Rep. Neil Peterson writes that he supported the transportation bill for several reasons (Opinion Exchange, Feb. 27). Unfortunately, his reasoning lists toward rationalization, not fact and logic:

• Peterson supported the bill because he believes in less taxation, not more. The bill contains $165.8 million tagged for road construction and maintenance in Peterson's district. "If those dollars do not come to our county and cities through this allocation, residents in my district will eventually pay for improvements through increased real-estate taxes," says Peterson.

In other words, Peterson is asking people outside his district to pay for local street improvements in places like Bloomington and Edina, so that those places can use property taxes to maintain the style of life to which their residents have become accustomed. I'm sure the residents of Mary Ellen Otremba's District 11B, one of the poorer districts in the state, will be thrilled to gild Peterson's prestigious Bloomington and Edina lilies.

• Peterson supported the bill because we have a slowing economy in our state. This bill, Peterson says, will support thousands of jobs. Indeed, it will -- but all jobs are not created equal. If a job doesn't create value, it sucks vitality right out of the economy.

When we build transit lines that don't pay for themselves and require perpetual subsidies or build new roads that aren't necessary, we kill the jobs those tax dollars would have supported had they been spent by people on something they really value. You create jobs by leaving money in the hands of individuals to flow where it is most efficiently employed -- not by taxing it away from people into unnecessary projects that require perpetual subsidies.

• Peterson supported the bill because of the recently released legislative auditor's report. The Minnesota Department of Transportation needs more funding. That is most certainly true, but anyone familiar with the way Minnesota funds state roads, as Peterson should be, knows that it is a process emphasizing political equity, not priority construction and maintenance.

Yes, the auditor's report said MnDOT needs more funding; it also noted that MnDOT often has not followed its own prioritization process, and one can infer that even if it had, the MnDOT process provides no guarantee that high-priority projects are built before lower-priority projects. And yet, given all that, Peterson decides it is a good idea to dump another $6.6 billion dollars into a dysfunctional process. Shouldn't the Legislature have reformed the MnDOT process before dumping more taxpayer dollars into a busted system?

• Peterson supported the bill because he knows the reality of inflation. The reality, says Peterson, is the old adage: We can pay now or pay more later. True -- as far as it goes. But when it comes to capital investments intended to last 50 to 100 years, doesn't it make more sense to borrow at today's price and pay back in future dollars? If Peterson's answer is "no," then why are we going to have a billion-dollar bonding bill for local projects that aren't nearly as important as he claims road and bridge work is?

Peterson doesn't want our children paying the bill for roads they will drive on, the roads they will rely on for police, fire and emergency services, the roads that will transport virtually every product they ever buy, but it's OK to have our kids pay for a polar-bear exhibit and a hockey arena they may never use?

• Peterson voted to represent what he believed to be in the best interest of his cities, his constituents and, ultimately, his conscience. This is perhaps the most disheartening of all Peterson's statements. When did Republicans adopt the Democrats' notion that the "best interest" of our constituents is best served at the expense of others? Is robbing Ole to pay Sven good for Minnesota? Is that good government? No doubt it is in the best interests of Bloomington and Edina to get Otremba's constituents to help pay for Bloomington and Edina road improvements -- if Peterson's conscience can sleep with that, so be it.

Phil Krinkie, a former state legislator, is president of the Taxpayers League of Minnesota.