How long until Governor Pawlenty realizes that the 35W bridge collapse is important enough to call the legislature into session; isn’t that what they’re there for? Why is Tim Pawlenty trying to silence the political debate? Whatever the reasons, I’m just glad to see that the call for a special session is growing louder. This just dropped into my inbox:
Transportation Advocates Call on Governor to Address Urgent Needs
In the Wake of 35W Bridge Collapse, Industry Leaders Calls for Special Session to Pass Comprehensive Funding for Minnesota’s Roads and BridgesOn Wednesday, September 5, at 9:30 a.m. in room 125 of the Minnesota State Capitol, transportation advocates and industry leaders will gather to call on the governor to call a special session to pass a comprehensive funding package to repair and maintain the state’s transportation infrastructure.
Glen Johnson of the Operating Engineers will be joined by Transportation Alliance Executive Director Rick Krueger, Minnesota AFL-CIO President Ray Waldron, Teamsters Local 120 Secretary-Treasurer Brad Slawson Sr., and Washington County Engineer Don Thiesen to express their support for a funding bill that provides sufficient resources to deal with Minnesota’s urgent transportation needs.
WHAT: ALLIANCE CALLS FOR SPECIAL SESSION THAT INCLUDES TRANSPORTATION FUNDING
WHEN: WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, AT 9:30 A.M.
WHERE: STATE CAPITOL, ROOM 125
WHO:
- Glen Johnson, International Union of Operating Engineers
- Rick Krueger, Executive Director, Minnesota Transportation Alliance
- Ray Waldron, President, AFL-CIO
- Brad Slawson Sr., Secretary Treasurer, Teamsters Local 120
- Don Theisen, County Engineer, Washington County
That’s a pretty impressive list. And Rick Krueger is awesome.
Loading ...
That’s an impressive list?
It looks like most of the people on that list stand to gain a awful lot of business or power if the state pumps millions of dollars into roads and bridges.
KH hit it on the nose.
Of course these unions want us to spend hundreds of millions more on road projects to fatten their wallets. It’s like having Microsoft coming out and pushing for the state to update all of the operating systems on the state’s computers.
So let’s not do it, because we don’t think these people are good enough, or they stand to make money off of transportation improvements.
That’s what I call impressive reasoning.
Hmmm, very interesting. Are these guys concerned about building roads and bridges, or are they more concerned with pumping more money into the pockets of the labor unions and the members they represent? I think the answer is clear right in the list of those guys!
Hmmm, very interesting. Are these guys(commenting on this post) concerned about building roads and bridges, or are they more concerned with not preventing them from falling into the water if it involves decent jobs? I think the answer is clear right in the list of their former posts!
As for getting “it done” goes. If by “it” you mean roads and bridges and by “done” you mean creating a sound policy and funding source for maintenance I agree that to be a very worth while cause. I’m even in favor of raising the gas tax as much as can be shown is needed to do so as long as it continues to go exclusively to roads.
The problem is when we trust groups with very specific interests in what happens to influence how things are done. I’m sure there are plenty of independent firms that could be paid a flat fee to provide a few options on our systems needs and the relative costs. It is funny but sadly predictable that when unions are involved some Democrats feel that basic human nature is suspended. That unions wouldn’t possibly promote solutions primarily in their own self interest above the interest of the public at large. The fact that money the state pays to unions means a certain predictable percentage kicked-back to Democrats in campaign support seems to let many overlook the public interest.
Yes, Republicans do the very same thing and when they do they should be called on it. So how about we see if people can try something other than the “they do it too” defense.
Groups with narrow specific interests? Like, say, the suburban-based Taxpayers League saying that cities don’t need services?
Or Republicans saying the non-union contractors who kick-their money back to Republican campaigns saying unions can’t be trusted to build thing?
And Republicans - when tax cuts are involved, they believe the laws of physics are suspended. That as long as there is a tax-cut, bridges will not decay, school buildings will not fall apart, roads will repair themselves, etc.
(sent before proof-read)
Those contractors tend to kick their money back to Republicans, and employ less qualified non-union workers. And you lecture us?
Hehehe, just what color is the sky in your world John S.?
Great talking points you cut and paste from our local DFL lyers.
Where has your party been for building more roads or bridges?? oh yes that is right they sold their souls to unions and mass transit groups. pawlenty has done more for local roads than the last 3 gov’s! just who do you think will get us more lanes around the twin cities loop? I can tell you it will never be a democRat because if it does not include mass transit they believe it should be banned.
I believe the rally with the Critical Mass folks tells us all we need to know about how the DFL in this state feels about roads that allow those evil cars to drive on.
Every family member who lost someone in the bridge accident should be reading up on how the DFL has blocked time and time again money for roads and bridges.
the left can cry foul all they want and tell us the bill last year was veto’ed by the gov, but it did not include money for new roads and bridge repair, it was going to be more pork for the mass transit groups the DFL sold out to years ago.
Minnesota will never see a DFL sponsered bill allocating money just for roads, they will always include tons of wasted pork spending for their union mass transit thugs.
Big Kahuna, your post confuses the daylights out of me. What does Critical Mass have to do with anything?
Yes, there are people and interest groups who stand to turn a buck from bridge and road construction. Yes, we should consider self-interest in evaluating what someone says about any issue. I still come back to my original point: is the need for better infrastructure any less compelling because the argument is made by contractors and/or construction unions? Denying a special session because unions and bureaucratse call for it is a textbook example of cutting off our nose to spite our face.
John,
You couldn’t even make it past the first sentence without resorting to the “they do it too defense”. As I stated, Republicans do it as well but this post was bout the groups listed promoting their agenda for road construction and repair. I also stated my support for an increase in the gas tax. Try reading a little before regurgitating talking points fed to you by the Democrats.
John S makes a good point about the need to build new stuff instead of taking care of old stuff. I would argue that both parties are guilty of this though.
We need to consider the life cycle cost of buildings roads and bridges. No one has a ribbon cutting ceremony for a roof replacement.
A special session may be in order to free up money for city, county and individual relief in southeast Minnesota. They are hurting. It could speed aid and cut red tape for the clean up.
But, when the chair of the transportation committee in the senate says that the administration’s bridge replacement program is to wait until the bridge falls down, and the speaker compares the governor’s reluctance to call the session to the flood itself, we have a partisan problem.
I have not heard the Governor blaming the Democrats for the bridge collapse, or the lack of money in roads and bridges, which has been his preference.
Minnesotans can see this for what it is.
So, on the national level, the transportation Department’s own figures say that $65 Billion will be needed just to fix structurally deficient bridges. The head of that self-same department, Mary Peters, thinks that “increasing federal taxes and spending would do little to address either quality or performance of our roads”. Uh, what? We need to spend $65 Bn but spending it won’t help?
Oh, wait; we can use those funds “more efficiently”. More efficiently is the holy grail of conservative politicking. Say that the money is already there, do little actual work, and just wait till we all get distracted by some new divorce or bathroom scandal.
Seems that our Gov and the incredible shrinking DFL want to do the same thing locally. We’ll just find the money in our already absurd budget that does not forecast inflation on the spending side, just the revenue side.
A society is morally bankrupt when we can’t find the ‘cojones’ to raise a tax whose increase would contribute 1.6 percent to the total cost of an average gallon of gas. My local retailer screws me by more than 5 cents every Thursday when they jack up the price for weekend drivers.
Cripes I’m mad at the DFL for caving to the No New Taxes camp. Grow a pair! Get the job done!