[This commentary originally appeared in the St. Paul Pioneer Press Friday, April 4, 2008. As the state Senate bonding bill is debated, it’s important to remember that the first criterion of any project is whether or not it contributes to an essential function of government. It’s also interesting to note that “no” is never a final answer to a legislator. The Rochester Volleyball Center, which appears in the recently passed Senate bonding proposal, was also on the table last year. Essential? You be the judge.]

In Alice’s wonderland, words mean whatever legislators need them to mean. (Rep. Alice) Hausman defends the size of the (2008) bonding bill, saying legislative negotiators pared nearly $4 billion in requests to less than $1 billion in “most essential” projects. Not to pick nits here, but dictionaries define “essential” as “absolutely necessary; vitally necessary; indispensible.”

If a project request is “essential” to the state, then there are dire consequences to the state if it’s not funded; if it’s not essential, state government shouldn’t be funding it. “Most essential” is as nonsensical a concept as ever uttered by a mad hatter.

Read the rest of this entry »

Conservatives lose economic arguments, not because they are wrong, but because gorillas are cute.

Read the rest of this entry »