Mar 16 Retaliation or Responsible Governance?

Charlie Shaw's post says that Gov. Pawlenty's veto of major sections of the the bonding bill, aka the DFL's annual stimulus bill, aka the debt bill, is an act of retaliation:

Gov. Tim Pawlenty on Monday used his line-item veto authority to decimate the bonding bill, in some cases hewing entire sections from the bill.

Pawlenty focused his vetoes on projects in districts represented by Democrats or Republicans that voted for the bill. Transit and state parks and trails were were cut in their entirety from the $1 billion bill that passed the state Legislature.

How does trimming an irresponsible bill down to size equate into decimating the DFL's annual stimulus bill? More importantly, I'm curious on how many of the projects that Gov. Pawlenty vetoed would've built things that wouldn't have helped their cities' long-term economic health.

Most importantly, I'm curious how many of the projects Gov. Pawlenty vetoed should be paid for by the sales tax increase Minnesota voted for in 2008. The last I looked, at least $73,000,000 were directed to projects that should've been paid for with Legacy Act revenues, not with Minnesota's credit card.

Steve Morse, executive director of the Minnesota Environmental Partnership, said that Pawlenty cut all $43 million in the bill for transit. He also cut $25 million from the Reinvest in Minnesota (RIM) conservation program, which would have leveraged $35 million in federal matching funds.

"Line item vetoes by Governor Pawlenty to transit and conservation projects totaling just under $100 million represent an enormous lost opportunity for shovel-ready jobs, matching federal dollars and local community economic development," Morse said in a press release.

Leveraging "$35 million in federal matching funds" is another way of saying the federal government enticed states into spending money it might not otherwise have spent. Without knowing which projects were line-itemed out, I'm perfectly content in reserving judgment.

My question for the Minnesota Environmental Partnership is simple: would the projects line-itemed out have benefited their communities long-term? If they wouldn't have helped their communities long-term, then what's the justification for spending the money? Another question I have for the Minnesota Environmental Partnership is whether Minnesota wouldn't be better off not spending that much money. Spending money on a science lab at a state university or building a nurses training facility are worthwhile because they have a direct and longlasting impact on the communities in which they're built. It's a significantly more difficult task justifiying spending on a civic center.

That's before we talk about how much money is added to the state budget in paying off the interest on the bonding project.

It doesn't take long before you realize that the DFL would spend alot more if they didn't have to deal with a responsible adult like Gov. Pawlenty.

Comments welcome at LFR.