Letter to the Editor:
Two weeks ago, Alice Housman (D. Representative of District 66B) had an interesting letter to the editor concerning Mark Murdock's (R. Representative of District 10B) role in securing funding for the Perham incinerator project.
Housman left out the reasons for Murdock's previous no votes on the funding bill. Murdock is keenly aware of the economic deficit in the state and knew the 2 billion plus funding bill would be catastrophic to the state budget that is already underfunded. The proposed funding bill was full of non-essential projects that were highly questionable in light of the recession.
Murdock had stated publicly he could only support a funding bill within the $600 million range. The funding bill was initiated by the Dems and Senator Skogan had solicited Murdock's support because of the incinerator project. Two more times the bill was put to a vote without getting close to a level that Murdock could support.
As Gov. Pawlenty was reviewing the funding bill and weeding out the deadwood, Senator Skogan notified Murdock that he had exhausted his own efforts to keep the Perham project viable and it was up to Murdock to try and keep the project in the final bill.
After numerous e-mails and just 3 days left to finalization, the Governor's office called to ask Murdock about the incinerator project. Rep. Murdock explained how this project would be beneficial to 4 separate counties, beneficial for promoting business, and provide up to 30 plus new jobs in our area. Gov. Pawlenty could see the value in retaining this project in the funding bill, which ended up being in the $720 million range-which Rep. Murdock could support.
This is a good example of how politicians from both sides can and should cooperate for the good of the state. Credit should be given to both sides. If only the national government could put the good of the nation first-rather than destroying the economy, shredding the constitution, and operating with recklessness that may put us in total poverty.
Regg Wenaas, Perham