-Dr. DRL
###
Vote 'no' on state roads amendment
Derek Larson
St. Cloud (MN) Times
Published: April 05. 2006
Our roads and bridges are in bad shape. Public transportation outside our cities is nonexistent. We've put off needed transportation investments far too long and now face tough choices among critical funding priorities. Roads or schools? Mass transit or health care? What's most important to the future of Minnesota?
Unfortunately, rather than making those choices as they were elected to do, Gov. Tim Pawlenty and the Legislature have chosen to sidestep the responsibilities of leadership and are once again playing games so they can spend millions on roads and still claim they didn't raise our taxes.
It's going to take a constitutional amendment to do it and that's a bad idea for several reasons. A constitutional amendment to change transportation funding has already been approved for the November ballot, reading as follows: 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?
What may not be clear to voters is that this is not a new tax, but the Motor Vehicle Sales Tax we already pay. About 45 percent of the funds raised are spent on things other than transportation; the amendment seeks to redirect all of these revenues over the next five years.
It's the principle
The first reason to vote 'no' is a matter of principle. The Constitution is the foundation of our state's democracy and should not be tinkered with lightly. The problem is our leaders could have shifted the MVST revenues to transportation on their own, but they shirked responsibility and tossed the hot potato into the voters' laps.
If the public wants more money spent on transportation, we should replace the governor and the Legislature with candidates who will do that, not clutter our Constitution with unnecessary amendments.
Other reasons to reject the amendment are more pragmatic. Where and how will the money be spent? Will outstate Minnesota see a share at least equal to what we pay in? Or will the benefits accrue primarily to the Twin Cities area? Could "at least 40 percent" spent on transit go as high as 50 percent? Or 75 percent? Might some of that be used to extend Northstar to St. Cloud? Or will it all go to urban projects?
Raise those taxes
Those who like tough questions can answer this one: If we shift these revenues from the general fund, how will they be replaced? The amendment will leave a $300 million hole in the budget during the five years, a hole that can sink other priorities mentioned above.
Certainly our leaders will tell us not to worry, that projected revenues will more than cover the anticipated deficit. But of course that's how the federal government went from a surplus five years ago to massive annual deficits today.
We're being asked to amend the Constitution in part to support Pawlenty's no-new-taxes pledge, at a time when a new tax — combined with responsible bonding — is exactly what's needed to solve the problems with our transportation system.
The best way to pay for necessary transportation improvements is by doing what most other progressive states do: raise the fuel tax.
Paying for roads and transit with fuel taxes has two major advantages over the vehicle sales tax. First, it tends to reduce consumption; people will drive less and favor more efficient vehicles when they do, both of which are good for our state. It also ensures that those who drive the most will pay the largest share. Most importantly, the fuel tax captures revenues from the millions of people who drive on Minnesota roads each year but never pay a dime toward MVST — out-of-state drivers, tourists and seasonal residents.
What's up next
Chambers of commerce, road construction firms, and MnDOT are no doubt rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect of million of dollars in new funding for their pet transportation projects. Those aren't necessarily bad things, if the money is spent wisely and fairly.
But we should expect our elected leaders to do their jobs rather than pass the buck. We should pay for roads with a tax system that encourages fuel efficiency and weighs most heavily on those who use the roads more than others.
Minnesotans should vote against the transportation amendment this fall and send the governor and Legislature a message: do the jobs we elected you to do and stop messing with our Constitution simply because you don't want to make tough decisions.
Or we can just tell them to hit the road.
