President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) J. Sonnenberg

(R) Ted Harvey

20%↑

15%↑

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

(R) Doug Bruce

20%

20%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

40%↑

20%↑

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
October 04, 2010 09:30 PM UTC

Playing the Fiddle While Bridges Teeter

  • 86 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

A sobering report in today’s Washington Post:

The United States is saddled with a rapidly decaying and woefully underfunded transportation system that will undermine its status in the global economy unless Congress and the public embrace innovative reforms, a bipartisan panel of experts concludes in a report released Monday.

U.S. investment in preservation and development of transportation infrastructure lags so far behind that of China, Russia and European nations that it will lead to “a steady erosion of the social and economic foundations for American prosperity in the long run.”

…Co-chaired by two former secretaries of transportation – Norman Y. Mineta and Samuel Skinner – the group estimated that an additional $134 billion to $262 billion must be spent per year through 2035 to rebuild and improve roads, rail systems and air transportation.

“We’re going to have bridges collapse. We’re going to have earthquakes. We need somebody to grab the issue and run with it, whether it be in Congress or the White House,” Mineta said Monday during a news conference at the Rayburn House Office Building.

The best part is how this report comes out just a few weeks before the “Tea Party”-emboldened GOP is widely forecast to take control of the U.S. House of Representatives. It’s going to be awfully hard to pay for all that needed infrastructure once we’ve cut the federal government “in half” like Scott Tipton wants, isn’t it? Here in Colorado, how are we even supposed to think about fixing the hundreds of defective bridges in the state, let alone keep pace with needed new development, if we vote away all the tools necessary to do so?

This is where the ideology meets reality–and loses. You’re not supposed to be thinking about this in rational terms. You’re not supposed to ask, since Colorado already has such a comparatively low tax burden to most other states, and resultant funding levels for just about everything in the nether reaches of those same state rankings–why more cuts are “necessary.” You’re not supposed to ask Tipton what the country would actually look like with a federal government chopped “in half,” just like you’re not supposed to ask what happens to bridges if you don’t maintain them. You’re just so angry about all this “spending,” throw the bums out! Right?

It’s like that warning you shouted in a bad dream, danger ahead, but nobody can hear you.

Comments

86 thoughts on “Playing the Fiddle While Bridges Teeter

  1. Didn’t we just spend a trillion on infrastructure in the so called “stimulus”? Either throwing money at the problem doesn’t work, or our infrastructure is fine. Either way, it’s no reason to spend more.

    And good luck preventing those earthquakes.

        1. a lot went to teachers, firemen, police, etc. to save their jobs, via the state governments.  The jobs saved may well have included your modest little TA salary.

            So, in that case, maybe it was misspent.;-)

          Your “thought” that it was all going to shovel ready jobs, like so many of your thoughts, is not based on an analysis of the bill itself.

          Believe it or not, not all of Glenn Beck’s eructations are fact based.

           

        2. You were talking about whether or not money was being spent on infrastructure. If not so much money is being spent on it, it does not follow that we’re “shoveling money” at it (mainly because that’s the polar opposite of what Voyageur said), so you can’t claim it’s “not working” because the condition you say isn’t working doesn’t exist.

          You’d make a lousy cross-examiner, so it’s a good thing you’re not studying law.

        1. http://www.sciencemadesimple.c

          The blue color of the sky is due to Rayleigh scattering. As light moves through the atmosphere, most of the longer wavelengths pass straight through. Little of the red, orange and yellow light is affected by the air.

          However, much of the shorter wavelength light is absorbed by the gas molecules. The absorbed blue light is then radiated in different directions. It gets scattered all around the sky. Whichever direction you look, some of this scattered blue light reaches you. Since you see the blue light from everywhere overhead, the sky looks blue.

          Maybe we should vote on it.

        2. Considering that scientifically speaking the sky is not “blue” you just precieve it as thus. The sky is transparent (much like your arguments) and you only see it as blue because you are going off of a common mis-conception about what the sky “is” and how humans see color.

          Kinda like how you confuse what government “is” and how you view facts.

          Ooh boy the things I could do with this metaphore.  

      1. from http://projects.nytimes.com/44… (there is a lot more, this is just an example set):

        Tax Cuts for Individuals-New tax credit for workers $116.2 billion

        Tax Cuts for Individuals-Extend patch for the alternative minimum tax $69.8 billion

        Tax Cuts for Individuals-Expand eligibility for Child Tax Credit $14.8 billion

        Tax Cuts for Businesses-Energy   Expand tax incentives for renewable energy facilities $14.0 billion

        Tax Cuts for Businesses-Extension of bonus depreciation $5.9 billion

        Tax Cuts for Individuals-Increase Earned Income Tax Credit $4.7 billion

        During the campaign, the independent Tax Policy Center researched how Obama’s tax proposals would affect workers. It concluded 94.3 percent of workers would receive a tax cut  under Obama’s plan based on the tax credit to offset payroll taxes. According to the analysis, the people who wouldn’t get a tax cut are those who make more than $250,000 for couples or $200,000 for a single person. Obama said he intended to raise taxes on those high earners, a promise he reiterated during the State of the Union, and that revenue would offset the stimulus tax cut.

        Because the stimulus act did give that broad-based tax cut to workers, we rate Obama’s statement True.

        http://politifact.com/truth-o-

              1. At my age, and with my experience, I hire psychiatrists (and fire them) to assist with the more than 350 individuals under my direct care.

                In Colorado, I am respected for my wisdom and sanity.

                Nice try though.

                    1. actually revealed what you do, then he would be trying to out you.  Even if you have previously posted what you do.

                      But if he guesses wrong, he’s not being stupid, he has no idea.  And then he’s not outing you.

                      But you were right about the not making sense part.

                    1. Unfortunately, he’s unable to keep it together and has moments where he’s simply awful.  I’ve had my share of things I’ve said that I regretted, but nothing like the nastiness he’s shown.  I don’t even bother to read his posts anymore, which I’m sure will probably make his day.

              1. I am starving bj has NO BRAINS!!!

                AAARRRRUUUUGGGHHHHH!!!

                (I must be one of those OBAMA-ZOMBIES bj is so scared of)

                on a lighter note it would be somewhat refreshing of conservative republicans actually took RESPONSIBILITY for their lies missteps and Failed Ideology. (especially that last one).

                It is their ARROGANCE that prevents them from actually apologizing for anything. NO matter how egregious or country crippling it turns out to be.  

  2. It was just 3 weeks ago that Sen. Bennet (D-CO) killed the $50 billion stimulus for “infrastructure”.

    And now you’re preemptively blaming the GOP for not fully funding a 25 year transportation plan?

    Odd.

    Also, how much of the Mineta-Skinner plan is wasted on rail?

    It’s one thing to rebuild roads and bridges, it’s another to dump it into unused mass transit.

     

    1. Bennet is so terrorized by you silly Teabaggers and the furor you’ve whipped the country into that he caved on something important. It’s as simple as that. If he felt like the voters were supportive, we’d hear the Bennet who got visibly angry over the idea that our grandparents could build this infrastructure that we can’t even maintain. You’re barking up the wrong tree, and using your own agitation’s success to self-justify what you concede is wrong with your very accusation.

      Shorter version: kiss my ass.

      I know who is to blaming for America’s crumbling roads and bridges, and it’s not the Democrats. Your alacrity is impressive but your premise is utter “big lie” horseshit.

      1. I assumed the article was going to be about the Polster chirping about how the Dems have hope while their campaigns – bridges to nowhere – falter.  

        Alas, the Dems are now concerned about infrastruture.  Maybe we can take some of the money Markey funneled to Stryker for her solar panel company and repair some bridges?

        1. I’m sorry, but Republicans HAVE been concerned about infrastructure? When the hell was that? Eisenhower? The chutzpah on you sycophant trolls. Seriously.

              1. In case you hadn’t noticed, our nation is deeply in debt. Yes, they spent on the war, but what good is building infrastructure if it’s just going to get blown up?

                1. We fought two wars without sacrifice.

                  In fact, Bush threw a party for his rich buddies with the money.

                  Here’s a clue, BJ:

                  It’s the infrastructure we’re building in Iraq and Afghanistan, even though we “can’t afford” to build our own in the US, that’s getting blown up.

                2. They did find money for that war you talk about. And frankly, they can’t blow up more than a tiny portion of our infrastructure anyway. It’s not a valid argument against building it at all, which is pretty bizarre.

                    1. At least Johnson instituted the 10% income-tax surcharge to pay for his unpopular war in Vietnam.  But that’s being fiscally responsible, something the Republicans are not, obviously.

                    2. Or two, actually.

                      One is, know what you’re talking about before you talk about it; and two, remember what it was you said just a few minutes ago so you don’t look foolish when you claim that you didn’t say something that you did, in fact, say.

                    3. and it’s just the same as before. We were talking about infrastructure, and you said it’s not much good to build it if we can’t  Now you’re trying to say that you were saying something else. You’re like the Black Knight refusing to admit defeat.

        1. And there is validity to that approach, that you will don the best you can within the limits of what your voters will accept. Sam Rayburn was a great speaker but he gave the oil gazillionaires what they demanded because otherwise someone else would be in his seat doing there bidding, and doing less formthe country.

          So yes Bennet is backing the flavor of the month and speaking up for deficit reduction even though he certainly knows enough economics to understand it’s the worst thing he can do. Because the alternative is someone who actually believes in eliminating the deficit and that would be worse.

          That’s our political system. Bennet can only win because he flipped on this. I’m hoping he’ll “reconsider” this once he’s won.

    2. Bennet is one Senator, in a Democratic majority of 59.  Democrats could pass the legislation without up to 9 of their colleagues, but Republicans are blocking anything that might make Obama look accomplished and they only need 40 of the 41 votes they already have in order to do that.

      Who’s blocking legislation?  Republican’ts.

        1. All they have is “no”.

          And you know Senate rules as well as I do – if the minority party wants to stop all business in the Senate (and Republicans do, so they can get their power back), they can do so with 40 votes.

    3. when I am fortunate enough to travel to places with mass transit I use it and it is almost always heavily used. Europe, Eastern US, even Denver

  3. Bennet is so terrorized by you silly Teabaggers and the furor you’ve whipped the country into that he caved on something important.

    Context here was infrastructure and additional stimulus spending to (a) fix it and (b) create jobs.

    Any reason to think that the next time the silly Teabaggers create a furor that the incumbent junior senator won’t “cave on something important?” [YOUR words, not mine.]

    Question: Does this fall under the category “With Friends Like This…”? OR is this a case of “That’s the Way It Is/Was/Will Be…”?

    1. I know who, as a group, I will hold responsible. And that is the Romanoff Kool-Aid drinkers who

      1. Convinced themselves that a hypercautious technocrat DLC grad was somehow more progressive than Bennet, and

      2. Having created a false hero, proceeded to hold the incumbent Democrat to that false standard, demoralizing the base when he doesn’t deliver.

      I’d love to talk to you about why Bernie Sanders didn’t kill health care reform over a public option either, but what would be the point? You’ve already passed your sniveling little judgment.

      1. it will be because more people voted for Buck. Full stop.

        Why might that be? Candidate explanations:

        –Bennet concentrated on social issues (“Buck is too extreme…”) instead of on what voters cared about, viz. the economy, including putting forth some concrete ideas on how to address unemployment.

        –Independents/Unaffilated voters swung towards Buck instead of Bennet, possibly because of the reason above or the one below.

        –Bennet was a dismal failure as a candidate, which can be read as concentrating on issues that were beside the point OR as coming across as (to quote one of his own staffers) “a cardboard candidate who isn’t even good looking.”

        –Bennet failed to reach out/persuade Romanoff supporters to support him. Bennet would have to lose by a very small margin for this to be relevant in the least.

        IF you think comments in this blog are swaying large numbers of voters, well, comrade, I can understand your reference to Kool-Aid(r)–a subject you brought up, not I.

        [I do wonder, sometimes, why a certain claque of users of this site simply cannot bring themselves to click Post without including some attempt at personal insult (“sniveling little judgment,” “idiot,” “moron,” etc.), as if these made the least difference to anyone at all–the target, other readers–or shed any light on any subject of interest. The only impact is to shed light, such as it is, on the typists! But, whatever…]

  4. Sadly, not.  The ideology has been winning, and will continue to win for the foreseeable future.  It’s the country as inherited by our children that will lose.

  5. Just picked that up today from David Brooks.  He was pointing out that conservative or liberal, California’s governors and leaders for some 40 years had a progressive-market economy.

    Both sides understood that investing in public infrastructure pays off big time.  Once upon a time, the finest colleges and universities, huge water projects, freeways in 1948, and so on.  

    It’s money well spent and that pays great dividends.  Compare that to armaments.  

        1. Ha ha, you know that, too.

          Actually, the matter of public sector wages is one piece of the puzzle that is The Failed State of California.  

          Brooks was focused on the changed politics of what was mutual understanding that state investment was good for business.  That both Pubs and Dems understood this and supported the expenditures.

          There was an editorial in the paper here a month ago courtesy of Cato or II, I don’t recall which, which looked at the wages of public employees.  They said what I’ve been saying for years: The old social agreement of low-ish wages for public sector employees was compensated by job security and good retirement.  Somehow, over the years, public sector employees kept the security and retirement and moved their wages to at least that of, and often more, of the private sector.

          I saw the old guard with my mother as a teacher.  I saw the new guard with my sister as a sheriff officer.  She was WAY overpaid and benefited when you figure that she was, in essence, a mid level manager.  No mid level manager in private business would have made as much, to say nothing of the job security and early retirement.  

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

179 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!