and at the same time complains about the obscene property and income tax rates. Personally, I'd gladly trade for a well thought out sales tax that exempts food and medical. I just don't buy the idea that it disproportionately hurts the lower class. You control your own tax rate. .
I agree 100%. Consumption taxes are great. You could go a step further, and exempt the 1st $10,000 of purchases each year for every family from a sales tax. That way, the family who has little doesn't pay a dime. The ultimate in a progressive tax. But, as you mention, the person buying the BMW and the ones outfitting their home from Ethan Allen pay the bill. Love it.
I believe that the point where a person's 51st cent on every dollar earned is paid in terms of tax is unethical, and borderline criminal. When you combine federal and state income taxes, and other taxes such as property, we're already there in many cases. Am I really paying the government a tax to fund basic services, or is this more like me paying my fee to the mafia for the privilege of living? Sometimes I get confused.
I know I feel terrible. Clearly the lack of cash spent in the last year or so of Pawlenty's governance is what caused the bridge to collapse. Because bridges collapse due to a year or two of wear and tear, not decades of neglect.
If only this state had a history of high taxing, high spending DFLers in control of the budget purse, our bridges and other infrastructure would naturally be in great shape. I mean, 30-40 years of constant spending, it's not like that money would just go to waste. You would have seen results. But alas, it is our curse to live in a conservative ruled, tightfisted state.
Damn it, if only there were more DFLers in this state, we'd have the wonderful bridges we deserve. Well, at least we've had low taxes for the last 30-40 years, as an offset to poorly repaired roads and bridges.
I agree. We need to pay the higher tax, because more money will have a direct correlation on fixing all these problems. Plus, we know if it was the other way around, that there was too much money going to government and the dems were in office, they would surely give the surplus back to us
Pawlenty is not to blame for the bridge collapse. I blame those that have big yard in the fringe suburbs. We spend more money than we should on expanding and building new highways in the ex-urbs so we can please people that want drive their SUV's from Hutchinson, Chanhaska, Montecello to the twin cities everyday, instead of spending it on existing infrastructure.
Im fed up with it! If they want to live out there, they should put up with the existing bottle-necks. If you dont like sitting in traffic, move to the cities instead of driving from 50 miles away!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
nice to see real discussion!
