At the time of the Minnesota Bridge disaster, Ms. Peters appeared on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer to talk about what the federal government intended to do in the wake of this tragedy. It is really astounding to see her stick dutifully to “conservative ideology”, aka, “tough luck for you Americans, the rich will keep their tax cuts, and we’ll continue the war in Iraq as long as we want.”
GWEN IFILL: The president came out after the Minneapolis bridge collapse and said, “Secretary Mary Peters will be my point person on this and will fix this problem.” And then he came out a few days later and said, “Taxes will not go up.” A $188 billion infrastructure problem, how do you begin?
MARY PETERS: Well, Gwen, let’s start with the Minneapolis bridge collapse. We don’t yet know why the bridge collapsed, and certainly NTSB is continuing their investigation. It’s a very important investigation, and we want those answers. And in the interim, our thoughts and our prayers are with those who tragically lost their lives or were injured in that collapse.
But what it has teed up is a larger discussion on whether or not we’re spending the money that we have today in the right places, setting the right priorities, and, indeed, if the gas tax is even the appropriate mechanism to use to fund transportation in the future.
Okay, let’s break it down for Ms. Peters. She is essentially saying no new money for transportation, and the problem is where the money has been spent. Later in that interview she blames Congress, and how their earmarks for transportation are often for pet projects not essential for maintenance or to something entirely non-transportation related. Hmmm … who ran the Congress when the “bridge to nowhere” got in there? That’s right — the Republican Congress (for which our Dear Leader did not have the zeal to veto their corrupt bills, in the same way he did children’s healthcare). So she is actually using conservatives’ corrupt use of public money as an excuse to not spend any more money. The Democrats are well aware of the problems the Republican Congress caused, and are trying to fix it:
Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, said in a telephone interview Monday that earmarks for transportation in federal legislation were “almost always new construction and not maintenance.” Earlier, Mr. Schumer said that he would introduce legislation next month to double a proposed federal transportation bill appropriation, with a focus on upkeep to $10 billion.
“The bottom line,” Mr. Schumer said, “is that routine but important things like maintenance always get shortchanged because it’s nice for somebody to cut a ribbon for a new structure.”
However, that is only half the problem, or less than half the problem. The problem is the Republican Congress who ruled from ’94 – ’06 not only spent the money in the wrong places, but did not allocate enough money to get the job done:
C. Michael Walton, a professor of civil engineering at the University of Texas, Austin, helped write a series of reports issued by the American Society of Civil Engineers that have repeatedly found the nation’s highway system with insufficient money. “Continually falling short of the actual needs,” Professor Walton said, results largely from “our backlash to increases in taxes.”
Professor Walton said states had been looking to the federal government for leadership. “I am not sure transportation falls to the top of the priorities as it should barring a catastrophic failure,” he said in reference to state government spending.
A study released in May by the Urban Land Institute and Ernst & Young found that 83 percent of the nation’s transportation infrastructure was not capable of meeting the country’s needs over the next 10 years. The American Society of Civil Engineers, in its latest national report card, gave transportation infrastructure a D.
The era of conservatism has led to this, make no mistake about it, and their ideology (of hypocrisy, given the explosive spending the GOP Congress gave us in the 21st century) amounts to our infrastructure not being properly maintained, and now people have died as a result. To be clear, this is not just about Minnesota, but all 50 states. Take a look at this chart which shows the condition of roads in metro areas across the country. I was shocked to see my own city of Virginia Beach (which is not an old city at all) had roads for which 22% were in poor condition. Panning through the list, some cities in very bad condition included New Orleans (uh, that’s pre-Katrina), San Diego, Antioch, CA, Boston, Sacramento, Trenton, Los Angeles, and so on. These were cities for which 50% or more of their roads are in poor condition. That is unacceptable, and an insurmountable task to remedy on the state level only.
And yet, Ms. Peters continues to spout the right wing line as recently as this week:
While the condition of our roads and bridges is getting better, there is absolutely no question that the way we invest in them is broken. Money that should be going to maintain roads, build new highways, and reduce congestion is going instead to restore lighthouses and build new museums.
Washington mandates are increasingly overriding state priorities. For example, the number of earmarked projects has grown from a handful in the mid-1980s to over 6,000 in 2005 valued at a staggering $23 billion.
…
Proposing new federal gas tax increases is not leadership it is ludicrous. According to recent surveys, the public overwhelmingly opposes the idea of raising them. They have no confidence that their gas taxes which go into the Highway Trust Fund will be spent either wisely or well. Washingtons misplaced priorities have caused Americans to lose trust in the trust fund. They are tired of paying for excellent bridges to nowhere and horrible commutes to everywhere else. And I do not blame them one bit.
Americans are also growing increasingly concerned with our reliance on foreign sources of oil, saving fuel, and a cleaner environment. So, it also makes absolutely no sense to raise the gas tax at a time when we are exploring every feasible way to increase energy independence, promote fuel economy in automobiles, stimulate alternative fuel development, and reduce emissions.
So the message apparently is, government screws everything up, so elect us and we’ll prove it to you!! And I really enjoyed that part about relying too much on oil — look at the the two oil guys in the President’s and Vice President’s office, honey, if you want to blame someone for that! So, given how ridiculous Ms. Peters is, I am very much looking forward to our senators questioning her. She and the Bush administration continue to make a mess of our infrastructure; it’s about time they’re held to the fire on this.
Watch the entire transportation hearing, which is archived here.
There were a number of comments on the dkos thread during the hearing about what was being covered that BMG readers may find of interest.
I wasn’t able to watch yesterday, but do enjoy a good grilling by Kerry. He and Senator Whitehouse are the best prosecutors in the Senate.
I like the way Senator Kerry keeps insisting that fundamental infrastructure is important. The Bush “administration” likes to blather about sexy, scary topics like terrorism — not that I’m convinced it’s doing anything effective about that, either –, while our basic infrastructure is falling apart. Senator Kerry is right to insist that risking people’s lives with inadequate bridges, and making people waste time and fuel due to lack of an adequate rail system, are urgent problems and worthy of serious attention.
I meant to say something about Kerry’s continual support of Amtrak in the face of, shall we say, the administration’s deafening silence on the need to maybe shift some resources to improving rail travel.
<
p>
It’s the same as with the health care system – the system’s resistance to real change is overwhelming. Thank goodness there are some – like Kerry – who keep plugging away at these important – and unglamorous – issues.
I liked Senator Kerry’s comments here, but excellent comments and questioning in a Senate hearing do not suffice.
<
p>
Democrats face an enormous opportunity right now to push the Democratic brand and pull down the Republican brand. Why, for example, is anyone faced with a 3 hour of commuting a day continue to vote Republican? Even if it were a matter of paying taxes, who wouldn’t pay $200 a year to get that time back?
<
p>
In the 1980s, Republicans were very successful at mounting a campaign against liberalism. With evidence all around us (FEMA, bridges, VA Hospital, Iraq occupation, Iraq contractors, global warming, Duke Cunningham, Jack Abramoff), it is past time for Democrats to do the reverse and put conservatives on the defensive.
like to see Democrats re-branded as the party that will take care of the country, even stuff like roads and bridges, that aren’t necessarily deemed “sexy” on today’s 24 hr cable shows (unless a bridge collapses and people get hurt), but are vital to our future. Government is oftentimes the ONLY solution, so why not elect the people who actually believe in it and will make it work?
<
p>
How are you blaming the Repubs for the traffic jams on 128 or 93? In a state where the power has sat with the Dems for all of my 32 years, yet here I sit every morning and afternoon in traffic.
<
p>
Let me guess, Repubs are responsible for all the shitty work and Dems are responsible for all the good work because Dems can’t do any thing bad. Their just the cat’s meow.
<
p>
If I or another conservative commentator here were to make similar comments to yours about the Dems, you would label us trolls and give us “0”.
This was from listening to Kerry’s statements. There are a number of urban areas (I was not thinking of 128 or 93) that have particularly horrendous commuting times. I could say more here (Republican laxity on oversight, Republican devotion to the free market, Republican track record, etc.), but that’s not what I’m thinking about. I’m thinking instead about why we lost on FISA, Iraq funding, S-CHIP, and the like.
<
p>
Further, it is unreasonable to expect symmetry here on ratings. When talking about Democratic strategy, I’m going to make assumptions that I’m talking with other Democrats. What I’m discussing here is what Democrats need to do to win and yes my comments presume we’ll do a much better job at it than Cellucci, Romney, or Bush. If I were posting this on RMG, I would indeed work to spell that out with citations. I’m not posting this on RMG and I’m not trying to convince Republicans — or even Republican-leaning independents such as you. I’m much more concerned with the passivity of Democrats and how to change that. I know you either don’t like or don’t understand arguments from context, but that’s where I’m coming from.
<
p>
Finally, it has been a very long time since I’ve given anyone a 3 or a 4. I am pretty judicious about stuff I mark for deletion. I’ve also made no secret of my appreciation for your comments when they’ve been substantive. In fact, I’ve even said so recently.
“Republican devotion to the free market”
<
p>
how does free market economics have anything to do with this discussion?
<
p>
As to your other comments. I don’t expect symmetry in the ratings but there has been some half-cocked, unsubstantiated bashing of repubs and conservatives in this post. As I pointed out down thread, some arguments are essentially “conservatives are bad”. If I were to do the same thing about liberals, I would be blasted.
<
p>
You and I have gone around about the whole only here for dems thing before so I will leave this argument aside.
<
p>
As to the first part of your post, so you are suggesting that only repubs are to blame for the state of our infrastructure and that no democrats anywhere, state or federal, are to blame?
<
p>
I’m not suggesting that “only” Republicans are to blame or that “no” Democrat is to blame. I’m taking as a starting point that conservatism generally is to blame and that Democrats are the best hope to fix it.
<
p>
And, again, no, I’m not going to write about “Republican devotion to the free market” here. Perhaps you might wish to consult Franks’ book on the subject if you want to know the liberal position.
and I hold that your problems are actually with conservatism but with corrupt politicians who call themselves conservatives.
<
p>
I can call myself a pacifist but if I’m punching some guy in the face every time I have more then four Oban’s am I really?
<
p>
The examples you point out are not people that should be considered prototypical conservatives or who live by conservative ideology any more then Hitler was someone who should be considered someone who lived by socialist ideology.
<
p>
Look at a guy like Ron Paul, granted he’s a little libertarian and loony, but he is someone that seems to keep faithful to conservative ideology.
I guess I’m generally assuming some familiarity with the line of reasoning given here for example. I’ve read similar arguments by Paul Krugman and Glenn Grennwald. Atrios and Yglesias also comment on it sporadically. In short, there is a substantial response to what you’re asserting and I’m sure I’ve left out the principle commentators.
<
p>
Whether you agree with that line of argument or not, when talking principally to fellow Democrats, as I do here, I presume agreement with — or at least openness to — that analysis.
I’d think hard about that Democrats are best to fix it thing.
<
p>
How do you blame a party in control of Congress for less than ten years for over 30 years of neglect? Because that’s how long it takes major highway infrastructure to deteriorate.
Since Reagan, conservatives have campaigned hard against taxes and against the idea that the government can do much good. This has pressured governments — Democratic as well as Republican — to starve maintenance projects of needed resources. The ideological environment, too far tilted to the right ensures that the tragedy of the commons becomes ever more deeply tragic.
<
p>
The better approach (possibly the only approach) is to improve government: more transparency, more accountability, strong oversight. When such things are in place, tax revenue will be well-spent, the ideological environment will improve, bridges will get fixed.
<
p>
<
p>
You would, of course, be righteously self-righteous only if the statement ‘conservatives are bad’ was wrong.
<
p>
I don’t think that all conservatives are bad, or that conservatives are always bad… I also don’t believe the statement ‘everybody dies’ because, you see, not everybody has …
<
p>
I’m such an optimist about conservatives, I just know that someday, somehow, they’ll do something good… after exhausting all other possibilities…
First, the fallacious argument that “we are spending X in Iraq so why can’t we do Y”. We heard this argument for national health care and here you make it for maintaining our infrastructure. The argument about weather Iraq is a just war or not is a legitimate subject but the argument about how much to spend in Iraq is not.
<
p>
I’ll explain this. We are in a war because the President said this country was a clear and present danger to the U.S. The Congress agreed with that assertion and voted to go to war. Any discussion of “we could do Y with the money it costs for the war” has to end there because if POTUS says there’s a clear and present danger and Congress agrees then the only legitimate discussion about money is how much to we have to spend to get the least amount of our kids killed. Because if there is a clear and present danger, the cost to eliminate that danger should never be a factor. It’s the primary function of the government to eliminate that danger.
<
p>
This does not mean that we end discussion about weather we were laid to about the clear and present danger or weather there really is a danger. In the case of Iraq, I now feel that there was not and is not a danger and we should end the war and remove the troops.
<
p>
Second,
<
p>
<
p>
That is just bull shit. Conservative ideology is no more to blame then liberal ideology. What would be the conservative value that would lead to neglate of the infrastructure since one of the main tenants of conservatism is that one of the few jobs of the federal government is to promote interstate commerce and this is the justification for a federal highway system?
<
p>
This is the result of corrupt politicians that are subservient to specials interests and create pork barrel projects to fatten their own projects and those of their friends. To try to blame this on one set of political ideology versus another is the stuff of trolls. The hypocrisy angle is probably the most accurate thing you wrote in this line. It was the hypocrisy of the politicians who claimed to be for conservative values (or liberal values) and then abandoned those values the minute they took their seats in congress to service special interest or the phony religious right or any other group other then their voters.
First of all, I think it is significant to compare monies spent in Iraq versus basic infrastructure maintenance. The president has made Iraq the centerpiece of his tenure, and meanwhile, other things are suffering. The truth is, the war on terror is (as Kerry stated in ’04) largely an intelligence gathering law enforcement war, with the military only getting involved in a limited way. In other words, the WoT does NOT have to cost us hundreds of billions of dollars. The fact that the GOP in the Congress and in the White House refuse to acknowledge the fact that going into Iraq did NOT make us safer, and that our current trajectory is leading to MORE terrorists, not less, while still insisting on staying there is very significant and related to problems at home. They made a mistake (if you are talking about Dems in Congress voting for the IWR, most of them have acknowledged they made a mistake voting that way and want troops out), and the cost is American lives and treasure. The price exacted on treasure is a theme that will continued to be pursued, I assure you, because it affects American lives EVERY DAY.
<
p>
Your second point about conservatism. Uh, the cornerstone of conservatism is that the government is not the solution, but the problem. It also says that states should do what they want with limited federal involvement. This goes to the crux of the infrastructure problem. When Ronald Reagan began his campaign for the presidency, he went down south and talked about “State’s rights”. The problem is that states cannot deal with their infrastructure challenges on their own. They need the federal government. It wasn’t individual states that put together the interstate highway system — it was President Eisenhower who set it as a priority, from the federal level. But that is now a no-no because the federal government is viewed with suspicion. Meanwhile, the earmarks in Congress skyrocketed in Tom Delay’s scheme to retain a permanent Republican majority by buying their way in keeping it, and gerrymandering the districts. As I said in my piece, and quoted non-partisan organizations, it was a combination of congressional corruption (earmarks for things like the bridge to nowhere) and a literal lack of funds to do the non-sexy work of maintenance. Conservatives can go on and on about how they are for maintaining the nation’s infrastructure, but talk is cheap, and their record shows it was NOT a priority for them.
All of your arguments under your first point are reasons why the war is not legitimate and I generally don’t disagree with any of them. But you are still combining two arguments that have nothing to do with each other. The cost to defend the country from clear and present danger should not be weighed against costs for infrastructure, health care, etc. The cost to defend the country is primary and should be paid before all other bills the country may have because if you don’t first defend us from clear and present dangers, all else doesn’t matter.
<
p>
On your second point, you need to do some more reading before you try and say what conservatism is about. You are way off and again are giving lines equivalent to trolls.
<
p>
The cornerstone of conservatism is that the role of government is limited to the things an individual can not reasonable do for themselves. Things like provide for the common defense, prosecute wars, promote interstate commerce, etc. And State’s rights does not mean they can do what ever they like with federal money. That is just a stupid statement. Reagan’s position on State’s right was not “here take this money collected by the federal income tax and do with it what you wish.”
<
p>
As to your line of logic (if you can call it that) on Eisenhower, suspicion of the federal government and Delay, this is exactly what I was referring to. What you give are prime examples of conservatives going away from their conservative values, because those values have maintaining the highway system high on the list due to promoting interstate commerce, and being subservient to special interest and pork barrel spending.
<
p>
To you last line I have this question, liberal politicians are never guilty of this type of hypocrisy? Of course they are, they are politicians aren’t they.
for the last 12? Which party has been in the White House 19 of the last 27 years? The conservative ideology has reigned supreme, and the result is a public transportation system well behind Europe, and even in certain instances, China. Bridges aren’t being taken care of. I’m calling a spade a spade. The conservatives had their chance, to put their ideology into practice. Either a) they did put it into practice with disasterous results for the infrastructure or b) it is impossible to put it into practice (that is what you are suggesting, and since they have ruled this long, it MUST be impossible) — I find both options are the same. It’s an ideology that is unworkable
<
p>
And really — “troll”? I am stating an opinion you disagree with. No need to bring it down to name calling and insults.
I am calling you a troll because there is no substance to what you are saying. All of your comments amount to conservatives are bad.
<
p>
You acknowledge that your examples are of corruption, do you really think that corruption is part of conservative ideology? Do you really think that liberal politicians aren’t corrupt?
I don’t think you understand what a troll is.
Troll
In this context, these statements — even if they rile you — are not meant to antagonize for the sake of antagonizing. Heck, if I applied your logic, everything D.R.Tucker writes on RMG could be construed as trolling. Heck, discussions of Pluto’s orbit would be trolling on the website of the Flat Earth Society.
I think you state it correctly, beachmom. What I find disturbing is the tendency to not take on conservative ideology. MoveOn is happy to do that, but the Democratic Party is too reluctant. It’s as if they’ve spent the last 25 years blurring their differences with conservatives and now when it’s time to make the differences clear and sharp, they won’t.
<
p>
Habit? Institutional pressure? How do we fix that?
Can’t refute the substance so you down rate. Jackass
and can’t be ready at a moments notice to refute your bull…
<
p>
But I did take some of my lunch break to give it a go…
but you really shouldn’t have marked his comment for deletion.
<
p>
Not at all. If the president lied to get us into the war (or was incompetent in vetting the facts… you decide which you can live with, I guess.) Then the question becomes “is this a war of George Bushes choosing?” If the answer is yes then the question of spending in America vs spending in Iraq is a question of the Presidents spending priorities.
<
p>
<
p>
Not in the least true. I suspect you know this. You’re clearly not a moron.
<
p>
<
p>
Aren’t you a Reaganite? What happened to ‘trust, but verify’?? That is what the Democratic led Senate voted for in 2002, not a blank check or green light for war. Trust the president, but verify with the UN arms inspectors. Funny how, after the Rubber Stamp Republicans won the Senate in ’02, the terms of the Democratic resolution to ‘trust but verify’ went by the roadside… (Q: what happened to the second UN resolution???)
<
p>
<
p>
LOOK OUT! BEHIND YOOU!! IT’S A GIANT PURPLE SNORKLEWHACKER!!! and IT’S GOT A FREEM BLASTER WITH FRIPTZOTZ OVERRIDE!
<
p>
Better get the POTUS right on it… after all, money is no object once the POTUS has determined there is a clear and present danger from giant purple snorklewhackers with friptzotz’d freem blasters…
you are saying the rating was because you disagree with what I wrote? I didn’t think that was the purpose of the rating system.
<
p>
<
p>
I 100% agree with you through this part of your post.
<
p>
<
p>
Asbolutely not!!! If we think the war is “a war of George Bush’s choosing” we should never debate the cost because $0 is too much for a war of choosing. If we think it is a war of choosing all debate should be to end the war and the cost doesn’t matter because who wants to spend any money on an unneeded war?
<
p>
<
p>
Yes this is true of how we go to war. It may not be true in this case and that is very debatable, see above. Again, debate the legitimacy of the war, but don’t bring the funding into it. Essentially you have already lost the first part of the debate when you start discussing how much is ok to spend on an illegitimate war.
<
p>
<
p>
Funny, but missing my point.
<
p>
Take a hypothetical, say Iran does pose a clear and present danger to the US, how much should we spend to eliminate that danger in this hypothetical case? One Billion? One Trillion? I suggest any answer other then “what ever it takes to eliminate the danger” is a treasonous response from POTUS.
<
p>
I do have a job too. I’m just avoiding working at the moment. I am sure I will pay for it later when I am here until 7 or 8. But hey, I have a bottle of scotch in the draw so I’m sure things will work out.
<
p>
Nobody. But you’re still not getting it: when people ask the question ‘why spend X in Iraq when we should spend Y here?” they are not debating finances… They are often simply too polite (much more polite than I) to call Bush a liar and a scoundrel. They are hoping to avoid directly pointing out what they see as glaring deficiencies in Bushes character and the actions that derive from them by asking simple questions. It’s kinda like the socratic method, but with more compassion.
<
p>
<
p>
Peel that onion back one more layer and you’ve almost got it. The Prezdint doesn’t have license to yell ‘fire!’ in a crowded movie theater. He doesn’t have the right to abuse the respect due to the office for his own gain. You and I are in agreement that when the POTUS says there’s a danger, we have a right and a duty to respect and heed him. But the POTUS has a duty as well: to get it right and do it soberly. If he gets it wrong then God have mercy on his soul. ..
and we appear to be closer on this subject the it first appeared.
<
p>
So I’m going to try and get back to work.
<
p>
Good chatting with you.
<
p>
It depends on what the danger is. You have to look at the cost of ignoring a threat and the cost of taking care of a threat. If Iran declares that they are going to sink any oil tanker that tries to leave the persian gulf, they are clearly threatening US interests. Do you actually think that would be worth spending One Trillion dollars to stop? Given that stopping Iran would almost certainly kill more people than letting them sink a few ships, the only thing that could possibly be gained is preventing the cost of oil from going up. We can do the same thing by subsidizing oil products until Iran gives up. That would cost less than a trillion dollars. So would it be treasonous to say that war is too expensive, and we will take care of the problem in other ways (or just outright ignore it)?
<
p>
If what you mean by a clear and present danger is that some group is going to start carpet bombing the US with nukes, then yes, we should be willing to spend any amount of money to prevent that from happening. But most threats that come up in the real world are of a limited nature, so there is a limit to how much you can justify spending to mitigate the threat.
<
p>
A country on the other side of the world developing new weapons systems is not a clear and present danger. How does Iraq or Iran having nuclear weapons threaten us any more than Pakistan having nuclear weapons?
The oil scenario you postulate is an economic threat but it is not a clear and present danger. It does not apply to this discussion.
<
p>
A country simply possessing a nuclear weapon does not meet the criteria of clear and present danger. However if that country states or acts in a manner in which they indicate they intend to use that weapon on the US then they do meet the criteria of a clear and present danger.
… I give you:
<
p>
“…argument about how much to spend in Iraq is not.”
<
p>
The elephant in the room.
…would be honest regarding the gas-tax funded highway trust fund. It appears that the federal government has, for decades (i.e. under Democratic malAdministrations as well as Republican) been diverting funds in what is jokingly referred to as a trust fund intended for the construction and maintenance of highways, to the general fund. (NB: The Massachusetts state government does that as well, so it isn’t unique to the FedGov.)
<
p>
The FedGov started doing that decades ago to reduce the apparent deficit. The FedGov has also been raiding the Social Security trust fund–I believe it started during the Johnson malAdministration–for the same reason. The FedGov has also been doing that regarding the airport taxes–and they have starved the fund that is supposed to–but isn’t–provide upgrades for the air traffic control system.
<
p>
Kerry can rant and rail all he wants against the SecTransportation, but, as far as I can tell, he has been complicit in the fraud that comprises the FedGov’s accounting practices.
<
p>
As far as I can tell, it is a mistake to pay attention to nits, such as Kerry’s rants against the SecTranp. Pay attention to the larger picture–total mismanagement by the FedGov of the US transportation “system” under both parties.
The social security trust fund was only created in the early 80’s (1983 I think). It is possible that prior to that, the government treated all the Social Security money as general funds, but the trust fund couldn’t have actually been raided prior to Reagan.
…it cannot be denied that the “unified budget” that was first instituted under LBJ in 1968 was done so for the purpose of reducing the “appearance” of the federal budget deficit. From the horse’s mouth: The Social Security Trust Funds and the Federal Budget. Check the last table on that page.