two words: "Safety Net". This bridge construction was not planned for, but is definately needed, so the fed government steps in helps out. The stadium is a part of the city's development plan; and, whether you like the stadium idea or not, it is proper for Washington to step in and do what it can to get MN back to normal again.

Patrick - the bridge degradation happened slowly and over time, but it wasn't important enough for the MN govt to prioritize over things like baseball. The libertarians are asking why we should pay for their lack of priorities.

Furthermore, given how much money the MN govt has to spend on frivolities, wouldn't it be more appropriate for the feds to loan them the money for the bridge to get over the short term cash crunch, rather than give it to them outright? That's how you deal with unplanned contingencies for relatively wealthy parties - you set up a payment plan.

More on this debate over at Thudfactor.

Thudfactor has this figure: "A new $776 million Twins Stadium to be paid for with a Hennepin County sales tax increase — (approved by state legislators with no voter referendum)"

That's 3 times the amount that federal taxpayers are being asked to pay for the bridge.

Althought he degredation happened over time, I am sure no one in government thought that the bridge collapse was eminent. So no one ever made the call to build a stadium instead of fixing (or having a bridge). Obviously they were wrong, but the fed is bailing them out for that mistake.
And wether the stadium is frivorlous or not (and I do think that is overstating it, stadiums do add something to a city, even if you don't like what they bring)is irrelevent. It is what the city decided to do, and part of the federal governments job is to help local cities function.
I think Liberttarians are just harping on the stadium deal because it is an easy target. People don't like them for a variety of reasons which have nothing to do with our crumbling infastructure.

"It is what the city decided to do, and part of the federal governments job is to help local cities function. "

So if they had decided to spend all their money on a giant ball of wax, or a single tax deduction to somebody very very wealthy (which is, in essence what they have decided to do), the rest of us have to support their decisions with our pocketbooks?

No. a giant ball wax or a giving money to one individual ARE frivolous. A huge building project that keeps a major sports franchise in the city is not. It may not be a decision you agree with, but I am sure it was not done lightly or without a lot of debate on every aspect of it (social, economic, environmental, etc.) These stadia debates always are.
I would think a libertarian could make the argument that if MN politicians won political support to spend money on a wax ball, then who is the federal government to say they shouldn't! Why should they the feds make them spend their money on that Interstate Highway bridge.

Ennis, I think you've replaced a straw man with the whole ball of wax!

I'd like to point out that no one knows yet why the bridge collapsed. It may or may not have been a maintenance/inspection problem. It could have been flawed original design, all the rebuilding material piled on the bridge, some combo of some or all the above, or none of the above.

Whether or not state spending on the stadium is a good idea, there are real economic consequences for real US citizens if that bridge is not re-built quickly. I think it's entirely appropriate for the US government to step in and help, just as the Feds helped NYC after 9/11 and New Orleans after Katrina (though I'm sure they should have done/be doing more in New Orleans).

"Whether or not state spending on the stadium is a good idea, there are real economic consequences for real US citizens if that bridge is not re-built quickly. I think it's entirely appropriate for the US government to step in and help, just as the Feds helped NYC after 9/11 and New Orleans after Katrina (though I'm sure they should have done/be doing more in New Orleans)."

There is a difference. We recognize that MN is generally responsible for its own infrastructure. If they want to build a bridge, in general, it's local taxpayers who pay and benefit. Similarly, upkeep for local bridges is also local taxpayer's responsibility. So why is it that I should be tapped to pay $250 million for a locality that just allocated $750 for a new stadium (without a referendum no less). At the very least, don't you think they should renegotiate their existing obligations (like the stadium) to come up with their own money for what is most important and urgent - the bridge?

Ennis--

I don't agree that MN is generally responsible for its own infrastructure. The Feds spend billions of dollars a year on highways and bridges. According to the GAO, in 2002, the Feds accounted for 46% of highway spending, and states and localities accounted for 54%.

Unless you're arguing that those tax dollars should go to states to distribute instead of the Federal government (which seems a possible way of doing things, but sort of pointless), I see no reason to deny Federal highway money to Minnesota because you don't like the state spending money on a baseball stadium.

Missing from this interesting discussion is discussion of the true nature of a franchise such as the Twins. To dismiss an MLB stadium as a “frivolity” or “corporate welfare” is to overlook that a major sports franchise is a civic economic engine. They provide thousands of jobs (on-site and off), hundreds of millions in tax revenue, and revitalize depressed inner cities (Baltimore, Cleveland, Denver, Phoenix, etc.), encouraging still more jobs and tax revenue. Far from a “frivolity,” stadiums are a long term civic investment.

I don’t generally agree the public should underwrite stadiums for private franchises, but it’s an investment decision local entities must make per market competition – i.e. the threat a franchise might depart, as was the case in MN. Moreover, such decision-making is often unusually democratic given the glare of publicity accorded teams and stadiums. In MN, the decision was 11 years under debate.

The 76 (to 55) lawmakers who voted for the tax are beholden to voters, who either feel that keeping the Twins in town is very much a “proper function of government” or can elect new reps.

The new stadium - and new jobs - gives people another reason to cross the (rebuilt) bridge into the city. Other than that the bridge and stadium have nothing to do with each other, and comparison is pointless.

Has anyone suggested they just build the stadium ON the Mississippi and use it as a bridge too. Then they can have all the money they want. I think LBJ and Brown and Root did something like this with the Marshall Ford dam back in the 30s, and look how great that turned out to be.

Has anyone suggested they just build the stadium ON the Mississippi and use it as a bridge too. Then they can have all the money they want. I think LBJ and Brown and Root did something like this with the Marshall Ford dam back in the 30s, and look how great that turned out to be.
http://www.texasobserver.org/article.php?aid=731

It looks like the Onion called this one two years ago!