Teresa

I don't think there was a funding problem for transportation. I believe your state had a very large surplus! So taxes was not the issue. You don't need more money to fix the bridges - you just need to use the money that's already there.

Mark,

Exactly. And who decided that the surplus should be acheived with spending cuts and put into tax cuts (not to mention charging fees for services our taxes already paid for and calling them "fees" to keep Mr. Norquist happy)? Who wanted to privatize our roads to make them engines of profit for private companies (because it worked so well with that privatized business high school)?

Plus, two billion over three years is hardly a "very large surplus" to be sure, it is better than a deficit...but it is not a huge surplus especially when it is pointed out that half of that is due to the fact that they didn't take inflation into account...so it was actually a one billion dollar PROJECTED surplus over three years.

There was a decision to defer recommended maintenance on that bridge. Pawlenty consistantly opposed funding bills for transportation and infrasturcture, as well as mass transit to provide an alternative means of transportation and take some of the load off roads and bridges.

a "Surplus" achieved by pushing the burdon of tax spending onto local governments that don't have the negotiating power of the state to get better deals. Limbaugh thinks that contractors get "sweetheart deals" from the state? He should see city governments getting screwed over their little projects.

Oh yeah, and when local governments had to raise taxes to meet the increased demands put on them by the State's cuts, who wanted to pass a law that limited the taxes they could raise?

Minnesota is outgrowing it's infrastructure, and the infrastructure we have is aging. I recall seeing reports and white-papers about the ages of roads, particularly the interstates as far back as the '80s. It's not as though it should come as a shock to poeple that repairing an aging infrastructure while trying to expand it to meet the demands of a growing population, as well as an economy that is growing both in size and complexity is going to require an increase in spending above the rate of inflation...and that trying to hold it at the same level is going to cause problems.

And yes, the Bear Exhibit at the Como Zoo is being repaired. Know what? Rush Libaugh can call that "pork" all he wants to, but it isn't. The damned thing has been closed and vacant for YEARS now, waiting for it's turn at the funding...deferred because the money was spent elsewhere. It's a tiny little project that is long long overdue. The Viking boat? Yeah, it may seem like pork to anyone who doesn't live in an area where the biggest job provider is tourism. But for that area, the Viking boat is an important part of their local industry...and those businesses pay taxes too. Maintenance of public assets ISN'T "pork" no matter what Mr. Limbaugh thinks.

That's right up there with calling a new coat of paint for the city hall "Pork" What the hell?

Although I'm with him on the stadium...but in the end, the stupid rednecks who wanted that probably cost us twice as much with their repeated demands for it and all the studies and debates and public resources that had to go into them than if we'd just built the damned thing in the first place. And if anyone knows one liberal that was in favor of the stadium, PLEASE introduce me, because I would like to meet them AND their unicorn.

Hell, the billionare we're building it for probably spent more money trying to make us pay for it than it would have cost him to just build the fucking thing himself.

We're in the same boat here in Virginia. Transportation issues are BIG news and on everyone's mind. I'm with you on the stadium, too. Why should governments pay for sports stadiums that will only be used by professional teams? They can afford to pay for it themselves.