[Mpls] Re: Bus Strike: Here's the plan

[Mark Snyder]

On 4/3/04 1:56 PM, "Victoria Heller" <victoriaheller at comcast.net> wrote:

> Dennis Plante asks:
> 
> "State runs-out of money?  No problem - cut LGA to metro areas, cut transit
> worker benefits, cut, cut, cut cut...  At some point we'll need to look for
> substance behind the curtain.  What IS the plan?"
> 
> Vicky answers:
> 
> The plan is to CUT SPENDING.
> 
> Here is a different version of the same question:
> 
> You child wants a bigger allowance, and a lifetime commitment.
> Your income has been dwindling and your expenses increasing.
> What would you do?
> 
> A)  Beg your mother for money to meet your child's demands?
> B)  Borrow money that you cannot repay to meet your child's demands?
> C)  Explain to your child that the answer is NO, at least for now.
> 
> Governor Pawlenty and Peter Bell have chosen option C.

Here's the problem I see with Vicky's answer.

Before this strike/lockout started, Peter Bell chose to give Metro Transit
managers 5% raises. How is that cutting spending?

Yesterday in the StarTribune, it's noted that when Senate DFLers proposed to
cut $30 million from state agency budgets, Pawlenty opposed that plan,
namely because $8 million of those cuts would come from eliminating 38
political appointees (i.e. Pawlenty cronies). Since that would cut spending,
shouldn't Pawlenty embrace it, even if it comes at the expense of some of
his pals?

I got a kick out of Pawlenty's response to that plan, where he said "turn
the management of state government over to career government workers who are
unaccountable to elected officials."

What Pawlenty either fails to understand or simply refuses to admit is that
this is already the case. Political appointees (not just his) usually don't
have enough experience with how state government actually works to have that
big of an influence. By the time they actually figure their ways around the
various protocols and procedures, either the governor who appointed them
leaves office and they end up getting replaced or they use their newfound
skills to command fatter private sector paychecks as "government liaisons."

Also, the continued short-sightedness of our elected and appointed
"leadership" abounds.

As has been widely reported, people without transportation are losing their
jobs. That means that they're no longer paying income taxes and they're
going to start collecting unemployment and/or welfare benefits. It has been
estimated that a third of the metro's 75,000 bus riders have no other
transportation available to them.

Assuming only half of those folks use the bus to get to jobs and it would be
safe to guess some 10,000-12,000 folks are in danger of losing jobs, if they
haven't already. That's going to end up costing the state a lot more in the
long run than it would take to settle this dispute.

It's long past time for the governor and Met Council to set aside the
ideology and start being pragmatic.

Mark Snyder
Windom Park