Redstate

By zuiko Comments (6) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

The Minnesota Transportation Amendment that is appearing on ballots November 7th seems to be supported by everybody. It is being supported by both Republican Governor Pawlenty and his challenger, Attorney General Hatch. It is being supported by both Democrats and Republicans in the legislature. There's an organized campaign with signs, stickers, and advertisements in favor of the amendment, but nothing at all in evidence against it.

The proposal is to amend the state constitution to dedicate MVET (Motor Vehicle Excise Tax) to transportation. MVET is a 6.5% tax applied to the purchase of any new or used car, from anyone, including a private party. Currently, only about 2/3 of this money is used for transportation. The rest is frittered away on other miscellaneous projects.

At first glance, it sounds like a great plan. Who could be against upgrading our roads? The Twin Cities has completely neglected its transportation needs since the 1960s. Our roads are so under-built right now, they will never catch up to where they need to be. And we could certainly do without another slush fund of cash for other "priorities."

Well, this was the first warning sign I ran into, from reading media coverage of the measure:

This measure would supplement highway funding and produce the first steady source of transit money. It does so in balanced fashion -- 60 percent for highways and 40 percent for transit systems statewide.

This is the typical description of the amendment that I've seen in countless MSM reports. Well, I didn't like the 40% transit part (seems to me 0-5% would be more like it), but I guess I could deal with throwing that money down the rat hole if it meant the other 60% could only be used to upgrade roads. I was planning to vote yes on the measure.

Well, I get my absentee ballot from the county and low-and-behold, the actual amendment contains very different language:

"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?”

That changes things. It went from being a 60/40 split to being a 60-or-less/40-or-more split. And this is written into the constitution. I'm not sure if the local media was just being lazy in its earlier description of the amendment or if just fit with their political priorities (the liberal rags in town just love throwing away money on things like light rail and dedicated busways). Either way, it is very misleading.

I voted no. Normally it wouldn't stand a chance of failing, what with the measure not having any opposition at all, but I hold out some hope. Amendments in Minnesota require a majority of all votes cast in the election. If you leave the question empty, it counts as a no.

This leads me to another question. Why are Republicans supporting this transit language? Building roads is a political winner. Building transit is a political loser. Why must we always latch onto loser issues that are inconsistent with our beliefs? What a missed opportunity. In many ways, this has much in common with the wasted opportunities on pork and immigration on the national scene.