Minnesotans, this week our glorious Senate passed $1.2B bonding bill. The bill has moved to the House and could see a vote as earlier as Monday. That is if the State Legislature does not observe President's Day. Many of you already know that Minnesota is experiencing a budget shortfall. The shortfall is so dire that Gov. Pawlenty used unallotment to balance the budget that is now being contested in court. Here is a short list of the critical items that are needed in Minnesota:
- New and upgraded exhibits at the Minnesota Zoo - $21 M
- New trails, paving and connecting existing trails – over $31 M
- A new volleyball court in Rochester - $5M
- A new women's hockey center in Blaine - $1 M
- Four new ice rinks in Big Lake, Cokato, Fergus Falls and New Hope - $2M
- Regional amateur sports facilities in Marshall and Moorhead - $5M
- Campground expansion in Two Harbors - $1M
This doesn't even include the millions spent for a planetarium, renovations to a civic center or updates to Arts Center. I understand interest rates are low and it will save the state money to make these update but are these updates really wise while millions of Minnesotans are out of work and trying to make ends meet? The pork barrel spending being proposed is not warranted and to burden future taxpayers with additional debt makes little sense. Or is this the time to spend millions on the items above? The small town I live is struggling to grow and faces mandates to keep its I/I up to code. Mandates that if not met will result in fines to the city. While Hamburg would like to expand and attract new residence and businesses, we cannot because our water/sewer system is tapped out. Any new business or residence can only occur if we improve our I/I ratio. That will cost the citizens of Hamburg over $1M. To put this in perspective, it could lead to an assessment to Hamburg residents in the neighborhood of $5000 or more and that does not include the sewer hookup.
Call your House Representative today to let them know how you feel about the bonding bill. For those in Hamburg, our representative if Rep. Kohls. Rep. Kohls can be reached at 651-2946-4282.
How many jobs would be created in order to complete all the "pork" projects listed above?
ReplyDeleteAlthough I have not found any solid numbers on the number of jobs created. What is known however is that all jobs created are temporary at best. We need sustainable job creation. As we saw with Obama's attempt, temporary job creation is not helping.
ReplyDeleteWe need sustainable job creation.
Why are you calling these pork projects? I've always viewed pork spending as items inserted to get a certain representatives vote. Do you have examples of politicians not voting for the bonding bill if these items aren't in there? Or is this just typical government spending that the majority believes needs to be done?
ReplyDeleteI consulted with Rep. Kohl's to get an idea of the number of jobs created by the bonding bill. Now this may change because changes to the bill took place last night and parts of the bill will see the Governor's line item veto. The numbers that Rep. Kohl's, based on historics, is about 5000 temp jobs. Again those are temp jobs. We cannot build momentum with temp jobs.
ReplyDeleteAs for pork projects: I view a pork project being any project a representative gets for his/her own district. You are correct they are often used to secure votes. I wouldn't focus so much on politicians not voting rather I'd look at those who are voting for it and see if their districts will benefit from the projects listed above.
A representative is suppose to get projects for their district. It's part of being a representative. Everyone is entitled to their fair share.
ReplyDeleteA representative is suppose to represent the wishes of those within their district. While I will acknowledge the attainment of special projects is something they do, but no one is entitled to "their fair share". We live in a Democracy and not a Socialistic society. And when a Legislator or member of Congress obtains money for a project in their district it is considered a pet project thus considered pork since it only benefits their district and not the State or Country.
ReplyDeleteWhich is better Ardent Viper: (1) 5,000 temp jobs; or (2) no jobs? Choose one.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that a state legislator getting money for a project in their district is automatically a "pet project" and "only benefits their district" is just ludicrous. For example, Joe Lunchpail gets a construction job as part of the campground expansion in Two Harbors. It pays pretty well, $15.00 per hour, and is better than the $350 per week he was getting on unemployment which was about to run out. Joe's job is to last one (1) year. Now, Joe actually lives in Silver Creek and on his way in to work each day he stops to grab coffee and a donut at the local gas station. He also has to fill up his truck more often. Being unemployed meant Joe didn't really go anywhere. He couldn't afford much beyond the basics. Driving was a luxury. Joe generally brings his lunch, but sometimes gets away from the job site to eat at a local restaurant. With the steady job and paycheck, Joe is finally able to do some of the renovation work on his home that he had wanted to do. He hits up the local hardware store for supplies. All money being spent supporting other businesses and people. Sure, it's in one district, but you have someone else out in the marketplace spending money.
When it comes to the project itself, there are any number of ways that this will benefit people and businesses outside the district. Minnesota's 8th District is quite large and may not be the best example, but I'll continue. The project would be a full service expansion of the municipal campground overlooking Burlington Bay. The expansion includes 34 sites to accommodate Class A motor homes and fifth-wheel recreational vehicles. I'm fairly certain that most people who own motor homes don't pull out of their driveway, drive 1 mile and set up in their local park. They travel from all over the state and perhaps the country. Sure, the idea is to attract people to stay in Two Harbors and spend money in the local economy and in the 8th District. But those people have to pass through any other number of states, districts and cities to get to Two Harbors, spending money all along the way. Cities and/or Congressional Districts in Minnesota are not little islands that have their own, insulated economies that never go outside those boundaries. The hardware store owner in Two Harbors buys inventory from all over the state and country. The gas station owner in Two Harbors gets their gas from a refinery in the cities.
I have an idea Ardent Viper. It's related to your dirty little secret of asking questions or making statements that are contrary to your own beliefs to simply advance the debate. Do it here. Why are the projects listed above good for Minnesota? Let's hear it.
Anon...okay, I am not disagreeing with the projects being proposed will not add a benefit of some sort to the communities in which they are updated, built or expanded. The DFLers are touting the bonding bill as a job creation bill. I am sorry but adding temporary jobs is not a job creation bill in my eyes nor by a pure definition.
ReplyDeleteNow, if Two Harbors wants to attract additional business or outside tourism it should be on the shoulders of those in the community to carry and not the rest of us in Minnesota. Right now Hamburg is facing I/I troubles, which I have blogged several times on, and we cannot attract new business nor build new housing because of it. The short story is that our levels of I/I are maxed out per the MPCA and no new water/sewer can be introduced to it without major renovation.
So, we have asked for additional state funding for a mandate they have placed on us, and other communities, to bring our system into the 21st Century. The updates will allow us to open new businesses, build new homes, and avoid fines levied on the town by the State. But I digress from the core issue of my original entry.
The bonding bill will not create sustainable jobs and is it wise to spend $5M on a new volleyball court in Rochester when Hamburg could use 25% of that money to update their I/I that would increase the tax base. How will the vollebyall court in Rochester benefit the state of Minnesota or assist the taxpayer of the state, county or city? If the Minnesota Zoo wants to upgrade exhibits then charge more or ask for more donations. Oh wait, Obama reduced the amount the one can deduct for charitable donations.
In the end, these pet projects do not improve Minnesotans in general. If these local municipalities want to expand a campground then do it with local money. Also, your analogy of Joe Lunchpail is flawed because while Joe will gross $600 a week he will only net, at best, $400. So that extra $50 a week I do not see him going to the local hardware store for home renovations. He may be able to put more gas in his truck and grab an occassional meal at a resturant but lets be realistic.
Although I am not playing Devils Advocate here on the bonding bill, I will humor your request.
The new and upgradable exhibits to the Minnesota Zoo will help attract grants, studies, and tourism to one of the premier Zoo's in the upper Midwest. The new volleyball court in Rochester could lead to hosting of national events within the volleyball realm. Having the regional amatuer sports facilities in Marshall and Moorhead will give those two communities another item to attract tourism and host amatuer tournaments. The campground expansion in Two Harbors will increase the traffic patterns and bring more tourism to Two Harbors.
Are there benefits to having these pet project done, yes. Is the money better spent elswhere, i.e. infrastructure, yes. Since the bonding bill is being touted by DFLers as a jobs creation bill, does it create jobs? NO!!!!
Good job Ardent Viper! See, that wasn't so bad now was it? You may feel like you need to go to confession now or take a bath to cleanse yourself, but I admire you giving it the ol' college try and arguing for something with which you so obviously disagree.
ReplyDeleteIt creates 5,000 jobs, you even said so. Seems to me your more bitter that Hamburg didn't get the money. So, based on your own logic, either raise the million dollars yourselves or don't complain. You deem money for your city more important than it is to Rochester. That's a moral value. I say complain to your rep.
ReplyDeleteI digress.
So, you seem to think that Joe is better not having the extra 50 dollars a month. Have fun telling him that. Plus there is a personal value that an individual will associate with being able to work. It also gives him something to add to his resume, which may help in the future.
You see to think that temporary jobs never lead to full time jobs.
Seems like there are long term benefits after all: http://www.postbulletin.com/newsmanager/templates/localnews_story.asp?z=12&a=436848
ReplyDeleteAnon...
ReplyDeleteIt is 5,000 temporary jobs - here today, gone tomorrow - that is not the type of stimulus that will move the economy forward. If we believe Biden or Obama, the national scene has seen 2M jobs created and is our economy recovering?
As for the I/I issue. I have been to my representatives, I have gone to St. Paul, I have talked to the MPCA, I have worked with my city council, I have talked to a state economic committee on the matter, and I will be going before the tax group to discuss further when the topic comes up. In case you missed it above, the issue before Hamburg is due to an unfunded mandate by the State. We are not dealing with an expansion of a zoo, building an ice rink, adding onto a campground, adding trails, erecting an amateur sports facility, or a new hockey center; rather we are talking about infrastructure that has put an end to new housing construction and stifled the ability to attract new business. It is not a moral value issue; it's the difference between growth and luxury.
You are correct that temporary jobs CAN lead to full time jobs but how many new jobs will the additions in the bonding bill create compared to what a growing city can bring? Trails will add none; the rest will add at most 5 new positions with an average closer to 2. If we use the most optimistic number of 5 that is 55 jobs at a price tag of $66M.
As for Joe, I am not saying he is not better off; rather the finances do not equate to the entire extra stimulus referred to above. Now, I will go read the news article.
The article posted by Anon does defend the volleyball center from the perspective of opinion and not fact. Although it is shovel ready or "spade ready" as the article says, I do not understand why the community does not put a bonding bill to the vote of its resident's?
ReplyDeleteIf the group in Rochester can duplicate the success of Blaine's soccer facility then they should have no trouble convincing the local businesses and citizens to support a revenue bond issuance. Why do they need to rack up the debt of the rest of Minnesota? Is it perhaps that attracting 14,000 volleyball players might be a pipe dream? I think comparing the soccer gala in Blaine to a volleyball gathering in Rochester is a bit like "apples and oranges" and this comes from a guy who loves volleyball.
This past December many in the area of where I lived voted on a general obligation bonding bill to make improvements to the schools in the district. It passed.
Anon..thanks for posting the article though..it was a fun read.
So you've made it clear that you don't like the idea of government creating temporary jobs; in your mind, they don't do enough; here today gone tomorrow. It's also clear that you're not a proponent of expanding the ranks of permanent government jobs; that would be making big government even bigger.
ReplyDeleteConsidering this, who then should step in and make an effort to spur on a recovery? Small business? Not a chance; think back to your door knocking conversations; they are just trying to stay afloat as it is. Big business? Not a chance. The company I work for expects to see a 75% jump in profits but has no plans whatsoever to hire. Big business is holding on to cash, not making capital purchases and maybe considering raises.
So again, when businesses large and small are either unwilling or unable to spend or hire and would tuck away any savings from tax breaks, who is in a better position than state or federal government to give the economy a much needed kick in the rear? These temporary measures are the best option. You try to build confidence in the marketplace by getting people back to work and spending money. It's a ripple effect. All of the sudden that $2.00 cup of coffee doesn't seem like a luxury. Sure, it's $2.00. But it's money being spent.
And when it comes to Joe, the poster above didn't give the best numbers. In MN, your weekly benefit amount will be about half of your average weekly gross wage with a cap of $585. In other words, Joe's unemployment benefit would have been $300 per week before any taxes are taken out. Take out 20% and Joe would have been getting $240 per week. Now that he's working, he has an additional $160 in his pocket each week. Using your 33% tax rate Joe would go from $200 per week on unemployment to $400 per week while working. That's a pretty nice bump. I know I could use another $200 per week.
Anon..let me know what you think of my blue print for job creation and recovery that I posted just a second ago. As for who is best to create jobs and help jump start our economy; you and I that is who.
ReplyDeleteI do not want to go on further here as I address this in my entry today. Please let me know your thoughts. As for Joe, I was using the math other used above to make my argument. But if Joe was making a prevailing wage, i.e. $15 a hour, as the example given stated then his unemployment benefit would not be $585 dollars it would be $360.
$15.00 per hour x 40 hours per week = $600.00 per week.
ReplyDeleteUnemployment pays about half of your average weekly gross wage; in other words, $300.00 before taxes.
Unemployment of $300.00 per week less taxes (33%) = $200.00 net pay per week on unemployment.
Weekly wage of $600.00 per week less taxes (33%) = $400.00 net pay per week.
Joe has doubled his take home pay. Temporarily, sure. But in the one year he'll be working, that's a difference of $10,400.