Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

House plan to create 6 million jobs to rebuild transportation infrastructure rejected by White House

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-05-11 04:35 PM
Original message
House plan to create 6 million jobs to rebuild transportation infrastructure rejected by White House
The Obama administration had a real opportunity to push for and pass a bold transportation infrastructure plan last summer.

They blew it. This is what I posted on August 15th of last year. BBI


Better Believe It (1000+ posts) Sun Aug-15-10 08:51 AM
Response to Original message
House plan to create 6 million jobs to rebuild transportation infrastructure rejected by White House

Just last summer .....

$500 billion plan to upgrade U.S. transportation hits federal pothole
By SCOTT SMITH
Scott Smith is director of strategic initiatives for HNTB Corporation
KansasCity.com
July 13, 2009

Our roads, highways and bridges are crumbling under the strain of overuse and old age.

But a comprehensive solution may have encountered a bottleneck that will postpone for 18 months or longer a push to correct the sorry state of our surface transportation system. Delay is something we can no longer afford ....

We find ourselves in this predicament because we have not had a national transportation plan since the interstate highway system was launched in 1956.

U.S. Rep. James Oberstar, a Minnesota Democrat and chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, addressed these huge needs by introducing the Surface Transportation Authorization Act of 2009. Oberstar proposes spending $500 billion over the next six years to transform our antiquated system into the reliable, sophisticated network we need to safely and efficiently move people and goods.

The legislation would provide approximately:

•$337 billion for highway construction, including at least $100 billion to begin long-awaited repairs to our national highway system and bridges.

•$100 billion for mass transit, including $12 billion for repairs.

•$50 billion to fund 11 high-speed rail corridors linking major metropolitan areas.

The total investment would create or sustain about 6 million family-wage jobs, many here in the Midwest as our region continues to grow in importance as a transportation hub.

Unfortunately, Oberstar’s bill has collided with a proposal put forth by Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. The secretary wants Congress to pass an 18-month highway authorization bill that would put off a comprehensive, long-term solution and instead perpetuate a piecemeal mix of half-measures and temporary remedies for our nation’s transportation woes.

This collision need not turn into a pileup — if we make the right choice. Oberstar’s approach is the right way to go.

Please read the complete article at:

http://www.kansascity.com/business/story/1322647.html


-------------------------------

Will Oberstar’s Grand Highway Plan Stall?
By Colby Itkowitz, CQ Staff
June 27, 2009

Oberstar recently made public the outline of an authorization bill for the government’s highway and transit programs that he hopes will be the capstone of his long legislative career: a six-year, $450 billion package he describes as rivaling President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s creation of the Interstate Highway System more than a half-century ago.

The approximately 800-page draft measure that Oberstar has been refining for months envisions an ambitious overhaul, consolidating more than 100 individual federal programs into four broad categories, while pumping billions of dollars into new highway and high-speed rail projects. Most significant, it would require that federal money be spent to achieve specific goals and measures — cutting congestion in a city by a particular amount, for example — rather than distributing it only by formula among states or through congressional earmarks.

This moment, which is the apex of his political career, could not have come at a worse time for a chairman who puts such a high value on policy purity and such a relatively low value on political posturing. It’s been clear for months that President Obama and Oberstar’s fellow Democrats who are higher up in the congressional power structure are in no hurry to tackle a multi-year highway and transit bill, because they would have to find a way to pay for it — and the White House has said a flat “no” to the notion of raising the gasoline tax, even temporarily, as Oberstar has proposed.

In fact, no sooner had Oberstar arranged to release an outline of his proposal than Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood went to Capitol Hill to reveal the administration’s own plan: an 18-month extension of current programs combined with a few of Obama’s favorite ideas — nothing like the full-blown overhaul of which Oberstar dreams.

“They cut the legs out from under him,” said the top Republican on Oberstar’s committee, John L. Mica of Florida.

It’s not that Oberstar wasn’t warned about how difficult it would be. At the very outset of this Congress, his party’s leaders sharply limited his role in assembling the economic stimulus bill (PL 111-5), which Oberstar and others thought was tailor-made for financing transportation projects that could quickly put people to work. He had written his own proposal and held hearings, gathering testimony from economists and from state and local leaders who vowed that investments in transportation infrastructure were the greatest short-term stimulus. But as the measure grew, Oberstar was edged out, and transportation became just a sliver in the overall package.

Obama, congressional leaders and governors no doubt agree with Oberstar that the nation’s road and rail networks are in desperate need of repair and expansion. But persuading them to pay for it is another matter.

Please read the complete article at:

http://www.kansascity.com/business/story/1322647.html

Sorry. These are old stories so the newspaper links are no longer available. But here's the link to the original post on Democratic Underground:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8948717&mesg_id=8949890
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-05-11 04:42 PM
Response to Original message
1. There was a minor problem with Oberstar's plan; where was the money going to come from?
"It’s been clear for months that President Obama and Oberstar’s fellow Democrats who are higher up in the congressional power structure are in no hurry to tackle a multi-year highway and transit bill, because they would have to find a way to pay for it — and the White House has said a flat “no” to the notion of raising the gasoline tax, even temporarily, as Oberstar has proposed.

Did Congressman Oberstar campaign vigorously to eliminate the Bush tax cuts to pay for this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CelticThunder Donating Member (460 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-05-11 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Funny how Obama always finds money for more war, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
banned from Kos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-05-11 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. yeah - you're right. Americans are conditioned to react in horror to a gas tax
Cheap gas is a "right" here for some dumb-fuck reason.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-05-11 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #1
13. The Obama administration didn't propose eliminating Bush's tax cuts for the rich to pay for this.

They like big tax cuts and big government job programs not so much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-05-11 08:08 PM
Response to Reply #1
14. Perhaps an inverse sliding gas tax might work
When the wholesale price of gas is low, the tax is higher, when the wholesale price of gas is high, the tax is lower.

It would even things out, and promote greener technologies for automobile transportation. If gas goes back to two bucks a gallon, how many people are going to spend the extra money for a hybrid or an electric car?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-05-11 10:00 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Just make the rich pay taxes!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cali_Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-05-11 04:59 PM
Response to Original message
3. What a genius
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-05-11 05:34 PM
Response to Original message
5. Now THATS the kind of talk I like hearing out of Washington...
Building STUFF and putting People to WORK!!!
THAT sounds like Democratic Party Stuff!!!
Too bad it couldn't get any traction with the Party Leadeship.



Slashing Government Spending during a recession,
and "trimming" Entitlements,
and MORE "Free Trade"?
That sounds like Republican stuff.



"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone


photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed



"By their WORKS you will know them."







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
midnight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-05-11 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Really! Makes no sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
midnight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-05-11 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. duplicate
Edited on Fri Aug-05-11 05:40 PM by midnight
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-05-11 05:40 PM
Response to Original message
7. Really a drop in the bucket
Infrastructure needs 650 bill a year, 5% of GDP.

" spending $500 billion over the next six years" will not remotely transform surface transportation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-05-11 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. That is just ONE project.
Imagine what could happen if we got stated in THAT direction,
instead of Eat Your Peas Republican Austerity.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-06-11 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #12
16. Your OP states
$337 billion for highway construction, including at least $100 billion to begin long-awaited repairs to our national highway system and bridges.

•$100 billion for mass transit, including $12 billion for repairs.

•$50 billion to fund 11 high-speed rail corridors linking major metropolitan areas.

That is 15 components total. Not one project.

We already tried a one shot stim that was not enough, for too short of a time period.

We need to think in terms of 10% of GDP, 1.3 trillion minimum each year, for 5 yrs minimum. Let me put it this way, do you want to succeed?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-05-11 05:47 PM
Response to Original message
9. Yeah, but those road construction jobs would be government jobs
So they wouldn't be "real" jobs. Thank the good lord above we didn't do anything reckless like that!

On a slightly more serious note as to where the money would come from, we could raise the gas tax, which hasn't budged in more than 18 years. A 50% increase in the gas tax would cost you an extra $1.08 per tank on a 12 gallon fill up. With the fluctuation of gas prices thanks to Big Oil manipulations, I'd be willing to bet that most folks wouldn't even notice the difference between a $42 and a $43 trip to the gas station.

However, if the horrors of higher taxes are too much, we could always borrow the money. Right now, with interest rates as low as they are, borrowing money is cheap. Pay it back in a year, five years, or 25 years from now, and you're looking at a helluva bargain. Borrowing is pretty much how we're paying for the occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan now, and what do we have to show for all that debt? A growing pile of dead bodies and some bouncing rubble. What would we have to show for borrowing to finance maintenance, repair, restoration and construction of transportation infrastructure? Well, sturdier bridges, better roads, high speed rail, and other amenities that would serve the country for half a century or longer, producing benefits for far longer than any indebtedness we might rack up to finance them. And right now, all that work is going as cheap as it ever will for the foreseeable future.

So naturally, we're surging in Afghanistan, and leaving our commitment in Iraq open-ended. Brilliant!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-05-11 05:49 PM
Response to Original message
10. perhaps he has changed his mind about that
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brickbat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-05-11 05:51 PM
Response to Original message
11. I remember this. I loved it when I heard it.
Oberstar is, was and always will be my congressman, no matter what pretender is in his office now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 09:48 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC