![]() |
April 7, 2006
No grass?Nine million dollars a year and no grass? It came up near the end of the House debate on Thursday night over the new University of Minnesota football stadium. As the House was preparing to vote on the $248 million stadium plan DFL Rep. Mary Murphy asked why the open-air stadium would have artifical turf instead of real grass. The bill's author, GOP Rep. Ron Abrams, said the stadium will get so much use that real grass couldn't take the pounding. He said in addition to the football team, intramural squads and others will use the facility. That was probably one of the more minor points brought up in a long debate over the new stadium, but when state taxpayers are being asked to pay $9.4 million per year for 25 years you can understand why people are concerned. Still, the bill passed easily on a 103-30 vote. MPR's Tom Scheck (or the AP's Brian Bakst depending on when you read this)has more about some of the other issues involved. Just about everyone at the Capitol said this would be the easy stadium to pass, and it sure looks that way given the vote. Now that the House has dipped its toe into public funding for stadiums, will it go all the way with a Twins ballpark? In some ways the Hennepin County sales tax plan seems like an easier vote for most lawmakers than the gopher plan. It seems like a stretch that lawmakers would also pass a Vikings stadium this year, but who knows? Could Minnesota end up requiring every state resident to have health insurance ala Massachusetts? MPR's Laura McCallum reports that Gov. Tim Pawlenty is thinking about it: Massachusett's Republican governor, Mitt Romney, has pushed the plan, which was approved this week by a Democratic-led Legislature. It would allow uninsured low-income people to get subsidized policies and would require everyone in Massachusetts to be insured by mid-2007. Pawlenty says he likes the idea of mandating health coverage for people who don't have insurance. He said that in his State of the State speech as I recall, and we should do a little more checking up on that. Something interesting is going on here at MPR today. The mayors of Minneapolis and St. Paul are here along with a bunch of city staffers to talk about way the cities can work together. The whole thing will be capped off with an hour of Midday at noon. This is the first time I can remember something like this happening here, and I'm betting it will be worth a listen.
Why hasn't anyone mentioned Rep. Ray Vandeveer's (R-Forest Lake) attempt to link embryonic stem-cell research and the Gopher stadium? In the Ways & Means Committee hearing on the bill April 5, Vandeveer made an incredible leap from the far-right abortion swamp and proposed an amendment to the stadium financing bill: the state would cease payments to the U of M if the university ever embarked on embryonic stem-cell research beyond the Bush-approved lines of stem cells. These are the same lines that have been determined to be woefully inadequate by the science community. Many of Vandeveer's GOP colleagues on the committee roundly criticized his absurd amendment and fortunately, it failed. Is there anything these zealots won't link to abortion in order to curry the favor of the MCCL? Posted by Karl at April 7, 2006 4:25 PMI am especially interested in the Massachusetts healthcare legislation because I am currently president of the Association of MCHA Policyholders (MCHA is the MN high-risk medical pool) and I see no mention anywhere of people with chronic health conditions and how the MA legislation will affect them. Another question I have about the MA plan is: Why INSURANCE? They have just handed the insurance companies another 500,000 policyholders! Insurance companies have higher overhead and administrative costs than Medicare and lower policyholder satisfaction. It seems we should be cutting the insurance companies out of the picture, not handing them more business to control. I know, there is a real lack of trust in government right now (the Katrina effect)but I see nothing to be gained by giving insurance companies the right to earn more money by being middlemen in the healthcare business, and using taxpayers money to subsidize low income people to pay for insurance - giving more tax dollars to business. Posted by Annette Caruthers at April 8, 2006 9:21 AM |