INFRASTRUCTURE: LET'S GET IT FIXED

The killings of Iraqis will stop when the morale of the Iraqis improve.

Some here mused that we should go ahead with the bridge to nowhere in Alaska, but build it in Minneapolis.

If Halliburton built bridges, we probably would not be mired in this misbegotten war in Iraq.

The War on Infrastructure
The War on Infrastructure :wink: :wink:
Posted August 7, 2007
by Barbara Ehrenreich

This morning, flanked by a dozen people who lost cars or family members in last week's I-35W bridge collapse, President Bush declared a "War on Infrastructure." Describing the July steam pipe explosion in Manhattan and the bridge collapse in Minneapolis as "cowardly attacks on our way of life," he explained that until now, "the War on Infrastructure has been largely centered on Iraq, where it has been over 70 percent successful. Today, very few operating bridges, water mains or power grids remain for Iraqis to worry about."

Anticipating the usual caviling, he added that the new war is in no way a distraction from the ongoing War on Terror. "The World Trade Center towers would not have fallen under the force of airplane collisions alone," he said, "The role of faulty construction, which is code phrase for infrastructure, can no longer be denied."

Ken Pollack, the Brooking Institute's die-hard supporter of the war in Iraq, warned that the War on Infrastructure could be as difficult to win as the War on Terror. "We'd gotten used to fighting human enemies," he said, "and now we're up against abstract nouns."

"We expected that there would be a dastardly attack on the homeland sometime this summer," added Donald Rumsfeld, who will end his brief retirement to take charge of the War on Infrastructure. He attributed the nation's lack of preparation to the Clinton administration, with its "hear-no-evil, see-no-evil policy toward highway overpasses."

Congressional Democrats rushed to display their support for the president in his new initiative. Hillary Clinton promised to vote for the bombing of infrastructure on condition that the president checks in with Congress first, assuming he can find them and that the phone and DSL lines are working.

Echoing her sentiments on Pakistan, she said she does not rule out the use of nuclear warheads on particularly entrenched elements of infrastructure, even if civilians are using them at the time. "Anyone who wants to be president has to be prepared to kill people," she added - "with her bare hands if necessary."

Perhaps the strongest anti-infrastructure rumblings have come from Dick Cheney, who sent a message from his undisclosed location shortly after the Minneapolis bridge collapse, stating that: "We will prevail even if it means water-boarding every last one of America's remaining bridges."

A spokeswoman from the Transportation Safety Administration announced that people seeking to cross bridges will be required to remove their shoes, jackets and all metal items. The effect of this measure on infrastructure is not known, but, she said, "It will definitely facilitate swimming."

Ehrenreich is quite a wit!

It appears that the bills should be put on the cuff.


Bush Dismisses Proposal to Raise Gas Tax
AP
Posted: 2007-08-09 13:57:51
WHRE105

By JENNIFER LOVEN

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - A week after a deadly bridge collapse in Minneapolis, President Bush on Thursday dismissed raising the federal gasoline tax to repair bridges at least until Congress changes how it spends highway money.

"The way it seems to have worked is that each member on that (Transportation) committee gets to set his or her own priorities first," Bush said. "That's not the right way to prioritize the people's money. Before we raise taxes, which could affect economic growth, I would strongly urge the Congress to examine how they set priorities."

About $24 billion, or 8 percent of the last $286 billion highway bill, was devoted to highway and bridge projects singled out by lawmakers. The balance is distributed through grants to states, which decide how it will be spent. Federal money accounts for about 45 percent of all infrastructure spending.

The Democratic chairman of the House Transportation Committee proposed a 5-cent increase in the 18.3 cents-a-gallon federal gasoline tax to establish a new trust fund for repairing or replacing structurally deficient highway bridges.

More than 70,000 of the nation's bridges are rated structurally deficient, including the bridge that collapsed over the Mississippi River last Wednesday. The American Society of Civil Engineers says repairing them all would require spending at least $9.4 billion a year for 20 years. Rep. Jim Oberstar, D-Minn., says his tax-increase proposal would raise about $25 billion over three years.

Regretably, Congress instinct is too often to raise taxes. Rarely do they examine ways to cut costs or eliminate non-working programs.

The repubs dont want to raise taxes. Great! If they would vote with the Dems to get out of Iraq we would have a hundred and 20 billion dollars to spend on our infrastructure.

DGS, besides cutting pork, which really wouldn't raise that much money, what spending would you cut to raise a really large amount of net revenue?

Raising money isn't the problem, it's how they spend the money that have that is the problem.

McG, what cuts in spending, or revenue raising, would you recommend to balance the budget and fix the infrastructure?

I have no idea, I don't have access or desire to look into the budget enough. Perhaps spending transportation money on critical needs first instead of divying it up amongst the committee members pet projects first... you know, prioritize the spending.

I am sure the money is there, it's up to our elected officials to spend better without having to raise taxes.

As the Speaker of the House or Majority Leader, I would have spent the month of August "recess" identifying and eliminating the thousands of programs, Boards and Commissions that have taken on eternal life....for example TVA.

I have no idea but it must be there...Thank you Polyanna..

Of course you could just be so far wrong that you don't want to check out reality. Gee.. why can't bridges be built for $200 and a stick of gum? I have no desire to see if they really could be but I am sure they can.

Cut all the programs you want Dghs, you won't begin to eliminate the Federal deficit without heavily cutting defense spending. If you cut social security and medicare then you better be willing to cut the taxes that pay for that since both programs produce surpluses that are being spent for other items.

I hazard you have never made a budget in your life if you think you can cut a few miniscule programs and save any money.

So, look into it and get back to us with the data. I'll wait.

Unless of course you just want to make yourself look like a fool I mean. In which case you can just post another snarky response.

There is not a whole lot to cut in the discretionary government spending. The money is in the entitlements, which are essentially contractual obligations.

The smart thing to do is to raise the tax on gasolene. This would raise a lot of money and also go a long way in encouraging alternative fuels and other conservation measures. We might even become independent of Middle East oil. We certainly should eliminate the tax cuts for the wealthy, increase the federal estate tax, and increase the graduated income tax rates for those with higher incomes. This would help the common good and take a bite out of our plutocracy.

As I said, some people instinctively look first to a tax increase.

It takes longer to cut expenditures. For instance, we should cut the military, but this takes a lot of study. We now spend more on defense than the next 26 countries combined. We have many thousands of military bases abroad. We are spending much more on the defense of Germany and Japan, than those countries spend on their defense.

I see that you will not specify what large cuts can be made.

Advocate: I answered your question. I understand that defense spending is a major portion of the budget. There certainly are ways to cut that, including bringing home our troops from Japan. There are also many entitlements, including the bulging farm programs that should be cut.

Are you suggesting that no cuts should be made in the size and breadth of government?

Farm subsidies are not entitlements. Cuts in the military are cuts in government. Duh!!!!

OMG I look like a fool when I use McG's argument? Say it ain't so McG..

Yeah, let's get it fixed!

Let's also, while we're at it, solve all of the entirely solvable problems facing this nation.

Guess what? It don't work that way. Never has and never will.

A benovelent dictator might be able to solve all of our problems, but not a democracy.