The Antiplanner has an op-ed about transportation gridlock in The Hill. It is similar to, but a bit more detailed than, my post here a few days ago.
One of the commenters says, “Is it any surprise that Obama and the GOP leadership are in agreement on the one truly indefensible position on this issue? ‘Just raise the spending and issue more debt to cover it’ is obviously what has put the federal government in the abysmal fiscal condition it is. It is the thinking of selfish politicians whose only concern is for their short term poitical benefit. . After wholesale prices viagra the introduction of this medicine, it shot into prominent fame with a large degree of success claims in correcting erectile dysfunction in men of reproductive age. Similarly, both also have problems when it comes to helping aging males complete satisfying sexual activities. bought that effects of viagra Men these days are going through a lot of advantages when taken with proper regencygrandenursing.com viagra 50 mg dosage and use. The levitra on line examination group endeavoured to discover a connection between low testosterone levels and erectile dysfunction, but the conclusion that testosterone replacement therapy can help you with ED problem is associated with anxiety, then psychological based ED treatment is required. . . There are only two responsible positions. Either cut the spending or raise taxes to pay for the spending.” This reflects my view as well.
There is one error in the Hill op-ed.
“Rather than build interstates in the states with the most powerful members of Congress, funding was distributed using a formula based on each state’s population, land area, and road miles.”
That is not correct. That distribution method was used for many federal-aid highway programs but not the Interstate program. Interstate funds were distributed to the states based on their proportional “cost to complete” their mileage of Interstate highways.
“A new method of distributing funds among the States was necessitated by the 1956 Act and was based on each State receiving a share of the annual Interstate Construction fund authorization in the same proportion as the cost to complete its System bore to the cost of the System in all States. To achieve a simultaneous completion in all States, the Congress periodically required the BPR, and later FHWA, to develop a new estimate of the cost to complete the System and to serve as the basis for apportionments until the next estimate was prepared. (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/interstate.cfm)
“Between 1958 and 1991, 15 legislatively-mandated estimates were prepared” by the states, scrutinized by the (then non-political and above reproach) FHWA, to make sure none were padded, “and submitted to Congress.”
If we were in the green I would agree that raising taxes to cover the cost of a government program was an option. The trouble is that we are $18 trillion in debt (In other words. After we pay back $18 trillion dollars we will then have NO MONEY! ) and we are digging our selves deeper into debt at the staggaring rate of $1,000,000 every second. It would be impossible to raise taxes enough to reach an equilibrium between government revenue and government spending at this point. If you look at how much revenue the government actually brings in you will see that it should be more than enough. The only way to reach equilibrium now is to really cut spending. I don’t mean cuts in the amount of government spending increase, like the budget averted sequester’s drop from an 8% spending increase (4 x the inflation rate) to a 6% spending increase (3 x the inflation rate). I mean real, honest spending cuts.
We’re adding $31.5 trillion in debt per year P.O.?
That would be about $1,000,000 a minute, not a second, but you figured that out right ahwr?