Vote NO to the Transportation Amendment on Nov 7
Originally posted by Tuffy on Smithers' blog:
DO NOT VOTE FOR THE TRANSPORTATION AMENDMENT!!!
DEAR GOD! COME TO YOUR SENSES!
Here's why:
1) Our roads/transit are not currently underfunded. This is a solution in search of a problem.
2) This is another case of our representatives shirking their jobs as legislators. If we pass this amendment, it takes part of the job of divvying up our state's tax revenues out of their hands -- thus giving them another excuse for government not working correctly. What are we paying them for if they don't want to do their job?
3) This amendment has potentially disastrous effects for education and state-supported health care. While the proponents of this bill say that these two areas won't be affected, they are using *projected revenues* to make these promises. There are zero dollars currently set aside to make-up for monies lost by education and state-supported health care.
4) This is a business-friendly amendment, heavily supported by companies making their money off of over-the-road shipping and the like. If this is "business-friendly", what isn't it? That's right: people friendly. And if it's "business-friendly", which party brought you this amendment? Yes, that's right: the Republicans.
Do not vote for this amendment! Do not give in to slick advertising! This is a bad bill for the future of the state! Don't do it!
posted by Tuffy at 11/06/2006 10:44:00 AM
13 Comments:
Damn Plan B !!
Mon Nov 06, 01:02:00 PM 2006
whoops.
Mon Nov 06, 01:37:00 PM 2006
As someone who is fully in favor of expanding public transit now rather than waiting around to see what whoever's in office will agree to, I have to disagree with you. Roads may not be underfunded, but transit is--as evidenced by ever-increasing fares and route cutbacks. We need a reliable source of funding dedicated to the expansion of our public transit infrastructure, and that's what this amendment will do.
Tue Nov 07, 07:51:00 AM 2006
We need a reliable source of funding dedicated to the expansion of our public transit infrastructure, and that's what this amendment will do.
I have to agree with Tuffy on this one. A constitutional amendment takes the responsibility of making tough decisions away from politicians.
Public transit is great, but the people have to support it.
Tue Nov 07, 08:27:00 AM 2006
And this is an opportunity for the people to do so. I am personally excited whenever the people, and not just their politicians, have the opportunity to vote on where a tax goes.
Tue Nov 07, 08:30:00 AM 2006
Gilby-
No offense, but ask California how putting referendums to voters has turned out.
California's a mess because legislators have vacated their authority to legislate by passing the tough decisions to voters (who, by and large, are rarely well-versed on the full complexity of issues).
The bottomline is that it's bad policy, and I do not recommend voting for this amendment.
If you feel strongly about more public transit (as I do, by the way), the way to do it is to ask/pressure your representatives to act on your behalf.
That's how representative democracies work.
Tue Nov 07, 10:01:00 AM 2006
All 4 of our elected MN legislative leaders *have* supported this; but it's up to voters for amendments to be made in Minnesota.
Tue Nov 07, 10:37:00 AM 2006
...but there's no need for an amendment if the legislators will *do their jobs*.
Passing issues off to the voters lets them off of the hook when it comes nutcrunching time.
I understand that you use and appreciate transit. But that should not constitute your only reason for supporting this amendment. Such a view is a bit shortsighted, no?
And the fact that four of our legislative leaders support this is not comforting; it's scary. That they are so united in not wanting to touch this hot potato is very telling.
Tue Nov 07, 11:02:00 AM 2006
I am personally excited whenever the people, and not just their politicians, have the opportunity to vote on where a tax goes.
I'm not.
Ballot initiatives are one step closer to “majority rules,” something the founding fathers took great pains to avoid.
If the people really support an issue then the politicians have the political cover to support it as well. Otherwise things stay the status quo in lieu of a “wing nut” or a visionary to propose otherwise.
I don’t know what I was thinking with my initial support of this amendment. I have long thought that ballot initiatives were a very very bad idea.
Tue Nov 07, 11:17:00 AM 2006
Hmm. Maybe I'm misunderstanding things, but I think there might be two issues here.
One is whether such issues should be put to referenda. I agree that usually they should not, because voters have very little incentives to put much time into studying the issues.
The other issue is whether this particular amendment should pass. Those in favor of limiting the choices of future politicians. That depends on whether you think the provisions of the amendment are likely to be preferable to whatever future politicians will do instead.
I don't think the politicians are just united in not wanting to take responsibility for decisions, they're also apparently united in supporting the provisions of the amendment. They're putting at least some political capital on the line by endorsing a Yes vote, aren't they?
Here in Indiana we simply lease our highways to foreign companies and let it go at that.
Tue Nov 07, 12:55:00 PM 2006
We need better roads so people don't ding up their 32" rims next year!
Tue Nov 07, 08:48:00 PM 2006
Thankfully, sanity (and not the local spokesperson of the NEA) prevails.
Wed Nov 08, 10:31:00 AM 2006
California's a mess because legislators have vacated their authority to legislate by passing the tough decisions to voters (who, by and large, are rarely well-versed on the full complexity of issues).
Oregon likes to put things to the voters too by making it ridiculously easy to put initiatives on the ballot. This results in conficting mandates, short-sighted decisions and people voting on things they know little about.
Wed Nov 08, 02:03:00 PM 2006
Post a Comment
<< Home