While the Antiplanner was in Montana, President Obama asked Congress to pass a “clean extension” of the surface transportation laws. By this, he meant that Congress should continue spending money like a drunken sailor the way it has been spending it for the past several years (more specifically, spending it faster than it has been coming in).
But what he meant is not what he said. Instead–apparently aiming at the actual reauthorization–he argued that, “We need to stop funding projects based on whose districts they’re in and start funding them based on how much good they’re going to be doing for the American people.” There are a couple of problems with this. First, it wouldn’t happen with a “clean extension” of the transportation bill, which doesn’t do this.
There are several methods to remove ED viagra 100mg mastercard why not try these out on your choice. Causes of weak erection include hormonal disorders, prostate cancer operations, cardiovascular disorder, medicine sample viagra for free learningworksca.org abuse, excessive intake of alcohol, smoking, and use of illegal medicines. Usually, cheapest price for sildenafil you can avail of cheap kamagra through online pharmacies also. They tested to analyze if its synthetic hormone could produce the same cialis levitra price effect in the body. Second, Obama’s remedy–to put most transportation dollars in “performance-driven” funds–would only mean that, instead of spending money on pork-barrel projects selected by Congress, the federal government would spend money on pork-barrel projects selected by the Department of Immobility Transportation. Obama’s abuse of high-speed rail funds (not to mention energy funds) has persuaded many people who were once enamored of performance budgeting that formula funds–which are used for most highway funds–are still the way to go.
The big debate at the moment is between the House bill, which would spend no more money than is collected (mostly from gas taxes) in the Highway Trust Fund, and the Senate bill, which would continue to overspend for two more years. Some alarmist reports make it appear that the nation will fall apart if the transportation bill is not extended. That’s hardly true. If a real showdown comes to pass, state highway and transit agency capital spending will be curtailed for a time, but this won’t cause any bridges to fall or trains to crash.
Here is a compromise: pass a two-year extension but spend no more than is coming in and eliminate all earmarks (including unspent earmarks from the 2005 reauthorization law). For the moment keep the highway-transit ratio the same (transit gets 15.5 percent, highways get 70 percent, and the rest is “flexible”), but zero out all spending on non-transportation programs and don’t add any new programs. That is as “clean” an extension as I can imagine.
I understand that you meant your proposal as a compromise, but inevitably, we need to move to a position where highway funds are only spent on highways & roads, and transit steals no more funds from auto drivers to fund the lunatic Hong Kong dreams of Soviet-ideology planners. This will increase confidence in the Fund, and force transit-addled planners to use common sense instead of “it’s free money from the feds!” as the basis for transit empire expansions.
If anyone wants to be build lightly-used rail pork, let them fund it privately or out of the users’ pockets, like highways are funded. The double standard for transit has gone on too long and has encourage numerous examples of abuse and waste.
metrosucks; I understand that you meant your proposal as a compromise, but inevitably, we need to move to a position where highway funds are only spent on highways & roads, and transit steals no more funds from auto drivers to fund the lunatic Hong Kong dreams of Soviet-ideology planners. This will increase confidence in the Fund, and force transit-addled planners to use common sense instead of “it’s free money from the feds!†as the basis for transit empire expansions.
If anyone wants to be build lightly-used rail pork, let them fund it privately or out of the users’ pockets, like highways are funded. The double standard for transit has gone on too long and has encourage numerous examples of abuse and waste.
THWM: Again, most road funding comes from property taxes not sales taxes on gas and again roads are there regardless of the automobile.
Metrosucks wrote:
lightly-used rail pork
Good one.
The Antiplanner wrote:
Second, Obama’s remedy–to put most transportation dollars in “performance-driven†funds–would only mean that, instead of spending money on pork-barrel projects selected by Congress, the federal government would spend money on pork-barrel projects selected by the Department of Immobility Transportation.
Or perphaps more to the point, spending money on all sorts of lightly-used new passenger rail lines?
“Second, Obama’s remedy–to put most transportation dollars in “performance-driven†funds–would only mean that, instead of spending money on pork-barrel projects selected by Congress, the federal government would spend money on pork-barrel projects selected by the Department of… Transportation.”
I agree with the President’s approach on it’s face. While many here would end subsidies to everything, I see the value in state funded transportation projects and would love to see earmarks and politics taken out of the equation. This gets me to where I can see Mr. O’Toole’s point of view. While the President’s proposal will no doubt make the decision making portion of transportation projects more efficient, I’m not convinces that will have significantly more merit or be significantly less wasteful. We’ll see if LaHood can earn his keep on this one.
CP: thanks, didn’t even notice.
Bennett: My first post was more for rhetorical value than actual desire. While cutting all subsidies to rail pork would be great (especially outside of the NE corridor where it makes any sense), I recognize the value of a subsidy to bus-based transportation, to serve our needier and transit dependent citizens. Rail doesn’t do that; it often reduces in service cuts due to its enormous costs.
What do ya do wit a drunken sailor, What do ya do wit a drunken sailor, you toss them out before they break something. A better response is to hand over more of the transportation responsibility to individual state authorities. High-speed rail is never gonna work in Montana. Even though railroads have been an important method of transportation in Montana since the 1880’s most of that was for freight. Only Amtraks Empire Builder goes through the state, mainly the north. Where as the advantage of highways is they can carry buses and people anywhere across Montana at little to no cost. Still I wouldn’t be surprised if there were a few in the political left who wish to have rail transit in Montana or Idaho, Wyoming, the Dakotas to connect to California, Oregon or Washington.
Government is telling us that the best way to sober up a drunken sailor is some more booze!
LazyReader:
High-speed rail is never gonna work in Montana. Even though railroads have been an important method of transportation in Montana since the 1880?s most of that was for freight. Only Amtraks Empire Builder goes through the state, mainly the north. Where as the advantage of highways is they can carry buses and people anywhere across Montana at little to no cost. Still I wouldn’t be surprised if there were a few in the political left who wish to have rail transit in Montana or Idaho, Wyoming, the Dakotas to connect to California, Oregon or Washington.
Again, LazyReader lives up to his name and is ignorant of what many folks in Montana want.
First, MEDIUM SPEED RAIL in Montana seems to work quite well, thank you, given its extremely limited reach serving only the Hi-Line parallel to the Canadian border, and directly only about 16% of Montana’s population.
Taking the state’s entire population, the 156,000 annual Empire Builder ons and offs generate about 121,000,000 annual passenger miles, or nearly 5 times the U.S. average (based on Empire Builder average trip length–in and out of Montana it could be higher). Applying this figure to the area directly served, this is about 770 annual passenger miles per capita, or in the same range as Germany and France, e.g., on the higher end of the rail use spectrum in Europe.
In these areas, air travel is not a significant factor, except perhaps in Kalispell, with astronomical fares as well as astronomical “essential air service” subsidies per passenger, dwarfing the per passenger subsidy on the train.
Montana has been pushing for restoration of a southern train from Washington state via Missoula, Helena, Bozeman, and Billings, extended across Southern North Dakota, Minnesota and Wisconsin to Chicago. Projected ridership was only slightly less than the Empire Builder, but of course with a 40% of so subsidy based on the quaint, overly 19th Century-style labor and tare-weight intensive ways Amtrak still does things, despite the best practices of other nations who actually understand 21st Century rail technology.
Such a southern route through Montana would be greatly enhanced if there were rail network connections–probably in Helena–with trains to and from the Black Hills area, Denver, Los Angeles, and Texas, e.g., a real network, not just a collection of unrelated trains. From California alone, patronage similar to the Empire Builder alone could be generated with proper schedules, based on modern practices and the fact that air service from California with connections in Salt Lake City and Denver generally sucks and is greatly overpriced.
I also wonder if LazyResearcher, er, LazyReader, has ever ridden a cross country bus? Well, I have, and I can relate that it SUCKS! Such long trips are very fatiguing and uncomfortable after a few hours. Perhaps one reason things like Megabus work relatively well is that trip lengths are short 2-4 hours max. Beyond that, buses suck. I’d rather drive in such situations where trains generally don’t exist except for a few skelatonal routes like the Empire builder or San Francisco Zephyr.
BTW, there are many alleged “right wingers” in places like Idaho and Wyoming and Utah that would love to get the Pioneer back in place. In the 1980’s, the state of Wyoming subsidized some of that train’s operating costs between Salt Lake City and Denver because it provided the only year-round, all-weather mobility in the southern Wyoming I-80 corridor.
But I suppose any funding such basic mobility improvements today would go against the grain of the anti-transit, anti-rail, anti-urban culture war being waged by libertarian, teabagger and other “conservative” yahoos–including some people here.
Well, some Texas teabagger scumbags break the culture war…perhaps they didn’t get the memo from the Koch bothers and Michelle “Screaming Banshee” Bachmann:
http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/660626/huh_tea_party_republicans_cheer_federal_investment_in_texas_rail_project.
hey msetty, go find your favorite trimet MAX dildo and suck on it. Your posts are nothing more than standard progressive talking points.
Though metrosucks you love communist/socialist roads.
So if anyone is sucking a dildo it’s you!
So, Metrosucks, “standard progressive talking points” involve statements of fact and empirical evidence reflecting reality, rather than the negative, emotional culture war of resentment dimension you’re from?
I’ll accept that. Thanks for your confidence.
Of course, engaging in culture war rhetoric, constant negativity and gratuitous insults must be emotionally draining. How DO you keep up the negative energy for such long stretches, anyway? Such negativity can’t be good for your mental health, as the negativity of the teabaggers has led to their increasing lunacy and plummeting support, and hopefully their demise by 2012.
msetty: LazyReader:
High-speed rail is never gonna work in Montana. Even though railroads have been an important method of transportation in Montana since the 1880?s most of that was for freight. Only Amtraks Empire Builder goes through the state, mainly the north. Where as the advantage of highways is they can carry buses and people anywhere across Montana at little to no cost. Still I wouldn’t be surprised if there were a few in the political left who wish to have rail transit in Montana or Idaho, Wyoming, the Dakotas to connect to California, Oregon or Washington.
Again, LazyReader lives up to his name and is ignorant of what many folks in Montana want.
First, MEDIUM SPEED RAIL in Montana seems to work quite well, thank you, given its extremely limited reach serving only the Hi-Line parallel to the Canadian border, and directly only about 16% of Montana’s population.
Taking the state’s entire population, the 156,000 annual Empire Builder ons and offs generate about 121,000,000 annual passenger miles, or nearly 5 times the U.S. average (based on Empire Builder average trip length–in and out of Montana it could be higher). Applying this figure to the area directly served, this is about 770 annual passenger miles per capita, or in the same range as Germany and France, e.g., on the higher end of the rail use spectrum in Europe.
In these areas, air travel is not a significant factor, except perhaps in Kalispell, with astronomical fares as well as astronomical “essential air service†subsidies per passenger, dwarfing the per passenger subsidy on the train.
Montana has been pushing for restoration of a southern train from Washington state via Missoula, Helena, Bozeman, and Billings, extended across Southern North Dakota, Minnesota and Wisconsin to Chicago. Projected ridership was only slightly less than the Empire Builder, but of course with a 40% of so subsidy based on the quaint, overly 19th Century-style labor and tare-weight intensive ways Amtrak still does things, despite the best practices of other nations who actually understand 21st Century rail technology.
Such a southern route through Montana would be greatly enhanced if there were rail network connections–probably in Helena–with trains to and from the Black Hills area, Denver, Los Angeles, and Texas, e.g., a real network, not just a collection of unrelated trains. From California alone, patronage similar to the Empire Builder alone could be generated with proper schedules, based on modern practices and the fact that air service from California with connections in Salt Lake City and Denver generally sucks and is greatly overpriced.
THWM: Mr.Setty one thing you need to realize sooner or later is that O’Toole, Cox, Rubin, Zilliacus, Scott, lazyreader, metrosucks, the Koch brothers, Murdoch, Stossel, Karlock & Poole are sociopaths and you’ll never be able to reason with them.
They don’t give a flying fuck about you, me or the world we live in!
Though of course we have nothing against buses, which are perfectly reasonable and usable mass transit devices. It’s wasteful, fanciful rail projects we oppose. If that means we are branded as psychotic by morons like highwayman, so be it!
The evolution of the term “teabagger” is interesting.
First the Tea Party people practically adopted the term.
Then a small subset of the population realized it was also a term used do describe a gay sex practice.
Then it spread to more people that it made a great joke.
Then the opponents of the Tea Party adopted it as an inside joke.
Then it spread wider what the inside joke was.
Then Tea Party people and conservatives stopped using it.
Then CNN stopped using it, but MSNBC used it as many times as they could.
Then the NY Times and Wash Post stopped using it.
Then it became such a tired cliche, that even anti-Tea Party people started dropping it.
Then MSNBC stopped using it.
Now it is not close to the category of the N-word, and a lesser category than “weback” and “himey.” But now on college campuses and among prominent liberals it is not a term to be used in mixed company.
THWM:
Mr.Setty one thing you need to realize sooner or later is that O’Toole, Cox, Rubin, Zilliacus, Scott, lazyreader, metrosucks, the Koch brothers, Murdoch, Stossel, Karlock & Poole are sociopaths and you’ll never be able to reason with them.
They don’t give a flying fuck about you, me or the world we live in!
I know that. But developing the arguments are nonetheless useful for discussions with sane people, e.g., those not waging a culture war against the real world. And at least O’Toole is civil, unlike most of the right wing commentators here.
Sandy Teal:
But now on college campuses and among prominent liberals it is not a term to be used in mixed company.
You have any evidence even if only anecdotal?
Anecdotally, I have seen that liberals use to call them “teabaggers” openly on campus, thinking it was such a cute joke. But over time, as everyone got in on the joke, the liberals began to realize they were using a vulgar group slur and felt guilty about it. They still will use it when among only liberals, but it is now impolite in mixed political company.
I watch the Sunday “Chris Matthews” show, and he used to delight into saying “teabaggers.” Then he abruptly stopped. I am sure he got the memo from NBC.
It is so interesting how long liberals used vulgar group slurs in public discourse. Normally liberals would find that behavior repulsive. I think it reflects how deeply the tea party has destroyed the liberal joy of 2008.
They don’t give a flying fuck about you, me or the world we live in!
So in other words, if we don’t support taxpayer paid dreams of wasteful choo-choo trains, we are sociopaths? Thank you for agreeing with highwayman, msetty. Shows exactly who you really are.
Well, Metrosucks, we know you’re a loud-mouthed punkass borderline sociopath who lacks ethically defensible politics. I don’t know if you’re sympathetic to teabaggers as Lazy Reader seems to be, but I’ll continue to call a spade a spade, even if you accuse me of being crude or hateful.
As Roosevelt said about economic royalists in the 1930’s, I welcome your hatred of liberals who fight back against right wing bullshit. In fact, punkass, I RELISH IT!
What is wrong with Earmarks?
Earmarks are our politicians taking personal responsibility for spending.
Formula funding is politicians abstaining from taking responsibility and passing the buck to faceless professional planners in the DOT who are accountable to nobody, answerable to no one, and who cannot be appealed in their decisions outside court actions.
Why in the world does the Antiplanner support giving more power to bureaucrat planners and taking power away from our elected officials we get to hold accopuntable every two years?
It’s a shame the youse in favor of big gov rarely admit the loss in a cost-benefit analysis. Youse certainly don’t abide your own standards.
User pays?
That’s rather normal when one buys goods or services — one price.
For gov, much dif.
Roads/highways & SS (savings/retirement-insurance/ medical) are the closest things to “fair” in the sense of user pays. Although SS has a scaled payback, it has disequilibrium in that the more paid in, the less received. Gas tax should be higher & go to roads — collected & built by states only — get the feds out. Fair? — that gas taxes are “user-based”. Never-mind the few other uses for gas & it promotes better mpg. Most every other gov program is, albeit communist or redistributionist or unfair.
What happened in the 1600s? Shared communal work? Failed.
http://www.nocommunism.com/2010/11/the-real-story-behing-the-first-thanksgiving/
http://www.personalliberty.com/personal-liberty-articles/a-thanksgiving-lesson/
(Side-note here)
Can I give an example & show off in that my father? — him having paid in max payroll taxes since 1970s. He would receive much more if $ invested otherwise & the SS payout covers less than his total concurrent taxes — not even counting federal income tax. In other words, his monthly SS check covers 1-2 days of expenses (yeah, he’s among top 0.1%).
Is there something wrong w/him being really rich? Means tested payout? After paying in the max amount for 35+ years, he’s disqualified to receive any return? SS is forced savings & retirement savings.
However, the righteous & moral principle is to not take from others. And the “rich” paid in the most to SS (as well as any other gov program); should they not get their money back? You have a 23″ CRT & you neighbor has a 60″ plasma screen — so steeling that is justice. You frikin liberals are so immoral. Pay for your transit?
Scott:
Your father only paid social security taxes on the first $106k now (less in the past). If he really paid the maximum amount every year, he would qualify for the highest possible payout, which is around $2400 per month. If that is 1 to 2 days expenses, he should count his blessings for being so well off. Lifetime $10 per hour workers end up with social security payments of aroud $1000 per month and that is often almost all they have to live on. Those who make the most money get the most social security, so he is hardly being defrauded.
If he lives for 20 years after retiring, he would get $580,000. If he worked for 40 years paying out $6000, he would have only put in $240,000. That is a pretty good return for an investment with zero risk. Do you really think he would have made so much more investing in Muni bonds?
The point of social security is not to make people millionaires but to keep the elderly out of poverty in their final years.
I think means testing social security BS. Your father deserves his return like everyone else.
One big concern about social security, from a societal standpoint, is that it does not build wealth. When you die, you leave nothing to dependents. That makes the math work better for the program, but it makes for a terrible long term retirement program.
Some African-American activists draw attention to the statistics about how their constituency might have income, but terrible wealth accumulation. 401(k)s build wealth that is inheritable, but social security just disappears when you die. Add that to statistics about blacks dying younger than most other groups, and you get some statistical arguments.
bennett posted:
I agree with the President’s approach on it’s face. While many here would end subsidies to everything, I see the value in state funded transportation projects and would love to see earmarks and politics taken out of the equation. This gets me to where I can see Mr. O’Toole’s point of view. While the President’s proposal will no doubt make the decision making portion of transportation projects more efficient, I’m not convinces that will have significantly more merit or be significantly less wasteful. We’ll see if LaHood can earn his keep on this one.
I don’t have a problem with paying for access to the national transportation system, even it it requires a subsidy. That means (for the most part) access to the highway system, and in some cases to intermodal facilities.
Case in point of a heavily-subsidized pork-barrel project that I would have supported was the so-called Bridge to Nowhere (actually two spans), championed by then-Gov. Sarah Palin (Republic Party) and supported in Washington by the late Sen. Ted Stevens (Republic Party) and Rep. Don Young (Republic Party).
Why?
Because it would have greatly improved ground access from the town of Ketchikan, Alaska (on Revillagigedo Island) to its airport, which happens to be located across the Tongass Narrows on Gravina Island, and for many Alaskans, airports are the primary way to get around, even on (relatively) short trips, including those to “mainland” North America (closest access to the mainland North American highway network appears to be Prince Ruppert, British Columbia, Canada).
C.P,
I wonder if the Bridge To Nowhere would have been approved under Obama’s new rule, basing decisions on a projects merit, opposed to congress people fighting for earmarks? Probably neither, but you make a good point. I didn’t know much about the AK project other than I could tell it was being used for political fodder.
If you are one of those rare people that own a electric car, you’re not paying a cent in gas sales taxes! Roads have been around for thousands of years before there were gas sales taxes too!