Three Way News
Your Source. For everything. Really.
Contributors
- Hammer
- Jambo
- Libby Mae
Current Poll
Recurring features
Hammer's Favorites
- Dobson v. Sponge-Bob
- Calvin, the nest egg
- Pat's predictions
- Bachmann spins Cupertino
- 205 atheists assume the bench
- Fox spins Oil for Food
- Fact check: highest taxed state
- Gen. Myers v. Reality
- Janice Rogers Brown
- Killing Field
- Kline hates Big Bird
- Vote Luca Brasi!
- Cornyn's Stalinist Supreme Court
- Rumsfeld's hidden metrics
Jambo's Favories
- Dolphin research updates
- We all shine on
- If you have to write...
- Columnist NY Times should have
- Truth about taxes
- Fourth of July
- Movie objects
- Lost in supermarket
- Dysfunctional Farmer Labor party
- Punks you hated
- Some preacher from east
- Winning issues
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Minnesota roads
Let's see. We've got Makeover Mark Kennedy pimping a plan to suspend the federal gas tax. The federal Highway Trust Fund would be supplemented with $7 billion from uncollected drilling royalties. It's a gimmick, not a policy. On it's face, though, it's a good gimmick, I'll give him that.
Then we have the proposed amendment to the state constitution that would dedicate funds to highways and transit:
[A]fter June 30, 2011, all of the revenue is dedicated at least 40 percent for public transit assistance and not more than 60 percent for highway purposes
I've got two problems with the amendment. First, 'public transit assistance' isn't defined in the question. This glossary provides a very understandable definition -- public dollars to support the day-to-day operations for mass transportation. I'm concerned that voters might be confused about what public transit assistance actually means. Second, I don't think funding formulas should rise to the level of a constitutional amendment. The legislature is saying that they can't be trusted to spend money appropriately -- sad, but true. I don't know that an amendment that shifts money around will fix that problem.
