Comments on: MVST Amendment - 60/40 Sucks Money From Roads http://www.residualforces.com/2006/02/14/mvst-amendment-6040-sucks-money-from-roads/ A Stream of Consciousness by Andy Aplikowski on His Life, His Politics, His Dogs, His Truck, and Whatever Pleases His Fancy Thu, 08 Jan 2009 18:52:05 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Andy http://www.residualforces.com/2006/02/14/mvst-amendment-6040-sucks-money-from-roads/#comment-23124 Andy Sat, 09 Sep 2006 00:58:44 +0000 http://www.residualforces.com/http:/residualforces.com/index.php/2006/02/14/mvst-amendment-6040-sucks-money-from-roads/#comment-23124 Stefany, Here's the reason this Amendment is terrible! If the wrong people are in power, we could spend 100% of that money on trains and other mass transit. ALL the money taxed by people from vehicle related purchases and spending could be directed towards mass transit, and ZERO money would go to roads. Had the less than no more than language been removed, I would support this, but it wasn't and this must not pass. Stefany,

Here’s the reason this Amendment is terrible!

If the wrong people are in power, we could spend 100% of that money on trains and other mass transit. ALL the money taxed by people from vehicle related purchases and spending could be directed towards mass transit, and ZERO money would go to roads.

Had the less than no more than language been removed, I would support this, but it wasn’t and this must not pass.

]]> By: Stefany Pratt http://www.residualforces.com/2006/02/14/mvst-amendment-6040-sucks-money-from-roads/#comment-23123 Stefany Pratt Sat, 09 Sep 2006 00:20:41 +0000 http://www.residualforces.com/http:/residualforces.com/index.php/2006/02/14/mvst-amendment-6040-sucks-money-from-roads/#comment-23123 I did some searching, and the language isn't going to change. The reason why is here: http://www.mnchamber.com/priorities/mvst.cfm I'm not sure I totally buy it. I have to believe the person who wrote the bill had a transit agenda. If it is true that the members of both the House and Senate think the wording is "confusing," as they keep calling it, they need to take a refresher in high school English - it's easy for the literate to understand. No cap for transit, 60% cap for roads. How could they have missed that? I did some searching, and the language isn’t going to change. The reason why is here: http://www.mnchamber.com/priorities/mvst.cfm

I’m not sure I totally buy it. I have to believe the person who wrote the bill had a transit agenda. If it is true that the members of both the House and Senate think the wording is “confusing,” as they keep calling it, they need to take a refresher in high school English - it’s easy for the literate to understand. No cap for transit, 60% cap for roads. How could they have missed that?

]]> By: Stefany Pratt http://www.residualforces.com/2006/02/14/mvst-amendment-6040-sucks-money-from-roads/#comment-23122 Stefany Pratt Sat, 09 Sep 2006 00:03:04 +0000 http://www.residualforces.com/http:/residualforces.com/index.php/2006/02/14/mvst-amendment-6040-sucks-money-from-roads/#comment-23122 Let me amend my statement - Where I wrote "transit takes up 23% of the 54% allocated for transportation" I really should have wrote that transit takes up 23% of the MVST, leaving transportation getting only 30%. The rest of the math still works, but my labeling was off. Let me amend my statement - Where I wrote “transit takes up 23% of the 54% allocated for transportation” I really should have wrote that transit takes up 23% of the MVST, leaving transportation getting only 30%. The rest of the math still works, but my labeling was off.

]]> By: Stefany Pratt http://www.residualforces.com/2006/02/14/mvst-amendment-6040-sucks-money-from-roads/#comment-23121 Stefany Pratt Sat, 09 Sep 2006 00:00:32 +0000 http://www.residualforces.com/http:/residualforces.com/index.php/2006/02/14/mvst-amendment-6040-sucks-money-from-roads/#comment-23121 Someone needs a refresher course in high school math. The current distribution of MVST revenues is: General fund – 46.25 percent. Highway user tax distribution fund – 30 percent. County state-aid highways - .65 percent. Municipal state-aid highways - .17 percent. Metropolitan transit – 21.5 percent. Greater Minnesota transit – 1.43 percent. So, currently, transit takes up 23% of the 54% allocated for transportation. What this means is that transportation, not including transit, has only been getting about 30% of the MVST. In the amendment, it would be 60% toward transportation, not including transit. This is actually DOUBLE the amount it is currently allocated. I can't say I'm supporting the amendment yet - I really don't like the "at least" and "no more than" language, but I read somewhere that this might have been changed - I'm still searching for whether that's true. Someone needs a refresher course in high school math.

The current distribution of MVST revenues is:

General fund – 46.25 percent.
Highway user tax distribution fund – 30 percent.
County state-aid highways - .65 percent.
Municipal state-aid highways - .17 percent.
Metropolitan transit – 21.5 percent.
Greater Minnesota transit – 1.43 percent.

So, currently, transit takes up 23% of the 54% allocated for transportation. What this means is that transportation, not including transit, has only been getting about 30% of the MVST. In the amendment, it would be 60% toward transportation, not including transit. This is actually DOUBLE the amount it is currently allocated.

I can’t say I’m supporting the amendment yet - I really don’t like the “at least” and “no more than” language, but I read somewhere that this might have been changed - I’m still searching for whether that’s true.

]]>