Day Seven--and Look Ma! I'm a Political Blogger Now!

WARNING: Painfully sincere and turgid post below. Caffeine is recommended. You have been warned.

Yes I voted today. I know how I feel about some things that make it important to me to record my preferences. We are voting for constitutional oficers here in Minnesota, and we need to keep our current governor. He's done a fine job and is a intellectually honest and decent man. I disagree over some of his social positions, but I respect the man.

Can't really say the same about his leading opponent, and it just kills me that my dear friends the electorate seem to be willing to elect a bad man just because he has the right party affiliation. It will make watching the returns tonight more visceral than usual.

Oddly enough, we were presented with a constitutional amendment on the ballot this year. The proposal states: "Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to dedicate revenue from a tax on the sale of new and used motor vehicles over a five-year period, so that after 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?”

Now, I'm not a hugely dedicated news junkie, by any means, but I do listen to the outside world, and I haven't heard much (or ANY) discussion about why this amendment is being proposed. As I understand it, Minnesota currently collects sales tax on motor vehicles, and currently 54% of that money is used for transportation. So, for some reason I can't fathom, we need a constitutional amendment to increase highway funding by 6%? Apparently the legislature once passed a law requiring that the motor vehicle sales tax be dedicated to transportation funding, but it was "never fully implimented" and was ultimately repealed. Meaning the legislature made some decisions that other programs needed the money more desperately?

According to a radio ad that I heard yesterday, with the "projected revenue growth" over the next couple of years, by the time the full effect of the amendment occurs in 2011--everybody will have enough money for everything, no other programs will lose revenue, and we'll all have new roads and bridges.

Let's just say I'm skeptical. ("I'm skeptical." --Frank Drebin) After all, I live in a state where mass transit is viewed as inherently suspect by actual legislators, who feel that people just want to "drive and be happy!" A state where it is self-evidently stupid to ask people to drive to a parking lot and take a train into work, rather than just driving in the entire way. A state when HOV lane requirements of 2(!) people to a car is viewed as too onerous, so you can buy a pass to drive in the HOV line by yourself. A state where bus ridership can't keep the bus lines running, so they get cut, and HEY! the ridership keeps going down! Because there aren't buses any more! Go figure!

Part of this has to be fundamental prairie thinking. When you work in Washington D.C., odds are you live in either Virginia or Maryland. If you try to drive into D.C. from Virginia or Maryland, you run into an obstacle called a "river." To cross this river, you need a bridge. There were 5 bridges when I lived there. If everybody who works in D.C. tries to drive--alone--in a car, with only 5 bridges, you end up with traffic takes a hell of a long time to unjam.

Here on the prairie, we don't have that problem. In fact, with the right kind of SUV, we could probably not even bother with roads, just plow across the flat land to our destinations. The reality of rising populations just doesn't seem to get across--why not just make the roads wider? That'll take care of the problem.

With that kind of thinking going on, it bothers me that we are being asked to permanently ensconce transportation budgeting into the constitution and out of the hands of the legislature. I'm not sure how, but I'm afraid that passing this inflexible amendment will strangle our ability to plan properly for mass transit in the future.

Or, let's take a worst case scenario: a Force 5 hurricane blows north up the Mississippi River, innundating the twin Citites metro area, and destroying homes, businesses and lives. Enormous needs need to be met quickly--but that sales tax money can't be touched. No, I am not in favor of relieving our representatives from doing their jobs--and part of that job is to make decisions about how to best allocate our resources. And face it--everybody could use more funding. Hell, I could use more funding. But constitutional budget planning means that we are making decisions out of context. Transportation is an important priority, but is it more important than HeadStart, or health coverage for the uninsured, or food stamps, or pollution control, or education funding, or...or...or....

So, I voted against it. And I voted to retain our (Republican) governor. And I voted for the DFL senatorial candidate. And I even voted for the Green Party candidate for one position. Hey, just because I'm politically schizophrenic--does that mean I get to vote more than once?

I didn't vote for water board commissioner. I just don't know the issues!