To tax or not to tax?

One bridge fell, and of course that means we have been and will continue to spend a lot of money to deal with the situation, but if one bridge fell it shouldn't mean other bridges are more likely to fall. We have thousands and thousands of bridges in this country and around the world it is extremely rare they fall.

To put it in perspective if your neighbor slipped and died in the shower would you expect the state to spend a couple hindered dollars per home to make shower's less slippery? Until we find some evidence to suggest over the next 10 years we can expect multiple bridge collapses in Minnesota should we assume that over the next 10 years we will see none. The Democrats have backed Governor Pawlenty into a corner, and Pawlenty who would rather be liked then stick to his convictions will give in to the Democrats spending habits once again., and hey 50 or 60 cents on the dollar is spent as I would like it by the Democrats but I expect the Republicans to protect a considerable portion of the remainder. If having convictions means Tim Pawlenty doesn't win he next election so be it, if he's right then the people will eventually come around.

We have the money, and with the right set of priorities we can do more for less, I used to think Republicans were at least proud enough to say that even if they are no longer willing to act on it. Now a no new taxes pledge has so many exceptions that it's not worth the paper it was written on.

An argument can always be made for raising taxes and I would love to hear Pawlenty out on why it is now necessary to raise taxes, but really it's not the temporary cost that the state has to deal with can be met with a few prioritized shifts.

Reactionary policy is bad policy.