http://www.dcvelocity.com/articles/20100301highway_funding_stalls_in_congress/ and many other sources - No projects will get any Federal contributions until the act is extended or reauthorized. No projects with Federal oversight can continue.
I'm sure they'll just legislate some new money into being. works great for every other government program.
Visit http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml to find your local senators and representative, and call them tomorrow during the day to let them know how important this is. The Trust Fund is used for projects that keep America employed and keep our infrastructure barely afloat. With the ASCE infrastructure grade holding at a C- and worse in many categories, it's critical that we don't get even further behind schedule in repairing and replacing. So we need the fund to be replenished ASAP. Show your support as a concerned citizen, industry member, or in any capacity you feel comfortable!
Quote from: AlpsROADS on March 01, 2010, 08:10:08 PM
http://www.dcvelocity.com/articles/20100301highway_funding_stalls_in_congress/ and many other sources - No projects will get any Federal contributions until the act is extended or reauthorized. No projects with Federal oversight can continue.
Well I think they can continue as...
QuoteUnder federal guidelines, the FHWA reimburses states for funds they commit to undertake highway-related infrastructure projects. However, the federal government cannot act without reauthorization of the law that provides the funds for reimbursements. The funding affected by yesterday's actions would be monies set to be disbursed through March 5.
Technically, the project could continue, just no reimbursement would be coming, but as 80-90% of the money for these projects is Federal. The practical effect is what you said.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 01, 2010, 08:15:24 PM
I'm sure they'll just legislate some new money into being. works great for every other government program.
Certainly, the key point will be how much pork will need to be fed to reluctant members of congress to get enough votes through.
I am sad to say that the holdup is being caused by the junior senator from my home state. Even though I am of the same party as Jim Bunning, I haven't had much use for him for several years. On behalf of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, I apologize for his petulant act. If I see any of you this spring or summer, remind me to tell you about Bunning. I won't junk up this board with political stuff.
Quote from: AlpsROADS on March 01, 2010, 08:16:19 PM
Trust
that somehow is not a word that I would use in conjunction with our latest and greatest
disease administration.
from http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml:
Quote* President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden — Send questions, comments, concerns, or well-wishes to the President or his staff.
well-wishes? where do I go to tell them to go stuff themselves?
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 01, 2010, 08:58:22 PM
well-wishes? where do I go to tell them to go stuff themselves?
Can we keep politics off of here, please?
Quote from: US71 on March 01, 2010, 10:29:22 PM
Can we keep politics off of here, please?
well, if someone posts a link to a place where I am solely allowed to praise an administration with whom I have great disagreement ... I will certainly note my disagreements!
okay, the link allows me to voice my "concerns"... but as for a general feeling of ill will, I certainly am not allowed to share that. Just well-wishes, of which I have none towards our current set of elected leaders. I in no way wish any physical harm upon them, I just simply wish that they are promptly impeached and removed from office.
bear in mind, I was born in 1981. I have, to this day, yet to experience a government that is deserving of anything more than my contempt. Apparently there have been times in our history when our government was worthy of praise, and more than an inconvenience to be tolerated while the people hoped for it to be eradicated. Apparently. I have never experienced such a perception myself. To me, the government has been similar to an infestation of termites, except more nefarious and difficult to remove. You can remove termites with one phone call... good luck doing that with Congress and the executive branch.
I've had leaders on both sides, Republican and Democrat, utterly fail me, and thus I have grown up believing that the role of government is to promote the well-being of the uber-rich industrialists, while defecating massively upon the common schmuck. So, the next time Uncle Sam does anything for me will be the first ... and I had better be on the lookout for when he inevitably takes it away.
you can imagine what kind of reaction I had when I first studied the actual 1787 US Constitution in 7th grade. My reaction got me suspended from school for three days!
it slightly tempered my love for authority, shall we say.
BTW, I got the response elsewhere "It's just the one senator." Well, no, it's everyone's problem, because if he's going to slow it down this way, then everyone needs to get together and find another solution. Letting this rot while pointing fingers is typical, but hurts America every day.
it's never just one senator. It is at least 40 for them to filibuster.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 01, 2010, 11:13:13 PM
it's never just one senator. It is at least 40 for them to filibuster.
I don't understand the dynamics of this, but for some reason the way they were trying to pass it, all it takes is one. Needless to say this is a hot topic back here in the Bluegrass. Even Mitch McConnell disapproves of what Bunning's doing.
(I posted a summary of the situation over on MTR if anyone wants to go over there and read it.)
I haven't found something about this bill in particular, but if I'm inferring things correctly, then this is not a filibuster, but a "hold". Any single senator can place a hold on a bill preventing it from reaching the Senate floor (as opposed to the 40-senator filibuster/cloture scenario which we are already familiar with, which occurs after the bill has been put up for debate). From what I've heard this isn't the only bill that Bunning is doing this to–he's not up for re-election this year, so he's pretty much decided to try to piss as many people off as possible. He also recently flipped off a reporter in the Capitol halls.
Wreckage from this stunt is starting to appear. MoDOT was scheduled to have a letting last Friday (February 26) but sent a notice to registered vendors a few days beforehand saying that the letting would be cancelled unless continuation funding was voted for by noon on February 25. This deadline was missed. MoDOT then sent another notice saying that all of the projects scheduled for February would be rolled forward to March and let at the same time as the March projects. MoDOT has not advertised any projects for March; normally the projects for the next month's letting become available by the date of the previous letting.
Wyoming also makes plans for a given month's letting available by the date of the previous month's letting, but so far WyDOT hasn't advertised any projects for a letting in March or later.
Why can't they take money from elsewhere? It works for everything else the federal government spends money on. What's so different about roads that they have to get the money from the same place they say the money comes from?
The thread title is misleading; the money is there (for whatever passes as "existence" in government terms, at least, lack of money doesn't stop government spending), it's just the government is no longer authorized to hand it out. The law which says "The federal government can give money to states to help with highways" has expired. Normally this wouldn't be a big deal, as it's been renewed several times before, but Bunning is disrupting the senate to prove a point (what point that is, nobody really seems sure of). Pretty much what happened is the highway bill had the unfortunate timing to expire at the same time Bunning decided to get his panties in a bunch about something or other.
To further elaborate, it isn't the 30-day transportation reauthorization per se that is the issue either. Bunning is against the bill because it also includes other items, namely unemployment benefits and Medicare reimbursement, that he opposes the "funding mechanism" for.
See, I'd heard about that as well (and it is the unemployment benefits and such the media is focusing on) but I wasn't aware that was part of the same bill.
UPDATE: Bunning appears to have folded. http://www.rollcall.com/news/43750-1.html
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 02, 2010, 07:13:14 PM
UPDATE: Bunning appears to have folded. http://www.rollcall.com/news/43750-1.html
One month, then we get to do it all again. :rolleyes: :banghead:
Quote from: From articleReid has also agreed to give Bunning two votes on amendments to a larger, one-year extension bill that is currently under consideration in the Senate.
Is there another interpretation, or is one senator getting his vote counted twice? Something really screwy here.
Quote from: Revive 755 on March 02, 2010, 09:41:16 PM
Is there another interpretation, or is one senator getting his vote counted twice? Something really screwy here.
I think it means the entire senate would do two informal votes. Vote once, see where everyone stands, do some debating, then have another vote.
I believe it means Reid would authorize that two amendments that Bunning supports would be scheduled for votes.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 02, 2010, 09:44:37 PM
I think it means the entire senate would do two informal votes. Vote once, see where everyone stands, do some debating, then have another vote.
Wouldn't it be easier just to dope slap Bunning?
nothing like a good one-man filabuster. The cure? Senate stays up until a vote is passed (no one to shift with :P )
Quote from: Master son on March 02, 2010, 10:50:44 PM
nothing like a good one-man filabuster. The cure? Senate stays up until a vote is passed (no one to shift with :P )
I wish I knew whether this would work or not. But, then again, I never heard of a senator putting a bill "on hold" before this thread was started.
I know the basis for filibustering is in the Constitution, but somehow, I don't think that this "on hold" stuff it. i.e. It's a Senate rule.
The basis for filibustering is not in the Constitution, actually, but actually in the Senate Rules, which can be dispelled by 2/3rds vote of the Senate.
Besides the point, again, because it wasn't a filibuster. Meanwhile, this evening a deal was reached, and a vote was had at around 9:15 (which I watched on C-SPAN). It passed 78-19 or 79-18, I honestly forget which. The fact that 1 man can attempt to block the will of the majority...a pretty big majority, too...is insane.
Quote from: yanksfan6129 on March 02, 2010, 11:41:12 PM
Besides the point, again, because it wasn't a filibuster. Meanwhile, this evening a deal was reached, and a vote was had at around 9:15 (which I watched on C-SPAN). It passed 78-19 or 79-18, I honestly forget which. The fact that 1 man can attempt to block the will of the majority...a pretty big majority, too...is insane.
Everyone is focusing on the politics and the policies, but myself, I think the process is at fault here.
- You have the bizarre and byzantine rules of the Senate which permit something like this to happen.
- The Senate's tendencies to group a lot of unrelated things together, which this did. Why should unemployment be connected to highway funding, and highway funding to copyright laws for carrying local channels on satellite TV, and satellite TV to Medicaid reimbursements for doctors, and so on?
- The Senate's penchant to wait until the last minute to act on things. Everyone knew this was on the horizon but yet they wait until time is almost out before acting.
I'm not defending Bunning here. I see his point but at the same time, I ceased supporting him about three years ago over something he did here in Kentucky. But at the same time I'm not faulting him, either. He took advantage of a flawed process to get his point across.
The Senate's Rules have some odd provisions of parliamentary procedure, and even stranger customs that aren't in the rules. In this case, they were seeking to take a short cut, and pass the measure by Unanimous Consent. Usually this is done with non-controversial stuff, and this bill should have been non-controversial. They don't even have to have a full quorum of senators on the floor under UC rules, since if no one objects to the lack of a quorum, a quorum is assumed. In this case, Bunning objected, meaning it wasn't unanimous anymore, and the whole process ground to a halt. One news story I read said that they went this route because it was shorter than the traditional method. They didn't need to get the quorum, they didn't need to invoke Cloture (which takes 3/5, not 2/3, or 60 votes) to stop a potential filibuster. Instead of being able to pass the bill in a matter of hours after it hit the floor for a final vote, it was stalled for a week. Some shortcut.
Quote from: hbelkins on March 03, 2010, 12:17:07 AM
I'm not defending Bunning here. I see his point but at the same time, I ceased supporting him about three years ago over something he did here in Kentucky. But at the same time I'm not faulting him, either. He took advantage of a flawed process to get his point across.
What point is that? That he's a jerk?