If my aging memory is accurate, either Coleman or a Strib letter writer noted that even with the design flaw, the bridge stood for 40 years. Design flaws don't exist in a vacuum. Neither the bridge nor the gussets were designed to handle 120,000 daily trips. As the folks at MnDOT watched the numbers increase on an annual basis, they should have conducted an exhaustive analysis as to how much the 1968 design could handle, and presumably did. I'm guessing they knew damn well the bridge had long surpassed any maximums. It could have gone at any time, but the Republicans'decision to maintain it on the cheap increased the likelihood that the collapse would occur on their watch. The NTSB can ram the design flaw down our throats all day long, but in the final analysis the design would not have become evident but for the Administration's benign neglect.

LAMBERT: When you're right you're right. Whether design flaw or vandalism, the bridge had already been tagged for "structurally deficient", and as a major artery, needed a lot more work than another resurfacing/widening. Beyond that, there's simply no responsible way to deal with the staggering array of infrastructure issues other than by raising new money. I wish we could play the "let's not and say we did" game, but I don't like the prospects.

Brian I expected something different from you on this and I'm actually pleased with how you handled it. Even though I think Coleman is full of it most of the time, I agree he is an asset for the paper. After all, varied opinions are what gets readership.

I do think you are far too kind to Nick on this one. He was pointing fingers from day one and used a tragedy for a political agenda. In his column today he shows how little he really knows about the science of bridges. The point he misses is that it was generally assumed over the years that the bridge was design properly to handle the load on it plus future additions. We now know that someone missed a calculation and the basic design was flawed. The inspectors went under that assumption. Nick fails to understand why this was missed (and I am not trying to excuse the mistakes). Nick also thinks because he wrote one sentence picking to Republicans and Democrats he is off the hook. Sorry Nick, we have copies of those columns.

I agree that we need to let the report be completed. I think we agree that there were many causes for this tragedy. Human error in design, poor policy decisions on repairs, funding, and of course politics.

As you know, I am fiscally conservative but hopefully not blind. Here is what I would do. First I would eliminate the lifetime job security of government employees and hold them accountable to similar performance standards in the private sector. MNDOT has done some really boneheaded designs and projects, someone should be held accountable for that. Second I would remove the caps on salaries in departments like MNDOT so that they can hire strong talent. The private sector is getting better talent in engineering. And finally, I would raise the gas tax at least 10 cents with 80% of that going to roads and 20% to transit.

Now if Nick would only respond to one of the emails I have left for him...

LAMBERT: Nick's a big boy. He is well equipped to fight his own battles. My underlying beef with his bosses, who were disinterested in his response to the NTSB report is that they appear to have little or no sense of "the game", which is the theatrical part of a metro columnist's job. After taking so clear and unrepentant a stand (which I still support -- the cast of characters overseeing Minnesota infrastructure is pretty damned underwhelming, and it is appallingly cynical to claim there's enough cash in the system to do the job properly) of course you want to hear what he's got to say the day after a report like this. Nick's always up for the game. His bosses appear far too timid and recessive for a major daily newspaper ... drifting toward minor status under their watch.

To all those who say that penny pinching has destoryed state infastructure, I do not recall any DFLer up until August 1st 2007 ever talk about roads. The future has been mass tranist, light rail, and Metro Transit.
Assuming raising the gas tax two years ago would have prevented this is like saying that the war in Iraq has stopped terrorist attacks here. (using liberal logic in reverse). James Obestar and Steve Murphy have been pounding their chests on tax increases for months (as gas prices reach $100 a barrel, food prices rise) while brining pork barrled ear markes to rural districts creating bike trails, and roads that have 5 people on them a day.
Coleman may think that he is ripping both sides, but lets not kid ourselves. They were dragging bodies out of the river and he was on national tv blaming Tim Pawlenty personally. If Mike Hatch had won last year and were in office he would still be blaming Pawlenty.
Also I love how Coleman spends one day ripping the state because we are not funding a party about Minnesota's 150th (then says it should be a party of shame because we are horrible people), and then complains we are not taxed enough to build bridges. We have enough money to build bridges, lets cut back on the Sweeden like socialistic policies that have been forced on us for 40 years. 40 years ago the high tax high spending formula may have worked, but look at how our population expoloded. And its never enough. Not one politican has come forward suggesting we re-arrange the budget, cut light rail expansion, or cut the entitlement programs for roads.
Coleman is critical of the legitmacy of imposing a tax on Hennepin County to raise funds for the new Twins ball park. And a few weeks later "our public asset" talks about how its not big deal we have tons of illegal aliens in the state. (Coleman's brother and Rudy Guiliani have the same position on this issue interestingly enough).
You give Coleman credit for giving the system a hard time. Dissent is applauded among my liberal friends unless it is against themselves. Coleman does not respond to dissent, or engage in debate or dialouge. Understandably so some "right wing nutjobs" do not deserve dialouge in how they conduct their dissent, but there are some of us, who are able to diagnose argumetns and add counter - none which are heard or acknowledged from our Tribune metro columnist.

LAMBERT: You "do not recall any DFLer up until Aug 1 2007 ever talk about roads". Hmmmm. I recall quite a bit of conversation about how far we were falling behind on infrastructure maintenance. The ideological conflict was always posed as "roads or light rail" by the Jason Lewises. My recollection was that anyone who was serious understood the need to look at everything.

As for how "Sweden" we have become. Christ, bring it on, if that means we get universal health care, state supported college education, five weeks of vacation, a cleaner environment, low-to-non-existent street crime, much less government corruption, less sexual prudery and a national reputation for decency.

"Beyond that, there's simply no responsible way to deal with the staggering array of infrastructure issues other than by raising new money. I wish we could play the "let's not and say we did" game, but I don't like the prospects. "

There is not ONE program or item in the ENTIRE State budget that could be re-dirrected to roads???

LAMBERT: You got one that can come up with another $1 billion a year? I mean, obviously we can close schools, or reduce teachers' salaries to the level of Wal-Mart greeters.

Years ago I met a lovely blonde Swede on the train to Paris from Marseilles. We drank a bottle of red wine in a nearby cafe and she then departed for Stockholm, leaving me to fantasize about her for the last 30 years. Can we have more of that kind of Sweden, too, please?

LAMBERT: By all means. A stray brunette, maybe from Finland, would also be fine.

The bottom line here, and an earlier comment has it dead-on, is that regardless of a design flaw, ultimately it was designed to handle 60's traffic levels, and somewhere along the line (still to be reported by the NTSB apparently), other factors helped to accelerate the collapse due to a design flaw. So what are those other factors? Well for starters, we simply don't know, and Molnau and co. is short on specifics and data, hides behind publicity firms and silence, so we really don't know what went on as to inspections and maintentance. Was there enough of both? Were corners cut? What's been hidden from the public? We already know that concerns over the I35W bridge existed at MNDOT (thank you investigative journalism).

Its absolutely reasonable to ask these questions, particularly the last one, from an administration that has hidden data from the public in the past and short on specifics on so many other things. And considering the GOP confab is here, and if McCain gets the nom TP will be the VP choice...well, you don't have to be a conspiracy buff to do the math here. There's plenty of reasons for Teflon Tim and company to play politics and possibly, yes possibly, cover-up what went on.

And speaking of math, gusset plates still don't hide the fact that transportation is woefully underfunded here, and mostly funded on debt. Why is it "fiscal conservatives" insist on getting something for nothing? To think what could have been funded if the tax was raised even ONCE five years ago, given that so many people selfishly drive behemoths that get 11 mpg. But that's their CHOICE, I know.

And for the 1,000th time, the gas tax is constitutionally mandated to go to ROADS, and no $ from it go to transit (yet another piece of the infrastructue puzzle that's woefully underfunded).

LAMBERT: Do I have to even say out loud that the small government warriors are not really interested in governing and managing. Quite the opposite.

Blaming Republicans has to be made easier by the sheer fact that there hasn't been a Democratic governor since 1990. You folks would be honest to get a handle on reality here, but won't because you prefer to continue to bludgeoning Pawlenty / Molnau with a lie. Transportation spending has always gone up. There would have been no change in practices under a second Perpich administration, a Marty administration (God help us...), a Humphrey administration, a Hatch administration. This notion of the Taxpayers League et al dismantling the government is a fraud.

I can well imagine Coleman's editors being fatigued by the idea of him returning again to one of the 4 working topics he ever employs (the bridge, Indian nicknames, the stadium, schools). Its easy to get the sense he's wearing out his welcome there as well, what with his complaining about how much Kersten writes and earns, and having willing accomplices in the alternative media to fight the anti-Kersten proxy war (ahem).

Most insidious is this idea he's an equal opportunity critic. He never, EVER, singles out a Democrat by name for one of his scathings. Its all conveniently vague.

He's not an asset. He's a poor rendition of the crotchety populist columnist archetype. And he's not a good writer, he's extremely prone to non-sequiters. What bugs me most is this gluttonous use of parentheses in every column for sentences that can stand on their own. What gives with that?

LAMBERT: I remember Coleman going after Rudy Perpich and R.T. Rybak -- by name -- in what they at least regarded as a wholly uncalled for vicious manner. His preference is clearly for a style of government OTHER than what Pawlenty and Bush are offering. (What is that, by the way? Does it even qualify as benign neglect?) My point is that metro columnists should not be hired and directed to appease targeted demographic groups, but to lash out as they see fit. This tactic works best if the columnist has had decades of on-the-street reporting experience, not just spoon-feeding in the rarefied air of truly elitist think tanks. (Ahem).

In regards to why Minnesota is not and can not become Sweden.
Civilization is a numbers game. The more people in civilization the more problems you have. So compare the 9 million that live in Sweden to the 280 million that live in the US. Minnesota itself is half of Sweden's entire population.
Compare Sweeden's growth in population to ours (The US or Minnesota). How many refugees does Sweeden take in? How easy is it to move and become a citizen there? Compare Sweden's median household income to the US. We cant have it both ways. We can not be the land of opportunity and the land of entitlement. Show me a country that has both (and no its not Canada).

I think that Minnesota easily could come up with a billion dollars in transit costs, if the gas tax was exclusivley used for roads and not nature trails, and bike paths. I agree leave the schools alone, but lets not make this the most attractive place to recieve entitlements. Remember Minnesota was refused to obide by the Welfare reform measures in the 1990s.

We can also save money on passing on the Minnesota 150th birthday which only seems important to tax advocate Nick Coleman.

LAMBERT: OK. I'm with you. We lop off the $1 billion designated for bicycle paths. (Why can't those greeny yobs drive Expeditions -- with Support the Troops magnets -- like real Americans?) And we take that windfall and apply it to bridge and road repair. Apples for apples. That ought to cover it. No need at all for any politician, craven Republican or timid Democrat, to stand up and say, "That ain't gonna cut it, and I'd be bullshitting you if I said it would."

Several commenters claim the I-35W bridge was not designed to carry the loads to which it was subjected decades later when it collapsed. This is not how bridges are designed. Bridges are designed to be so overbuilt that they can withstand loading many times greater than what prevails at the time of their construction. This is why many, many old bridges handle today's traffic without incident. If the bridge was doomed by bad design then it was never right in the first place.

How about, just for the heck of it, we wait until all the facts are in before deciding what they are. If preliminary media reports were the same thing as the truth, Barack Obama would have won New Hampshire in a walk...

LAMBERT: "Wait until all the facts are in ... "? What's fun in that? Does Chris Matthews, "wait until all the facts are in"? Come on, pal. Get with the way we roll in '08.

How much you wanna bet that somewhere in all the state's documents about the I-35 bridge there used to be one describing the too-thin gusset plates? I have no proof, obviously, but this is way too convenient for governor pepsodent.

If this is the sort of thing that could not have possibly been detected by inspections, then I am none too sanguine about the age of our remaining bridges. For example, the 61 bridge down in Hastings is a freakin' coelacanth compared to the 35W bridge and the cost-saving alternative to replace it has been...what? Right, inspections. But now we're told by the NTSB that you can't expect inspectors to be able to detect a FUBAR design flaw that sits lurking under a bridge like a damn troll for 40 years?! Well, great. Guess I'll be heading over to St. Patrick's Guild for a St. Christopher statue for the dash. Maybe the state could hand 'em out when you get your tabs renewed.

Nick Coleman criticized his paper's endorsement a three term Governor that even the left had labeled "Governor Goofy" 17 years ago. He really went against the status quo on that one. And he criticized the Mayor for not taxing enough, and not standing up against the Twins Stadium. Yes, the two Democrats he has criticized in 20 years have proven he is fair and balanced. (Sean Hannity has went after more Republicans than Coleman has Democrats).

How about a politician that is not too timid to say, Our entitlement programs are destroying our state. Our spending priorities are out of step with the economy.

Pawlenty said it best a few years back..

"We do not have a tax revenue problem we have a tax spending problem".

What is stopping our tax advocates from reaching into their pocket and donating to the state budget. I believe they accept donations.

LAMBERT: You might want to Google, "Nick Coleman Roger Moe", or "Nick Coleman Sandy Pappas" and see what you come up with. And Hannity, have he and Rick Santorum found the Weapons of Mass destruction again, any time recently?

As for Pawlenty's famous line, I'm sorry that embodies just about every problem I've got with the "small government" crowd. It is nakedly cynical. It suggests of course some kind of massive fraud and waste of tax money -- i.e. hate government -- without ever committing openly to cutting the services people either need or want. There aren't enough welfare mothers driving Cadillacs to rebuild everything that needs rebuilding in this state.

Well, I googled. Not much there. You're going to have to refresh our memory here if you intend to further that particular charade, that hes not strictly partisan.

Even if you find him chiding Rybak, the invective just isn't the same. He has a documentable pattern of not calling out Democrats by name.

Being skeptical of taxes is not the same as hating government by the way. And Kerstens shortcomings dont make Coleman a good columnist, writer, or asset.

LAMBERT: Look, is Nick Coleman a liberal? I'd say that's fairly obvious. But as a liberal he's frequently displeased with the behavior of Democrats who for whatever reason feel they have to play a more compromised game than he, as a newspaper columnist, has to play. That is his part of The Big Game. Check his St. Paul columns for shots at Rudy Perpich, Roger Moe and other DFL "heroes". I don't Rybak grits his teeth at the mention of Coleman's name if he didn't feel Coleman was ripping him.

My point the other day was suggesting that Coleman's editors appeared to have no clue about their audience if they were trying to shut him up the day after the bridge report. Any smart newspaper manager had to know that,friend or foe, everyone wanted to read how Coleman explained that one. Personally, I found it entertaining. You know, as in a reason to ... read the paper.

I just love the arguments that anti-tax hacks use about "entitlement programs." You couldn't find enough true "welfare queens" (which unto itself is a myth propagated by Ronald Reagan) if you tried.

LAMBERT: But there are apparently enough earmarked bicycle paths to pay for the $1 billion a year we need in road and bridge work.

How about a politician who is not too timid to say that $140 million in cost overruns at MnDOT is unacceptable? Heads roll for this in the private sector; shouldn't they in the public sector as well? It's one thing to be politically expedient and stand fast against tax increases (or call them fees)but it's another to be incompetent as stewards of the funds and managers of the projects.

LAMBERT: And fundamentally the issue is incompetence, at least in terms of the Strib's siege against MnDOT and Molnau. But the charge she and Pawlenty and quivering DFLers face from hacks like me is that their self-serving capitulation to the "No New Taxes"/"small government" crowd, naturally leads them to neglect the responsibilities of governing. They can't honestly say the state's infrastructure is sufficiently funded, so they play games with budgetary smoke and mirrors in hopes of running out the clock on their watch.

'Welfare queens' have not been a front in the taxation battle for some years. Republicans / conservatives have been reasonably satisfied with welfare reform signed by Bill Clinton. If Clinton was willing to do that, does that mean there was a problem? Or was it a conspiracy that moved Clinton to do that?

I might be in a mood to grant that infrastructure is insufficiently funded, but you folks are obligated to define what we should be paying in taxes in taxes if we're not paying enough. 'More', is an inadequate answer. I paid state income taxes of about $6k on a 72k household income. Whats the right number for my family?

Income tax rates started trending down in this state under the Perpich administration. The initial cut on the top rate was from around 16% to 12%. Was he capitualting to the small government/no new taxes crowd?

LAMBERT: It goes without saying that tax reform is the first order of business. A $72k household income shouldn't be looking at a fat new bill. On the other hand, incomes above say $250k might warrant closer scrutiny. Again, the "small government" folks might have some credibility with me if they engaged in something other than their usual tradition of spin and deception and willful denial when talking about the true cost of government. If there is sufficient money already in the system, be explicit about what categories you're going to drain. Spare me the cowardly way out of tossing all that to the next governing levels down.

Bikin' Jim Oberstar.

'Nuff said?

CHAIRMAN of House Transportation Committee.

RESPONSIBLE for diverting MILLIONS in Minnesota road and bridge money to pet bike trail projects.

CAREER LIBERAL politician.

LAMBERT: Once again, lucidly articulating the conservative position. With friends like you your cause needs no adversaries.

Say, I rather like this Dan fellow.

Bravo, old chap!

I saw, Bertram, old sport, as annoying as your affected British twit patois is your backward orientation on all matters related to good planning.

Meanwhile, in Portland, OR, where there are fewer of your ilk: http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/05/america/05bike.php life is better for the absence.

LAMBERT: "Welfare bicyclists!!!!"

Oh, yes, PORTLAND.

The liberal utopia!

By all means, let's watch what Portland does!

The fact remains, Oberstar was / is more interested in bike paths than infrastructure. It's documented.

If you have to have a "witch hunt", he's certainly got the broom

Once again, Lambert The Liberal and his compadres are loath to argue the facts, but quick to fire up the ad hominem attacks.

LAMBERT: We were born with the invective gene.

Brian (and other liberal friends),
You scoff at the measley million that the state or federal government spends on a bike trail, or any other pet project. And I dont know if there are tons of welfare recipiants driving Cadilacs, but there was a report done recently that showed that a majority do have cell phones and DVD players and a large portion have cable tv. The ACLU also is against the tax payers insisting that their (the tax payers) welfare recipients take drug tests.
I am not a coward to say that we are spending to much on entitlement and social programs. Minnestoa care is too generous. It attracts people accross the midwest to utilize our tax payer resources. If from what I hear from MSNBC is true about the state of the economy wouldnt this be the time we start pulling back on non essentials like bike trails, nature walkways?
The legilature gave themselves a raise last year while advocating for higher taxes. The government employee unions who advocate for higher wages themselves may have more money if they stopped donating all their money to DFL campaigns.
If what the left is saying is true and we are in a recession, is that the time to start raising taxes (gas taxes?) There is no one program we are going to find a billion dollars in, but cutting back on entitlements (welfare, MN care, public works projects), or scaling back on the government hiring - we could afford to keep bridges up without having to be the highest taxed state in the union. It is just as cynical to say we do not have enough tax revenue as to say we need more.

LAMBERT: I think the simple response to every assertion that 'welfare" programs are a luxury we can't afford is to ask what the cost then is to ... over-loaded emergency room, increased street crime. As for bicycle paths. The money involved just isn't significant enough from any perspective to use them, even as an example of 'waste", to off-set the revenue needed for infrastructure. The additional upside to a 25 cent gas tax increase (from $2.80 today to $3.05) is further incentive to reduce fuel consumption -- plus revenue. Win win.

The "left" has manufactured the recession?

MN is the highest taxed state in the union?

Public works projects are "entitlements"?

MN Care is too "generous"?

Oszman, why do you think you have a right not only to your own opinion but to your own facts? That's what too much talk radio does to a young and unformed mind like yours, lad. Try reading more broadly. You manifestly have no working grasp of reality. It's wince-inducing to read and a waste of everyone's time. Get your facts straight, son, THEN set about forming these crystalline opinions of yours.

And Bertram, Jr., what about Portland, OR do you find unworthy of emulating? It's a gem of a city. Have you so much as been there? I'm sure not. And you yet, like your young peer, Oszman, you are as certain in your opinion as you are short on actual experience.

LAMBERT: Uh, oh.

Jim -

Not sure how you know how old I am (you said I was young) or how you know how much talk radio I listen to (are you logging my media habbits, is Ellison in on this phone and wire tapping?). Perhaps you did a google search on me. I think its great that people such as yourself feel that anyone with an opnion that does not follow the traditional Minnesota liberal doctrine, is short minded, ill informed and just digests whatever talk radio hosts spew.
I do not feel I have to defend myself to someone such as yourself who feeds into the definition of liberal elite, but to clear a few things up I have an education (from one of those liberal Universities not Oral Roberts), subscribe to a wide variety of reading material from left and right, read several sources of news material, editorials, and just about any other media I can get my hands on. I do not drive an SUV with a Support Your Troops sticker on it. (I do support my troops, but I find those that are really supporting them do not need to post stickers).
Now with that being said, are you implying that I do not have a right to my opinions? You also have challenged my facts (I do not recall putting any hard numbers on this post as it is a blog I am posting in my spare time. (if you want to go offline with this I have a lot of research and facts we can go over).
You challenge my opinions on Minnesota's welfare being generous, yet you do not offer any facts of your own. Where did I say Minnesota IS the highest taxed state in the union? True or False, would the 2007 budget proposed by the DFL have made the highest tax bracket in the nation? I have not seen a lot of rebutal facts on this board, and I have made several valid points the past few days that are not rebutted because they are facts. Perhpas you are wasting everyone's time with a thin and condensending attack. From my google search it doesn't look like you are at the cusp of reality. How many jobs have you had where you have punched a time clock or gotten your hands dirty on the job? How many jobs have you had that were not funded by taxpayers?

No, Wizard Osz, I didn't Google you. Would I find anything? I was just guessing at your callowness based on what you write here. If you are not young, then I can't think what your excuse would be.

What intrigues is the questions of how it is someone as you describe yourself has come to be so angry, so convinced he's somehow being cheated? From what you outline about yourself, all has gone pretty well thus far. One assumes you believe this all due to your enterprise and your enterprise alone. But still, one wonders, where's all the anger and resentment come from, expressly the bile and mean-spiritedness aimed at the least of us? How very small.

As for your question: I don't recall ever receiving a government paycheck. No, wait, during college, I spent a summer working at the Pigs Eye Sewage Treatment Plant, one of those expensive guvmint programs you decry. Out where rugged individualists the likes of your peer, Bertram Jr. lives, folks poop in their backyards and it gradually seeps into the groundwater. But here in the city, we pool resources and clean up after ourselves.

Certainly we all have a right to our opinions, but not to our own facts, to paraphrase Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a guy I'm sure you refelxively loath. Anyway, Osz, a right to an opinion does not translate to a right to have it taken seriously. Further, people who get their opinions from others can never return the favor.

Your remarks about what's generous and what's not are just that, opinion, fairly threadbare andknee jerk, that precede you buy many decades. You seem to be advocating that we enter a race to the bottom, all evidence to the contrary that this leads to a better quality of life. To borrow from a tired olf forensic gambit of your crowd, why not just save yourself the time and spittle and just move to any of the many lower-tier states that have long ago adopted your approach to public life.

Oszman: "...we could afford to keep bridges up without having to be the highest taxed state in the union."

What's implied here, Tom? That either, a. we are the highest-taxed state in the union; or, b. that someone is advocating for that #1 slot.

It's a phony Hobbesian choice, Tom. It's cynical forensics. They've grown quite tiresome. Argue the issues without the talk radio gambits.

Entitlements are definitely worthy of debate. Maybe we should quit subsidizing middle, upper-middle and upper class housing with a mortgage interest tax credit. Why should these high-functioning, economically-empowered people be living in subsdized housing? Why should someone get to deduct the interest on a home equity loan that they used to pay off their credit card, but some renter who's struggling to pay off a credit card not be able to deduct their usurious interest costs? Where's the equity there, Tom? All good questions among many worthy of debate. But demonizing the poor and pretending that bike trails are what're bringing the country to its economic knees is just rank sophistry, son. It's gotten us to precisely where we are today. Are you a results-oriented guy? I bet you like the sound of that as applied to yourself, a bootstrapper like you. Well, you and yours have been pretty exclusively in charge for almost eight years now. As Mayor Koch would ask, how're ya' doin'? According to the polls, a lot of people in this country are pretty damn unimpressed, Tom.

LAMBERT: I'm prepared to offer my services as peace negotiator, or, failing that, Mr. Oszman's EMT driver.

This debate has become personal. My only regret was that I took the bait and retaliated a personal attack with a personal attack. Say what you want about my facts, my alleged lack of experience, or my opinons that I express on this board (we are not suppose to express opinons apparently), I did not resort to calling out board commentators by name or junior high name calling. (Wow, never heard the Wizard nick name before).
My opinion of Minnesota heading toward being the highest or one of the highest taxed states in the union is no thinner than someone saying the bridge fell because there was no gas tax. (remember this was the topic?)
I am all for a debate about the topic, we may make more progress if we stuck to actual issues and not trying to throw hooks at one another personaly.

Maybe we should quit subsidizing middle, upper-middle and upper class housing with a mortgage interest tax credit. Why should these high-functioning, economically-empowered people be living in subsdized housing?

The mortgage interest deduction is not in any way, shape, or form either a 'credit' or a 'subsidy'.

A subsidy is where the government gives money to someone who has little or none. Welfare subsidizes the incomes of poor people. This money comes from people who are net tax payers, and they often have home mortgages. Now, if you itemize deductions, an itemization for home mortgage interest is allowable - but its a complete bastardization of the language to call this computation a 'subsidy' for someone who actually has taxes due. Which invariably is 100% of homeowners. OK?

Be that as it may. Tim Pawlenty is as conservative a governor I can imagine coming to power in this state, and its never been a matter of him or his people saying 'cut welfare', or 'cut education' or cut this, cut that. We merely need to hold spending at inflation for a few years to begin generating surpluses again - and then you can go ahead and begin contemplating all kinds of new transfer payements without having to raise taxes.

In reality, the real world manifestation of government on the cheap in this state has been holding spending down a few ticks closer to the rate of inflation than the Democrats would. Fact of the matter is its not cheap at all.

LAMBERT: Well, now that is what I'd call a "generous spin". I don't think it is a "complete bastardization of the language" to employ the word "subsidy" in the context of home mortgage deduction. You are right of course in the strict definition. But in the "parlance of our times" that deduction is regularly referred to as expressive of the government's desire (i.e. OUR desire) to encourage homeownership. It is no worse a bastardization than it is calling taxes "fees" and expecting to get a pass.

As for Pawlenty and his ilk never quite saying "We'll need to cut education, police protection, fire services, environmental programs" yadda yadda ... what strikes me as complete bastardization is re-framing this as competent, courageous leadership. Far more courageous would be to say to the public, "Look, properly funding the following programs to sustain them at effective levels will cost this much. That means a tax increase of this. I think that is worth doing/I don't think that is worth doing. I will make my case on the specifics and, in the end, accept the will of the people."

What Pawlenty (and plenty of chickenshit Democrats) have done is create smokescreens of obfuscation and slid the brutal details off on local governments ... or the Feds.

I ain't impressed.

108: To paraphrase Winston Churchill, that is the sort of petty pedantry up with which I will not put. You're being reductionist. Fine, allowing people to deduct the cost of their mortgage interest from their taxes isn't a payment from the government per se.

But it's a break on taxes that other people who pay other kinds of interest don't get. It's intended as an aid, a form of assistance to stimulate a particular economic behavior. Social engineering, a conservative might call it. And it's a generally agreed upon tax break for people not based on need but on a desire for people to own homes. We don't give it to owners of second homes or commercial properties.

Fine. But it means tax revenues need to be made up elsewhere to off set the loss of tax revenues for those deductions. I'm not saying I want to see it ended. Just saying it's as worthy an economic policy of examination as assisting the poorest among us and other ways we spend, or don't collect in the first place, tax revenues.

All I mean to say is that let's have a genuine, intellectualy honest discussion of how we collect and spend taxes. Right now, that's not what I'm seeing much of here or anywhere else. I think that's what Lambert's asking for. Doesn't seem like too much to ask.

For whatever its worth, and I wish I had more time to go thru all these because its truly interesting, a couple of items:

*the gas tax is constitutionally mandated to go for roads - not transit! So its hard to argue that folks paying the gas tax have been paying their fair share, relative to inflation, vs. other states (that have better infrastructure and maintenance).

*Minnesota Care is funded by a health provider tax - not by average taxpayers. And until Gov. Pepsodent (love that one)raided the MN Care fund and diverted those $$$ to the general fund, it actually WORKED!

*One of the leading causes of bad health and the correspsonding health care costs is obesity. If bike paths help people get in better shape and in better health, go for it (interestingly, one of the reasons airlines use more fuel is due to the average passenger weight has gone up so dramatically in the last 10-20 years. You can make the same inference in declining gas mileage in cars).

LAMBERT: On your last point, my (smart ass) kid has a maxim, "The bigger the SUV the smaller the white woman driving it."

For 108 and Osz and anyone else who's interested in revisiting the mortgage interest deduction TAX SUBSIDY (as sacrosanct an entitlement as there is) for home buyers, here's a piece by Roger Lowenstein from about a year ago in the NYT in which he mulls it over afresh and disabused, at least me, of some erroneous myths and assumptions about it.

Osz, rest up your lips, it's a little on the long side.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/05/magazine/305deduction.1.html

I am very impressed with Jim's comments and insights, and whereas I am not going to go into "facts and figures" or argue, I truly believe that he is unto something.
-
Why is Tom O (and many thers like him) so angry, when based upon his background that he offers about himself, he has been afforded many opporunties unto which he should be able to see a more peripheral perspective on life? He sounds like a parrot, repeating textbook conservative perspectives that come daily from the media (past and present), with little mindfulness. I respect that he offers these opinions, but sense that they lack innovation.

-Why is there so much spittle put forth by people based upon age old rhetoric on both sides. Where is innovation, or perhaps a "third way" of doing things that have innovation involved? There's my idealism. Hopefully I don't lose it.

LAMBERT: I want to believe the "small government" (for huge society) crowd is sincere in their beliefs. Sadly, I hear and feel way too much tired, long since discredited "Contract with America" yabber. They badly lack "new ideas".

I realize we've returned to endlessly speculating on the business dealings over at the Strib, but this Letter To The Editor from an actual bridge engineer would seem a worthy addendum to this thread:

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/14441241.html

LAMBERT: This dog ain't dead yet.

Pro Dem -

You have a point to a certain extent. However I would ask what innovation has the other side offered up besides increasing the gas tax? (to fund transit, the original topic) Isn't raising taxes to solve all solutions just as old and text book as the conservative ideas of holding the line and cutting taxes?

Also, I am really not all that bitter and angry. If the media you are inferring I parrot is talk radio, I will admit I really don't listen or have the time to tune into the usual conservative suspects. I am guessing we probably read the a lot of the same media and then have different perspectives of what we read.

Tom O
You missed my point. Did I not mention that the other side "spittles" out the same rhetoric, except with the opposite spin? It's media parroting, and to be direct, you are often times one of the worst offenders.

I am looking for a third way of doing things. I think that innovation is the best way. I don't think I have the answers quite frankly, but based upon your responses, I definetely don't think that you do either.
PD

In the spirit of this discussion, I read the Lowenstein piece on the mortgage interest deduction. He's not a financial writer, and he contradicts nothing I have stated. Its not a subsidy, its a deduction. A calculation like this that for whatever intents remediates your taxes due is not a subsidy. Its many things - social engineering, yes, carrot and stick, yes, favorable tax treatment, yes - but its not a subsidy. And theres lots of things in the tax code like this. Its not accurate to say the government 'subsidizes' the average homeowner.

Brian, I think you continue to mischarcterize 'small government' while not revealing what you and likeminded folks really want. As a practical matter, even with Republicans trying with varying degrees of success to control spending, we're still going to have growing state and federal budgets. Like $30 billion biannually for the state and $3 trillion for the feds. The tax base doesn't exist now to pay for that very well. And yet what you'd like to see is lots more $ on social services, more on education, more on infrastructure. They're isn't enough rich people to tax to pay for that unless you want to change the economy to one that doesn't really have excess production that gives us our great standard of living.

Is that the end game? Shared misery?

LAMBERT: If only the misery were shared. You may fair points in the pure semantics of "subsidy". But I hope you're not going to wander off into fantasy-denial land and argue that the Bush tax cuts -- which got the most rousing applause from Republicans at last night SOTU -- have reduced the regressive aspects of the tax code. An enormous hole has been dug in the interests of getting "big government" off our back (really it was just a slogan to garner easy votes). Continued demonizing of all things government by cynical politicians isn't going to repair rads, pay teachers, provide affordable health care.

After reading Jim Carlson's letter in yesterday's strib and then finding out today - on B5, for crying out loud - that Mark Rosenker replied to Oberstar and essentially backed away from gusset plates being the sole blame - where's the hue and cry over the FACT that:

The gusset plates are not the only reason the bridge failed. From today's article (and you have to dig deep online to find it): "Rosenker...said he did not mean to suggest that the finding of undersized gusset plates on the 35W bridge reflects the board's final conclusion on the cause of the Aug. 1 accident. That conclusion is expected later in the year."
OH REALLY? But Rosenker said the gussets were the "critical factor." WTF?

Rosenker not only isn't an engineer but he's hardly impartial, what with his CHeney connections and long time involvement in GOP politics. (it doesn't take a conspiracy theorist to figure politics, and making Teflon Tim look good, wasn't a motivating factor in his report. If its Bush and company and the public interest is involved, politics are ALWAYS a factor with this crowd. Have we learned nothing in the last 7 years? Mining safety anyone??

Why is this all being buried, save for Carlson's letter yesterday? Where's the Strib now? Why was today's story buried after all the investigative reporting.

Liberal media bias, of course! Would love to read your thoughts on all this Brian!

LAMBERT: For the moment, I'll leave it at this. I believe Rosenker also took a step over the line by saying, didn't he?, that "no amount of inspection" could have detected this design flaw?

Back to the topic at hand, the public asset, Nick Coleman. I contended earlier in this thread that he basically has only 4 column topics, among them, the bridge, the stadium, indian nicknames. Topically, these are things regulary in the news that allow Nick to engage in a lot of Democratic / leftist class rhetoric and name calling - which he seems to get his biggest kicks from. Ya know, that brawling Irish thing...

His Jan 30th column on The Twins / Pohlad trading Johan is a variation of the typical Nick stadium column - the trade of course being the newsworthy hook. But thats really all it is, a Nick stadium column, and a way for Nick to bash rich people. Because Carl Pohlad's rich, doncha know, and if taxes were to be raised that should have gone to schools and poor people and light rail and the bridge or however that line of thinking goes.

This January 30th column is among the most dreadful pieces Nick has ever had published. A mish mash of disenchantments and non sequiturs, intellectually and contextually dishonest on any number of levels. Its probably as bad as the recent condo piece or the photo shopped Bush giving the finger piece.

I have a couple questions, Brian. I know you enjoy baseball and have some knowledge.

I mean really, don't you think it would be relavant in a "deeply reported column', such as it is, to note that an $80 million contract was just given to Justin Morneau? Or does that fact inconveniently get in the way of the task at hand, which is to blather on about how pro sports is a racket, and owners rape the public without investing in the team, yada, yada, cliche, yada, yada...

Nick quotes a blog in this column. Does he think blogs are reputable now?

Is it honest to continue to rip Carl Pohlad, who by all reports isnt operationally involved with the team? Isn't Nick being lazy / dishonest here, relying on the fact that Carl is more publicly known than his son Jim and thus easier to rip?

Isn't there some irony / hypocrisy in seeing Coleman criticize Pohlad for not paying Santana $25 mil a year, when Nick doesn't actually believe people should be allowed to earn that much money?

Is this a good, well written column or a bad, lazy, cliche ridden column?

LAMBERT: Something tells me I'm not going to turn you into Coleman's camp. But look, there are many reasons why I like Nick personally and professionally, among them that he genuinely cares about the quality of life in these cities. Additionally, Nick is a character whose shtick isn't based on the 'i got mine" attitude of other far more cliched columnist curmudgeons. Do I agree with each and every position he takes in his column? Of course not. But I read im, just like it sounds you do. What's been lost in recent years as newspaper people have been replaced in management by corporate managers is that ineffable feel for fun and theater that metro columnists were once encouraged to bring to their writing. In my mind a metro column was a place where good editors made sure their readers who enjoyed reading found something enjoyable/engaging/provocative to read. With the current management at both newspapers (and a lot of others around the country) you get the feel that "columnists" are really nothing more than reporters with guaranteed space and a mug shot. The fact is every writer writes for his/her editor. If you can't get your shtick past that impediment it gets distilled and homogenized until it does. Point being, if I were Coleman's editor -- and he'd be in my face hourly -- I'd be telling him that I'd like LESS beat reporting and MORE storytelling and cultural commentary. My guess is even you, 108, would still be reading and maybe loving to hate Coleman more than you are now.

a couple more:

It was widely reported that Twins had offered Santana 4 years @ $20 mil. Did Nick miss that in this deeply reported story, or just omit it to maintain the context of 'Pohlad the cheap sob'?

Do you agree with Nick that Roger Maris should be in the hall of fame?

LAMBERT: To repeat, I'm less interested in Nick Coleman dutifully reiterating every facet of an already well-reported story than I am in him making a provocative point.

And yes, I'd vote to put Roger Maris in the Hall of Fame. as far as anyone knows Roger played clean and put up with god awful pressure and irrational rage in the '61 season. But then I think Bert Blyleven should be in the Hall, too.

Just to calibrate my instruments here, 108, would you say that Katherine Kersten is your idea of a legitimate columnist, her ideological proclivities well to the side?

LAMBERT: And for the record. I think Kersten serves the purpose of provoking debate. I wish they could find a conservative that could tell a joke from time to time and had a bit more real world street experience. But as far as articulating the misplaced anger of the far right cognoscenti, she's OK.

Faint praise that could apply to any right wing talk radio host.

So, you don't care to substantially disagree with my overview on Nick, you just want to know what I think about Kersten?

Actually I agree with Brian's assessment. While I don't find her terribly compelling, shes adequate - shes OK. I do find the continued rancor over her presence at the Strib fascinating.

I dont think Nick's an illegitmate columnist. He is in fact a columnist, I'd acknowledge that. I do read his work, I am a newspaper reader. And what Brian stated, that he has admirable qualities / passions that a guy like me is not privy to. I'm not a blogger, I'm not in the media, I'm not a foot soldier in the culture war.

I just know journalists don't get to state falsehoods in order to be provacative, or in afflicting the comfortable or what have you. We've entered Stephen Glass / Janet Cooke territory here. Nick approaches that line all the time. And, he's too much vitriol and not enough empathy. He says awful, offensive things about good people. He's just the one thing where I have to shout 'the emperor has no clothes' to people who insist the emperor is fully dressed.

I find Maris a compelling, likable figure, but he's not a hall of famer. His '61 season is as much a statistical oddity as Denny McClain's 31 win season in 1968, and no ones clammoring for McClain's induction. Nick's writing Maris belongs in the HOF is just another example of both his bizarre hyper provincialism and him not knowing what hes talking about. He writes provacatively about a lot about things he knows nothing about.

All that said, I had a conversation a few years ago with a guy who subbed in an adult hockey game with Nick, and the guy said Nick was a fine fellow...so there ya go.

LAMBERT: That guy at the hockey game probably said that before Coleman blind-sided him and took out a couple teeth.