At 3PM Governor Pawlenty announced a special session to convene at 5pm tomorrow, 9/11 to deal solely with funding for a flood relief package.
Gov. Tim Pawlenty on Monday called a special session of the Legislature to pass a flood relief package.
Legislators will convene at 5 p.m. Tuesday.
Heavy rains deluged the southeastern corner of Minnesota three weeks ago, causing flash flooding that killed seven and left behind millions of dollars in damage. Seven Minnesota counties are federal disaster areas, but money from Washington will cover only a portion of the recovery costs.
Finally.
Loading ...
Special session tomorrow.
No tax bill
no transportation tax increase
no new lga for minneapolis
The governor wins big again.
Lesson of the day: don’t hire a Democrat
to do your negotiating.
I think this ended the way it did because it was the right thing to do. For most people in the state a special session should happen only if there is a truly immediate need that can only be attended to by a special session. The flooding fits that definition but nothing else the Democrats wanted did.
This is the Gov’s way of playing it safe. Lest he be branded by the GOP as going against his word. So much for him looking out for Transportation needs. Will Flood Relief rake into consideration replacing Roads and Bridges that were washed out? Or will that fall under Transportation?
Rest assured, In 2008, there will be a Gas Yax Increase fight as more bridges in the state are deemded eficient. The Laffyette Bridge is sound for now despite numerous cracks and deficienties with that particular span that is close to a mile long.
kathy,
I think you’ve convinced yourself that Democrats are interested in roads and bridges. Why are they pushing to have light rail added to the I-35W bridge when there has never been light rail contemplated for that corridor?
Look, Pawlenty proposed $1.7 billion in road and bridge funding last year and the Democrats balked. No matter what you say to the contrary, Democrats are more interested in raising taxes than solving problems - end of story.
Actually Chris, you and other conservatives have constructed a strawman that they AREN’T interested in roads and bridges.
I wouldn’t count on anything getting done in this special session.
Anyone want to take odds that the Democrat legislators don’t turn this into another moonbat frenzy that dredges every bit of lunacy they had in the works last year back up from the dead?
Who cares about bridges and flooding when the frequent pooper card is still in limbo?
SeanH,
I’d like to see your evidence that DFLers are interested in roads and bridges. For the last decade, the debate in the legislature has been over light rail and buses not roads and bridges. The MVET Consitutional Amendment became one because the DFL refused to pass a bill which would have put all of MVET in transportation.
If DFLers were for roads and bridges, they would have approved the Governor’s proposal last year for $1.7 billion.
Wasn’t that ALL bonding?
Yes, bonding to build $1.7 billion of highway and bridge infrastructure. What’s your point? The DFL proposed over $1 billion in bonding for buildings and trails and other infrastructure during the 2006 legislative session.
“SeanH,
I’d like to see your evidence that DFLers are interested in roads and bridges.”
Are you SERIOUSLY going to sit there and say that the DFL has not wanted to fund roads and bridges?
SeanH,
Yes. Check the spending over the last decade - the priority has been light rail and buses not roads and bridges. For cripes sake, they wouldn’t even pass a bill that would put all of the MVET into transportation. To do that, we went through the extraordinary procedure of putting in a Constitutional amendment that was adopted by the voters.
Show me where the DFL has fought for roads and bridges, because you can’t.
Ahhhhh, so we go from “not caring” to “not caring ENOUGH in Chris’s opinion”.
Your strawman has crumbled. Give it up.
It was Larry Pogemiller that issued to the DFL majority in the Senate that the Special Session will focus on Flood Relief.
The issue of Transportation will be on the front burner when the legislature reconvenes in 2008. The money Chris speaks of for roads and bridges will not be enough over 2 years. Will it take another bridge going down before the Gas Tax is raised?
Minnesota cannot afford to wait until Tim Pawlenty’s second term expires.
kathy,
How can you say, “Will it take another bridge going down before the Gas Tax is raised”? Do you know what caused the bridge to go down kathy? To raise the $1.7 billion that Pawlenty proposed last year, kathy’s precious gas tax would need to be increased 50 cents a gallon. Kathy, are you ready to pay $3.499 a gallon? Minnesota cannot afford kathy’s gas tax increase any more than we can afford Pogemiller’s train to nowhere II.
SeanH,
Pogemiller said that the flood victims were taking money away from people who live in other districts. If that’s not un-compassionate, I don’t know what is. Pogemiller is not a good leader, even Democrats in St. Paul admit this.
It’s a shame that the special session won’t address transportation issues, but a bigger shame that the only way T-Paw would call a special session at all was to wait until the Democrats had to basically beg him to fulfill his duties as governor and properly address a major problem in the state.
I expect this will actually go pretty quickly. The DFL won’t try and hit up transportation, because T-Paw will just veto anything and whine and cry about being betrayed, and all his baying lackeys will pile on. It’s sad. Strom, Seifert and the rest of the “I got mine” crowd get to maintain their precious ideological purity while the state crumbles.
Chris,
The Gov supports a raise in the state’s Gas Tax as long as it comes from within the state budget. That means more cxash strapped agencies recieving less dollars. He will fight having a raise in the Gas Tax as a seperate issue. You know this.
The $32 Million the Gov says money will be comiong from for Flood Relief will come from already cash strapped State Agencies that aid minnesotans in such emergencies as devestating Floods and Drought. http://www.postbulletin.com/newsmanager/templates/localnews_story.asp?a=306833&z=2#comment
I am not wrong when I say that it will take another span of Bridge going down and more deaths before the Gov. acts. Raise the Gas tax and make sure that the money needed by MNDOT is there to keep tragedies like the I-35 from ever happening again.
The Gas Tax will be the issue first up in 2008 when the Legislature reconvenes in 2008. Rest assured Pawlenty will fight it.
Kathy,
More than six out of ten Minnesotans oppose the gas tax and for good reason. You say our agencies are cash strapped. Budgets have been raised over 9% this past biennium. How many people’s budgets have gone up that much? I say Minnesotans are cash strapped and they are sick of seeing government waste money. Government should be helping the flood victims - the rest of the issues can wait until next year.
By the way kathy, where is your evidence that a lack of funding caused the bridge to collapse? Are you saying you know more than the NTSB and others who are still investigating what caused the bridge to collapse? Tell me, kathy, what caused the bridge to collapse? Until you can answer that question, I suggest you stifle the absurd claims that more bridges will collapse unless Pawlenty raises taxes.
“SeanH,
Pogemiller said that the flood victims were taking money away from people who live in other districts. If that’s not un-compassionate, I don’t know what is. Pogemiller is not a good leader, even Democrats in St. Paul admit this.”
What the heck does that have to do with what I was talking about? Oh, you needed to change the subject.
The fact is that neither Republicans or Democrats had bridge and road maintenance on the top of their priority list. Both choose to go different directions to some degree either by funding transit, ethanol, stadiums, bike trails, LGA or by refusing to bond and or raise taxes to pay for maintenance. Maintenance doesn’t usually get anybody in the news like adding a lane or another rail line so politicians don’t care much about it. Until the national news truck role in that is. Then everybody thinks that it was the other guys priorities that got in the way rather than their own. If either side wanted to they could have put more money into roads and bridges.
A special session is no place to create long term transportation policy. Much of the staff is gone on vacations and temporary staff isn’t there at all. Many legislators in our state have other jobs that might limit their time at the capitol and with their constituents which limits the input from large chucks of the population. More importantly a special session gives little chance for committees to hear interested parties, constituents and experts which is the basis for good democratic government. Pushing no emergency issues during a special session is about politics and not policy.
Yep…I have to agree… It would have just been focused on the bridge and then there would have been all of this ridiculous chatter about how both parties came together to help Minnesotans - ha. One doesn’t need a crystal ball to know transportation will languish for at least five more years and a couple of more disasters before either major party gets serious.
SeanH,
You asked, “What the heck does that have to do with what I was talking about? Oh, you needed to change the subject.”
No, SeanH, I did not change the subject. You said in your previous post, “Ahhhhh, so we go from “not caring” to “not caring ENOUGH in Chris’s opinion”.” My response was clearly to rebut your statement about not caring enough.
SeanH, you need to do a better job of following along. I thought you were bright enough to follow several trains of thought, but maybe you aren’t.
The Democrats blew their chance during the session and can’t make up for it now. Pass the flood relief, and take up transportation funding again next year. If they want to get anything done, though, the first thing they need to do is dump Pogemiller as majority leader.
No, SeanH, I did not change the subject. You said in your previous post, “Ahhhhh, so we go from “not caring” to “not caring ENOUGH in Chris’s opinion”.” My response was clearly to rebut your statement about not caring enough.
We were talking about your erroneous statement that the DFL doesn’t care about roads and bridges. You rebutted nothing.
SeanH,
If the DFL cared about roads and bridges, why have they been fighting to take money out of roads and bridges and put it into light rail and buses? Why have they fought against Pawlenty’s proposals to build billions in roads and bridges? The facts are that for the last decade or more, the DFL has tried taking money out of roads and bridges in favor of transit.
Back in 2005, a Bi Partisan coalition of the House and Senate drafted and passed legislation to raise the Gas Tax 10 cents er gallon over a period of several years to address the Transportaion issue regarding Roads, Bridges, and improve Transit options. Pawlenty vetoes that Bill.
This year, another Bill was drafted with BiPartisan support, limiting the Gas Tax to 5 cents per gallon. Again Pawlenty vetoed the Transportation Bill. Then the I-35 bridge went down. This will be an ongoing problem if not addressed next session.
Will it take another span of bridge going down before anything is done? That is not out of the question. It’s like the man who has a hole in his roof…”The hole cannot be repaired because it is raining. It does not need to be fixed because it is not.” That is where the Governor is at regarding Transportation.
Take care of Flood Relief this Special Session. Argue about Transportation in February. This issue will not go away, however.
You still have not demonstrated that the DFL does not care about Roads and Bridges. All you have done is shown that you have the mistaken notion in your head that wanting to fund transit in addition to roads and bridges means that they don’t care about roads and bridges. But hey, you have provided a fine example of a logical fallacy.
“The Gov supports a raise in the state’s Gas Tax as long as it comes from within the state budget. That means more cxash strapped agencies recieving less dollars.”
Not necessarily.
A better idea is to retire a few dozen cash gobbling agencies that do nothing but give pandering Democrats with election time talking points, and use the savings to fund roads and bridges.
Priorities; it really is just that simple.
SeanH,
I cannot let you get away with the notion that taking money away from roads and bridges and putting it into light rail and buses is the same as being in favor of both. It just is not and no matter how you try to spin things, the record is the record.
It isn’t going to be true Chris no matter how many times you say it.
kathy,
I cannot also let you get away with calling the 2005 transportation bill “bipartisan.” When only five out of 49 Republicans vote for the gas tax increase, that does not make for a bipartisan bill.
Given the fact that the non-partisan experts in the Department of Transportation slated the I-35W bridge for replacement in 2020, I highly doubt that a nickel or dime gas tax increase would have prevented the tragedy of the bridge collapse. Kathy, we still don’t know what caused the bridge to collapse.
If the DFL was interested in a comprehensive package for fixing roads and bridges, they would have supported the Governor’s $1.7 billion package last year. They didn’t.
Keep shoveling. I like seeing you in a deep hole.
By your logic Republican CUTS to University funding means that republicans do not favor higher education.
Sean,
Do you have any facts to back up your claim, or are you going to endlessly rely on innuendo and opinion?
Kathy,
That’s despicable to demagogue the bridge collapse to support your desire for higher gas tax increase.
Which Sean?
It seems that Chris is the one making claims based on innuendo and opinion.
SeanH,
No, I’m making claims based on the record of the Minnesota State Legislature over the past 12 years.
As for your comments about higher education, I’d hardly call a 9% increase a cut.
They have cut it in the past. So they do not favor higher education-by your own logic. Now of course that is a ridiculous comment and far from the truth-as is your claim that the DFL doesn’t care about roads and bridges. It is laughable.
SeanH,
What’s laughable is when the DFL took hundreds of millions of dollars out of roads and bridges and put it into light rail and transit.
All of these posts and you STILL haven’t backed up your original claim.
I always knew Chris was stupid…
WTF are you doing back here, Chris.
You only hurt your cause.
Each to their own, I guess. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
Ruthie,
I always knew you were a twit.
Nitro,
If you tell me I’m hurting my cause, I know I’m doing my job.
P.S. Nitro,
You’re not the arbiter of the First Amendment. I can come on here and post my opinions any time just like you and Ruthie can. So you can WTF all you want, but it doesn’t mean a tinker’s damn to me.
Being satrical does not become you, Chris.
kathy,
Saying that another bridge will collapse unless the gas tax is increased is equally unbecoming.
P.S. kathy,
Just as saying Republicans didn’t care about flood victims was also unbecoming. Just because they didn’t parade themselves in front of the Rochester paper doesn’t mean they weren’t in Rushford and Minnesota City or the other communities that were flooded out.
Chris you are exactly right.
SeanH, can you point me to where the stats are to show me education has EVER been cut?
Fact is when they cry foul of cuts, what they mean is they did not get as much as they asked for. I cannot find one single year in the history of MN that education funding was actually reduced dollar wise. This is a shell game by the powers that be in education and the DFL uses it for political fodder.
I see nothing but straw man arguemnts meant to turn the focus away from the lefties here.
then again this is a site full of kool aid drinking fools.
Chris = Tool.
How about some new talking points Chris?
Borrowing alone won’t solve the needs of MNDOT and you know it.
It will take a combination of bonding AND revenue enhancement to solve the current under-funding of MNDOT. You cannot borrow yourself out of chronic underfunding. It’s like using credit card advances to pay your mortgage, sooner or later the bill comes due and the house of cards collapses. Governor Strom, oops, I mean Pawlenty won’t allow a permanent tax increase that would solve the budgetary problems of MNDOT.As I have posted again and again on transportation funding, a comptrehensive solution to tranportation funding invloves both bonding, and increasing of revenues to MNDOT.
Rick,
I agree with your assessment on transportation. Maybe a better analogy would be taking out a home improvement loan since something is being done with the borrowed money. It doesn’t change the fact that a revenue source is needed to make the loan payments.
SeanH, can you point me to where the stats are to show me education has EVER been cut?
The University of Minnesota and schools in the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities system will have to make do with less - much less - from the state under the higher education budget bill. The House voted 69-62 for the $2.5 billion spending package, which cuts the appropriations to the two major public college systems by about 15 percent each. The Senate followed suit shortly after. For the university, the cut translates into $196 million less over the next two years. For MnSCU, it’s $189 million. Both will receive about $1.1 billion total.
“The 2004-05 higher education budget is leaning toward Robert Bruininks’ worst expectations. The University of Minnesota’s president calls the $196 million cut very severe.
“Our budget will return to what it was roughly five years ago, in 1998. And if you adjust the budget from the state for inflation, using a very very modest correction, this takes us back to funding levels in 1986. So these are very deep, deep, cuts,” he said.”
Maybe they can forget their ridiculous stadium. That would save about $250 million. Probably a lot more when all is said and done. They can talk to anybody that voted for the Twins stadium at the same time.
Sean H they still got more money than the previous year! You are talking reductions from what was expected or wante depending on how you look at it.
Rick too bad your party for years has been focused on mass transit rather than roads and bridges. We have had road issues here for 20 yeras but you want to try and blame only Pawlenty, please now you have zero credibility.
No, Kahuna, those were actual cuts.