Tony,

The good result for the region is a testament to the Speakers’ leadership. Even though he had initial concerns, he maintained an open mind and did the right thing for the St. Louis region even though he is from Joplin. The funding for Metro occurred ONLY because the Speaker, Majority Floor leader Tilley and St. L Co reps Icet, Jones and Diehl stood up and did the right thing for the region. The Governor and the St. L Co dems played politics and almost jeopardized the funding. In fact the Governor actively lobbied against the bill containing the funding in a crass political manuever. The facts are the facts… St. L Co would do well to give these republicans a chance

The voters of St. Louis county said no to more money for Metro. Now, the state legislature wants to take our tax money and do it anyway. Thanks for nothing, Mr. Richard.

nick,

the state legislature is spending federal stimulus money intended for projects and to create or protect jobs. if the house republicans didn’t spend it the way it was intended missouri stood to lose the money. we as a city need public transportation. metro has changed management, made cuts and raised fares. the mistakes made are in the past and were not made by present management. get your head out of your rear.

Republicans in the St. Louis region are probably getting a lot of phone calls from business owners. Why? because a lot of business owners who contribute to Republicans rely on a workforce that rely on transit. For those who criticize Metro at every chance should get a job at McDonalds and tell me what they can afford. This is not a one horse town where everything is a five minute walk away (I grow up in a one horse town and can speak to that). Their is a balance and recognition in the business community what transit means and their should be recognition that transit works as a benefit to this state just as much as a rural highway is a benefit to multiple small communities that can’t possible support the road network on their own. Does it mean a bus on every street every mintue and miles upon miles of Metro? NO, but St. Louis County and City shouldn’t cut their own throat when comes to supporting the region and refuse to recognize the significant changes that have been made. Their is a couple of Republicans who are savy enough to understand this relationship as well as the politics of it.

OK Post Dispatch, do your job. The $12 million stimulus for Metro lasts how long?? Every year in perpetuity or just a one-year bandaid? From my chair, it’s a temporary fix, similar to the over-ballyhooed Clinton 100,000 cops on the streets funding in the 1990’s. What you and other media didn’t report then was that federal funding lasted just three years. When the funding expired, police department budgets were overextended. Personnel who quit or retired were not replaced with the attrition used to balance their budgets, meaning a net effect of zero. I demand you do a story about what Metro plans to do when this $12 million is spent. Ask us for another tax increase?

Why does this blog never cover DC topics such as this:
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/05/bummer-claire-acorn-mccaskill-caught-in.html

Funny how the PD hasn’t mentioned Geither (of all people) going after tax cheats such as McCaskill and the Kennedys.

If I understand the stimulus correctly, the funding is for 27 months. The idea behind it is that because the tax base is shrinking because of foreclosures, loss of jobs etc…the government should step in to make sure essential services that rely on taxes like transportation, education and health care do not contract during what is hoped to be a temporary downturn. Now, if things do not improve in two years, then we might be in trouble. But I think the funding is viewed as a bridge to a more financially stable time.
So far as the politics of this, I find that interesting. The Republicans appear to be trying to win votes in the metro area, while Democrats seem more interested in winning favor in the rural areas. The final vote on this was actually bipartisan, with a number of R’s and D’s voting yes and a number of R’s and D’s voting no. That is not common for the Missouri legislature.

I am curious if Nixon was specifically against the Metro funding, or some other aspect of the bill.

If he was against Metro what was his reasoning.

If anyone knows this let us know. Apparently, the reporter didn’t have time to get Nixon’s response to the Speaker’s charge

> (brandy) if the house republicans didn’t spend it the way it was
> intended missouri stood to lose the money

The stimulus package does not require that funds be spent on public transit. And apparently, a majority of St. Louis county voters do not agree with your assessment of Metro and/or the need for an expansion of their service.

> (Richard) The Republicans appear to be trying to win votes
> in the metro area

By spending money on something that the voters turned down? Yeah, that sounds like a typical strategy for Missouri Republicans.

> (Richard) I think the funding is viewed as a bridge to a
> more financially stable time.

It is viewed as a bridge to another effort at passing a tax increase. Nobody at Metro believes they can restore the previous service levels and survive without a significant tax increase.

The last Prop M included .25% for maintaining current service, and .25% for expanding service through capital expenditures. What they didn’t tell you is, after expanding, they will need yet another funding increase to sustain the expanded service.

From another article: “Rep. Jamilah Nasheed in interview: “I’m totally appaled that Gov. Nixon did not step up to the plate to try to save that $12 milliion.”

Nixon is simply AWOL. He fails to provide any direction and his office is without focus except for raising money for the next campaign. We got hoodwinked!!