Highway Bill ends soon...funding at stake: here we go again!

[Mergingtraffic]

I tell ya, if it isn't one thing, it's something else that threatenes highway projects.

CT Sen. Richard Blumenthal held a press conference warning that if a new highway bill isn't agreed upon by June 30, funding could be at stake for lots of projects.

Idk about your state, but in CT it seems like if it isn't one thing that derails a project it's something else.

http://nhregister.com/articles/2012/06/09/news/doc4fd2c8ae58eb0942953379.txt

[hbelkins]

I tell ya, if it isn't one thing, it's something else that threatenes highway projects.

CT Sen. Richard Blumenthal held a press conference warning that if a new highway bill isn't agreed upon by June 30, funding could be at stake for lots of projects.

Idk about your state, but in CT it seems like if it isn't one thing that derails a project it's something else.

http://nhregister.com/articles/2012/06/09/news/doc4fd2c8ae58eb0942953379.txt

I'll say the same thing I said the last time this came up. The alarmist talk is not necessary. It will get passed or an extension granted, just like it always is.

[Scott5114]

I tell ya, if it isn't one thing, it's something else that threatenes highway projects.

CT Sen. Richard Blumenthal held a press conference warning that if a new highway bill isn't agreed upon by June 30, funding could be at stake for lots of projects.

Idk about your state, but in CT it seems like if it isn't one thing that derails a project it's something else.

http://nhregister.com/articles/2012/06/09/news/doc4fd2c8ae58eb0942953379.txt

I'll say the same thing I said the last time this came up. The alarmist talk is not necessary. It will get passed or an extension granted, just like it always is.

The 112th Congress is already pretty notorious for being unable to agree to compromises and get things done. They've already had two huge showdowns that have gone almost "to the brink". Suggesting a third is possible makes for great drama (read, "great TV news ratings"). Plus with the election on, politicians tend to get entrenched into their positions, which certainly doesn't make it easier for the highway bill.

[cpzilliacus]

I tell ya, if it isn't one thing, it's something else that threatenes highway projects.

CT Sen. Richard Blumenthal held a press conference warning that if a new highway bill isn't agreed upon by June 30, funding could be at stake for lots of projects.

Idk about your state, but in CT it seems like if it isn't one thing that derails a project it's something else.

http://nhregister.com/articles/2012/06/09/news/doc4fd2c8ae58eb0942953379.txt

I'll say the same thing I said the last time this came up. The alarmist talk is not necessary. It will get passed or an extension granted, just like it always is.

The 112th Congress is already pretty notorious for being unable to agree to compromises and get things done. They've already had two huge showdowns that have gone almost "to the brink". Suggesting a third is possible makes for great drama (read, "great TV news ratings"). Plus with the election on, politicians tend to get entrenched into their positions, which certainly doesn't make it easier for the highway bill.

The Baltimore Sun had an editorial about this recently: Transportation bill: Do Republicans want to sabotage the economy?

[vdeane]

Quite possibly, since they are assuming (correctly) that Americans will just blame it on Obama since he's the president.  One of my social studies teachers even said that McCain deliberately lost the 2008 election so the Republicans could blame the Democrats for the recession.

[mightyace]

One of my social studies teachers even said that McCain deliberately lost the 2008 election so the Republicans could blame the Democrats for the recession.

And this idiot is teaching young people?

And, Al Gore finally gave up to 'W' so that recession could be blamed on the Republicans.

[J N Winkler]

I still find it perplexing that McCain chose Palin as his vice-presidential candidate.  Ever since the 2008 election McCain has played it completely straight and insisted, in defiance of all logic, that his choice of Palin was sincere and that he firmly believes in her qualifications.  However, it has been reported that McCain's first choice for running mate was Joe Lieberman, but the party grandees told him he couldn't have Lieberman.  This prompts me to think that the choice of Palin reflects a deliberate decision on McCain's part to pour molten gold down the throats of the Weekly Standard crowd.

[mightyace]

^^^

Now, that is plausible.

______________________________

Anyway, back on topic.

Infrastructure funding always has been and always will be a political football.  In part, because it is one of the most visible uses of government spending.

Such disputes may even be unrelated to highway spending but more of "if you don't do what we want, well stall highway funding."  Usually, something gives.

[agentsteel53]

This prompts me to think that the choice of Palin reflects a deliberate decision on McCain's part to pour molten gold down the throats of the Weekly Standard crowd.

I'd always thought of McCain as being the Weekly Standard crowd.  he's certainly not a paleoconservative like Sarah Palin.

if anyone decided to do some molten gold-pouring, it was the Republican nomination committees, in an attempt to pander to the religious right and what would later be known as the "tea party" wing of the GOP.

[3467]

Actually current polling indicates by a narrow margin Obama is not getting the blame. There will be some sort of extension. There is also supposed to be a rally tomorrow . Its really something to see the House more non functional than the Senate
McCain didnt delibratly lose. Steve Schmidt his top advisor pushed Palin because their polling showed he needed to do something bold to win. He needed a Game Change. There was a book and a movie by that name.

[Scott5114]

It's hard to do when faced with a topic like this, but let's keep this as focused on the highway bill as possible, and not get into things like why Palin exists or how this will affect Obama or anything of that nature, shall we?

[hobsini2]

Scott, unfortunately, this is in reality a partisan issue nowadays because of the type of people in Congress.

Before I get into my remarks, I preface this by saying that I have voted for people from both parties in the past. I did vote for Clinton twice and for Bush Jr twice.

I just find it insulting that this Congress feels it necessary to do this with everything that in past years has not been a huge issue. They did the same crap with the debt ceiling extension which was never an issue for any other President before including Bush Jr, Clinton, and Reagan and federal judges getting approved. The Republicans I am sure feel that if the highway bill is passed, which in turn will create shovel ready jobs, that they won't get the credit and Obama will.  They also feel that the unemployment rate may go down below 8 if this passes.  Most people would think unemployment going down would be a good thing but not if you hear what Limbaugh said back in 2009.  He said, "I want this President to fail."  McConnell said, "I want to make him a one term President." Which means to me, the citizens be damned for the sake of the Presidency.  This is something you never heard with any previous President.  Remember the country was losing 700,000 jobs a month when Obama took over.
I just get really annoyed by the Tea Party Republicans who hijacked their party and won't do anything in the way of helping America and it's citizens prosper if it adds $1 to the deficit. I long for the days of Bob Dole and Ted Kennedy. They may not have agreed in ideology but they did what is right and worked together on getting good bills passed.  And I am sure that most Americans feel the same way. Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower would be ashamed of today's Republican Party.

I will say that I was pleasantly surprised by the bipartisanship that has come out for the new Stillwater Bridge, supported by most local/state politicians from both parties including Rep Bachman and Rep Kind but unfortunately that is just 1 project out of hundreds or thousands yet to be even debated on, let alone voted on.

All this being said, pass the highway bill NOW. For example, there are a ton of bridges that are so deficient in their current conditions that I pray we don't get another I-35W tragedy any time soon.

[3467]

hobsini is exactly right. I was just giving the background on the Palin decison
I voted Reagan twice ,Daddy Bush twice Gore Kerry and Obama Twice. I voted for McCain in the against Bush the younger
Reagan vetoed the highway bill in I think it was 87 and Congress overrode him. It really want over spending but earmarks and that was really the main debate none of teh presidents liked them and Congress ex a few like McCain loved them.
There are no earmarks per se in the bill According to Dick Durbin there is just a hint list for the DOTs I have not seen it if its only maybe we could post that

[mightyace]

I just get really annoyed by the Tea Party Republicans who hijacked their party and won't do anything in the way of helping America and it's citizens prosper if it adds $1 to the deficit. I long for the days of Bob Dole and Ted Kennedy. They may not have agreed in ideology but they did what is right and worked together on getting good bills passed.  And I am sure that most Americans feel the same way. Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower would be ashamed of today's Republican Party.

Well, if it increases the deficit, it does not help America prosper, at least in the long run.

Well, of course you long for the days of Bob Dole and Ted Kennedy.  The "bipartisanship" of that era was basically the Republicans rolling over and giving the Democrats 85-100% of what they wanted.  That time made me sick as the Republican politicians had no backbone.

Compromise is meeting people half-way not giving in!

EDIT:
Hey I have another solution.  Why not have the feds get out of something that is not their business.  Repeal the federal gas tax and stop funding transportation at the federal level and leave it to the states.

[triplemultiplex]

Given recent trends with these transportation bills, I have to wonder what new interstates will be born in this one.  Am I right in remembering that there's been at least one new I-number/route in every transportation bill for the last 20 years or something?  It sure feels like it.

In Wisconsin, we're dealing with the sausage-making of our new interstate corridor that was inserted into the last transportation bill.  The US 41 corridor is certainly I-worthy and for me, it was a pleasant surprise last time.

Anyone know of any serious rumblings in their state/region that might come up this time around?

[hobsini2]

I just get really annoyed by the Tea Party Republicans who hijacked their party and won't do anything in the way of helping America and it's citizens prosper if it adds $1 to the deficit. I long for the days of Bob Dole and Ted Kennedy. They may not have agreed in ideology but they did what is right and worked together on getting good bills passed.  And I am sure that most Americans feel the same way. Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower would be ashamed of today's Republican Party.

Well, if it increases the deficit, it does not help America prosper, at least in the long run.

Well, of course you long for the days of Bob Dole and Ted Kennedy.  The "bipartisanship" of that era was basically the Republicans rolling over and giving the Democrats 85-100% of what they wanted.  That time made me sick as the Republican politicians had no backbone.

Compromise is meeting people half-way not giving in!

EDIT:
Hey I have another solution.  Why not have the feds get out of something that is not their business.  Repeal the federal gas tax and stop funding transportation at the federal level and leave it to the states.

Mightyace, Obama's Health Care bill was initially the same ideas Republicans had suggested as far back as Nixon. That shows you how far right the Republicans have moved. Dole, along with Roosevelt and Eisenhower, would be considered a liberal in this Congress.

As far as the deficit goes, the deficit ballooned so much because Obama started counting the costs of the 2 wars on to it. Bush did not.  And the Bush Tax Cuts also added to the debt according to the CBO.

Also, the problem with the states funding for highway projects is most states could not afford them and the quality of the road would then vary more than it does now from state to state.  Highway funding for federal highways is not a state's rights issue.

[hobsini2]

Given recent trends with these transportation bills, I have to wonder what new interstates will be born in this one.  Am I right in remembering that there's been at least one new I-number/route in every transportation bill for the last 20 years or something?  It sure feels like it.

In Wisconsin, we're dealing with the sausage-making of our new interstate corridor that was inserted into the last transportation bill.  The US 41 corridor is certainly I-worthy and for me, it was a pleasant surprise last time.

Anyone know of any serious rumblings in their state/region that might come up this time around?

I think you are correct. Certainly I-99 and Future I-3 in Georgia was part of that a couple years ago.

[Zmapper]

Back on topic...

My belief is that transportation spending is a local/state issue, and the federal government should not be involved.

[3467]

State and Local are broke so no road funding

[mightyace]

So's the federal govt. except they keep running the printing press...

We keep this deficit spending up, someday our economy will collapse for good!  And, that would be the time to get a home-grown dictator.

[NE2]

Ah, the old "the federal government is broke" meme.

[mightyace]

Well, no one can spend more money than they make forever, even governments.

[english si]

The 112th Congress is already pretty notorious for being unable to agree to compromises and get things done. They've already had two huge showdowns that have gone almost "to the brink". Suggesting a third is possible makes for great drama (read, "great TV news ratings"). Plus with the election on, politicians tend to get entrenched into their positions, which certainly doesn't make it easier for the highway bill.

Their failure to compromise has been with the executive, though there's obviously problems between House and Senate not agreeing (or even refusing to consider agreeing when Harry Reid refused to put the House's budget to the vote in the Senate). And that said, the 111th Congress, with both houses Democrat, had some major problems with getting stuff passed that the President wanted.

The question is "is Obama going to politicise this and tell Congress he'd veto a bill without certain projects or with certain others?", if so, it might be difficult to get the bill passed, as the opposition to the President in Congress is bipartisan and overwhelming.

[Scott5114]

The question is "is Obama going to politicise this and tell Congress he'd veto a bill without certain projects or with certain others?", if so, it might be difficult to get the bill passed, as the opposition to the President in Congress is bipartisan and overwhelming.

That is a somewhat simplistic way of describing the dynamics of the present Congress. The Republican Party is much easier to marshal into one stance or another. It is a lot more ideologically homogeneous, so its leaders have less trouble convincing everyone to vote the same way. The Democratic Party is more of a "big tent" party than the GOP at this point; it is made up of a lot of different constituencies. (You could almost, but not quite, compare it to a coalition government in your own Parliament.) One of the factions of the Democratic Party is called the Blue Dog Democrats and they are considered moderate to mildly conservative compared to the rest of the party. They tend to be from conservative states like those in the South that would otherwise not elect Democrats, and accordingly, these Democrats vote with Republicans on some (but not all) issues.

It is exactly this branch of the Democratic Party that caused headaches for the President during the 111th Congress (where there were 60 Democrats in the Senate). Trying to get conservative Democrats from heavily Republican states to vote for things like the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) takes a great deal of effort. Fortunately for the President, they are at least more amenable to compromise than the Republicans have tended to be.

Another problem that Obama has faced is that Sen. Reid seems much more reluctant to use his powers as Majority Leader to make life rough for his party members that don't fall in line than Sen. McConnell has.

[vdeane]

I really with more people would take that stuff into account.  Getting the Democrats in line is like herding cats.

People keep bringing up Teddy Roosevelt and Eisenhower.  Roosevelt was considered liberal by the Republicans in his day and was ironically made vice president in an effort to keep him away from the presidency (which failed due to McKinley being assassinated).  Eisenhower didn't have a party before he became president and was wanted by both the Democrats and Republicans.

I wonder what Lincoln would think of the Republican party myself.  The parties of his day, despite officially being the same ones as we have today, were essentially opposites of what they are now.