E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Carolyn Kaster / AP
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman John Mica said he is "fairly confident" the House GOP's bill can pass.
Updated at 2:15 p.m. ET
After years of procrastination, the White House and Congress have suddenly boosted a long-term plan to improve the nation's roads, bridges and transit systems to the top of the political agenda.
This week, the House and Senate are set to take up vastly different bills providing a blueprint for shoring up the nation's aging transportation system. Lawmakers are driven in part by a desire to show voters a major accomplishment in an election year when regard for Congress is at rock bottom. They are pitching the bills as jobs generators, although it may be more accurate to say they preserve jobs that might otherwise be lost if Congress doesn't find a way to keep highway and transit programs solvent.
President Barack Obama chimed in Monday with his own plan to spend nearly half a trillion dollars over six years on transportation infrastructure. But the president's plan is much grander than anything Congress is likely to go along with that the administration has swung its weight behind the Senate bill, a bipartisan plan that more modestly proposes to spend $109 billion over less than two years.
Recommended: Congress weighs GOP payroll tax gambit
House Republicans have proposed spending about $260 billion over nearly five years, but the bill is drawing fire from so many quarters that the ability of Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, to muscle the measure through to passage is in doubt. To build support with tight-fisted tea partiers for such a large spending bill, GOP leaders added sweeteners designed to appeal to conservatives, such as expanded offshore oil and gas drilling, approval of the controversial Keystone pipeline and a requirement that federal employees pay more toward their pensions.
The bill's treatment of mass transit programs has riled urban lawmakers, including New York and Chicago metro-area Republicans who may wind up voting against the bill. It eliminates the guarantee of a portion of federal gasoline and diesel tax revenues for transit, leaving programs vulnerable to future budget cuts.
"If you are a Republican from a city that has mass transit, how can you vote for this and go home?" said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., who is sponsoring an amendment to restore a portion of fuel tax revenues for transit. Seven Republicans have co-sponsored the amendment.
And six GOP lawmakers have sent a letter to Boehner and other GOP leaders saying the transportation bill will stand a better chance of passage if provisions opening leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil drilling are dropped. The provisions, which include opening the East and West coasts and portions of the Florida Gulf Coast, as well as ANWR, to drilling, are supposed to help pay for transportation programs. But the Congressional Budget Office estimates they would raise less than $5 billion over 10 years for the federal government.
"Opening ANWR to drilling as a means to pay for the transportation bill is neither reasonable nor realistic," said Rep. Charles Bass, R-N.H., author of the letter.
The bill also eliminates locally popular federal programs that help underwrite bike paths, bike lanes and pedestrian safety projects, including the Safe Routes to School program, in order to concentrate funding on highways.
"The House bill takes us back to the dark ages," Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, a former Republican congressman, told reporters Monday. He said he doesn't expect any Democrats to vote for the bill.
"I hope there will be lots of opportunities to amend it," LaHood said, to increase funding for transit and other needs. "Without amendments, this bill isn't going to pass."
But Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and co-author of a major portion of the bill, said he is "fairly confident" based on his discussions with GOP lawmakers that the bill can pass.
"This is going to be the No. 1 job creator and economic generator bill of this entire session (of Congress)," he said. "I think members will rally behind what may be their last chance of getting jobs and a responsible blueprint for dealing with our crumbling infrastructure."
There will be changes made to the bill through a leadership-backed amendment that will address GOP members' concerns, Mica said.
"The bill isn't done," he said. "The final bill will be something conservatives can be very proud of because it has dramatic reforms and measures that people have called for for years."
But House leaders are being squeezed from both sides. If they give too much ground they risk losing support on the right. The Club for Growth, a free-market, anti-tax group influential with fiscal conservatives, and the political arm of the conservative Heritage Foundation have objected to both the House and the Senate bills. Conservatives say the bills spend too much money and transportation programs should be paid for using only fuel tax revenue. Democrats and moderate Republicans, meanwhile, oppose sharp cuts to popular programs.
GOP leaders said Tuesday they intend to divide the transportation bill into three bills. Their strategy is to allow lawmakers who oppose the transit changes or oil drilling provisions to vote again those portions, while still supporting the heart of the bill. Afterward, the House clerk will stitch the three bills together.
Floor debate could begin on the House bill as soon as Wednesday, with a final vote expected Friday. Lawmakers had filed 293 amendment requests with the House Rules Committee by Monday's 11 a.m. deadline. The committee decides which amendments can be offered during debate.
Debate began on the Senate bill late last week with a strongly bipartisan procedural vote of 85-11, and is continuing this week. The bill is co-authored by Sens. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and James Inhofe, R-Okla., ideological opposites who have managed to overcome substantial disagreement in an effort to pass a bill.
But Democrats, who control the Senate, have struggled to come up with the money to pay for the plan. Several GOP senators have signaled that their support for the bill could turn to opposition if changes aren't made to satisfy their fiscal concerns.
Like the House, the Senate has been hampered by a shortfall between current spending levels and fuel tax revenues, which are the main source of funding for transportation programs. Reductions in driving due to the economy as well as more fuel-efficient vehicles have lowered tax revenues. The budget office projects the trust fund that pays for highway and transit programs will go broke sometime in the 2013 federal budget year.
Without an infusion of cash from somewhere, the Transportation Department could be forced to slow down reimbursements to states for highway construction and other transportation projects. That, in turn, could lead to thousands of lost jobs.
Lawmakers could resolve much of their money woes by increasing the 18.4 cent-a-gallon gas tax and the 24.4 cent-a-gallon diesel tax, but that's politically unpalatable in an economy where unemployment remains high and many Americans feel financially insecure.
Indecision about how to shore up the Highway Trust Fund has long stymied efforts to pass a transportation plan. The last long-term plan expired in 2009. Congress has kept programs going through a series of eight short-term extensions. The current extension expires March 31.
Leave a Comment:
About time, I've been thinking since the recession started...why not get people to work renovating infrastructure?
Oh, and you want to pay for it? Cut foreign aid to Middle Eastern countries that hate us.
Win / Win.
Certainly would have been better than the bailouts and the first half-dozen stimulus (aka "jobs") bills.
The initial stimulus bills were SUPPOSED to include lots of transportation stuff at the state level, but states were so broke they had to use the money just to keep from shutting down...
The last so called infrastrucutre bill morphed into a leave no public employee or unemployed worker behind...billions to save government jobs and provide two years (are you kidding me, two years?) of unemployment insurance...
Hey guess what, if you have been out of work for two years maybe its you....
Test
Renovating infrastructure doesn't help too much. We need to add to our infrastructure if we want to make a difference.
Well our current infrastructure is aging. Our power grid is inefficient, our bridges are on the verge of collapse, etc.
All of these cause additional costs as they age. Replacing them creates / maintains jobs, and lowers operating costs. Letting roads and bridges in particular continue to decay will only detract from our recovery.
Remember the other week when the Gov't approved two new nuke reactors? Stuff like that needs to happen more.
Same old story every day....
House submits legislation, Senate puts the legilsation into "committee" or Reid shelves the legislation, Senate drafts "their" version of the legislation, House refuses to acknowledge the legislation, legislation dies a slow death.
Yep, no wonder the Congressional approval rating is in the dirt.
Wait a minute, Mr. Obama will say this "infrastructure bill" will get the economy moving again even though it is BILLIONS below what he has reqeusted to SPEND, however the Republicans are to blame and the Party of NO since their legislation was revoked/trashed by the Senate Democrats who will write their own legislation. Sheeeesh, another campaign remark by Mr. Obama. And what kind of jobs will this legislation SAVE ? Oh, yeah......unions or non-documented workers.
Here comes the Obama "Truth Sayers".
The stimulus worked, hence the gains in GDP and the drop in the unemployment rate.
Republicans want to stall the economy with their spending cuts.
We do NOT need to add to our infrastructure. We need to REPLACE, REPAIR, and RENOVATE. Why build new highways when the old ones are falling apart? Why not replace our electric grid with new, updated wire and switches (oops, forgot, it's not ecologically sound), maintain what we have? Do we really need a sixth or seventh or eighth lane of highway or do we need to repair or replace the 5 potholed, fractured lanes we already have?
Give me a break on "new, new, new!" Let's "fix, fix, fix" which will still employ people.
Better yet, let's build light rail systems instead of more highways. Employs people to build them and more people to run them.
Congress, unable to act like responsible adults, does temporary spending measures which just push things further into the future.
There will have to be an increase in taxes at some point in the future. There will have to be spending cuts at some point in the future. Congress needs to grow up and get things done.
What is really funny is that most people don't understand that the Keystone pipeline is not intended to get Canadian oil to the US, its so it can be easily shipped overseas. The Canadians don't want to run the pipeline to their West coast or their East Coast, so they want us to run it down to Texas, so it can be shipped through the Gulf. That is the reality of the Keystone pipeline.
If you believe the stimulus worked it is no wonder you voted for obama. PT Barnum said "there is a sucker born every minute." with regard to obama voters, it was millions of suckers. ANYONE BUT obama IN 2012!
mcpaddywack, so the CBO and everyone else is wrong and you are the only one that is right.....right??
Transportation is on top of Obama agenda. Really?
Dumbies who voted for him have no clue.
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/us-bridges-roads-built-chinese-firms-14594513?tab=9482930?ion=1206853&playlist=14594944
Eric-913730
"The stimulus worked, hence the gains in GDP and the drop in the unemployment rate.
Republicans want to stall the economy with their spending cuts."
The stupid keep voting for the stupid. See previous post.
Eric-913730......."The stimulus worked....."
Erico....are you still on your same ol page of remarks ? Time to turn your sheet over.
The Stimulus DID NOT WORK according to Mr. Biden in HIS OWN WORDS....the Vice President of the United States of America:
And, Mr. Biden said the FAILURE BLAME was on the Republicans. Maybe this is where the Liberals got their BLAME GAME started.
The VERY top of this administrations objectives should be.....you guessed it.....JOBS. Wait a minute, Mr. Obama has had a "laser beam" on JOBS since 21 January 2009 and that is when he started his re-election campaign.
This nation is a minimum 30 years behind in transportation. Shame on us all for not demanding more and better infrastructure. If we had had the foresight, things would be a lot better now because of it. Never to late though I say. This country could engineer SOMETHING more space age. Traveling and commerce will always have their down sides and inconvienences BUT WE COULD HAVE MADE HUGE ADVANCES IN SPEED AND COST. All I'm saying is we have sold ourselves short when it comes to transportation. Criminal.
@ldo - I'm really starting to believe that you don't read the article just post based on the title. The SENATE's bill is all but passed with bi-partisan support(85-11) not to mention it was done LAST WEEK. Anyway,
It pains me that our so called "democracy" can't get there act together and do something "right" for a change. Figure out a way to pay for it without adding it to the debt and do it in a way that is responsible and fair. I am a real believer in that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Some are going to get mad but in the end they will still benefit not to mention you can never make EVERYONE happy as they will always find something wrong. It's time that our "elected" officials did something right for a change.
The USA is currently a GASOLINE & Ethanol EXPORTER...
Within a decade the USA will be EXPORTING - LNG...
Instead of chasing green energy projects: That use more energy than a comparable gas vehicle and buying 'Rare Earths' from China...
The world is converting to LNG and mixtures of fuel using LNG addatives. Qatar is currently flying commercial jets using fuel made with LNG...
The technology is here now and the existing mechanical technicians can work on them, with little additional training...
Thailand started this conversion a decade ago and now most of their mass transit and shipping systems are NG powered. The filling stations are spread across the country and many people are now converting their existing vehicles...
If the USA did this conversion and started using rail instead of long haul trucking. The USA would save even more energy and also extend the life of the existing US road/bridge systems...
BTY - According to the EIA - The USA has over a 500+year supply of 'hydrated metyhane', located in the US - Continental Shelf...
How about some high-speed rail so people have an alternative to the automobile? And I'd love to bypass the airlines as a means of transportation too.
Why dont we just spend all that money on pensions for public employees? thats what we really need.
No point in arguing with people on whether the stimulus worked or not. All I would like to suggest to those who think the stimulus didnt work is to read about what is happening in most of Europe where they implemented austerity measures (focusing on deficit reduction) exactly what the GOP suggested. The only country that appears to have any growth in GDP is Germany who didnt suffer from a housing bubble because they had appropriate regulations (something that the GOP hates) in place to prevent such a financial fiasco while the other countries didnt.
Put it on the American Express card.
Debt Clock tics.
Fix roads and bridges, OK.
Public transit (rail and buses) = money pit where politicians throw taxpayers money.
Warren Buffet has been buying up railroads for a couple years now, did you not think he was going to be rewarded for being Obama's cheerleader?
Warren Buffet One progressive liberal tax cheat pandering to the Marxist in chief. Sorta gets confusing now does it not?
Thats right...public transportation projects mean we pay and they ride for free or at a discount that makes the service unprofitable...
Uh...our mass transit in MN does well. But I can't speak for other states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_Transit_%28Minnesota%29
I read the "Funding" portion in the link you supplied.
Doesn't say anything about what percentage of the cost is covered by fares. I don't mind paying some taxes toward public transit, as I benefit when fewer vehicles are on the road. However, in many instances, the riders are having their fares subsidized by the public at large in an unfair proportion. It stated Vehicle Sales Tax as one source of funding. So how does someone in rural Minnesota buying a truck for the farm benefit from someone in Minneapolis riding a bus? Why should he subsidize their fare?
Public transportation and rail are affordable methods of travel that save on roads in the long term.
Nothing this administration has done is "marxist", name one.
Yep, Minnesota's mass transit should work very well since the roads remain clear during the winter. /sarcasm
Washington State's mass transit is getting hammered by folks NOT PAYING their fares, so the cost is levied on.....yeah.....the taxpayers even though the taxpayers have already been hammered by taxes to support a not so used system. Oh, yeah, gotta have those taxpayer paid for bike lanes.
Wait a minute....Washington State just passed legislation for a $100/year TAX on ELECTRIC VEHICLES because the State is losing money on the vehicles NOT USING enough gas therefore, less gas taxes for the State's coffers. Wow, maybe Mr. Obama or his "Go Green" team should visit Washington State's legislators.
And, legislation was just passed which allows all cities to raise car tab fees to pay for.....ANYTHING.
We have these things called snowplows.
And with 250k+ riders a day around the Minneapolis area? I'd call that working well.
@hs321:
Source (http://metrotransit.org/about-metro-transit.aspx)
Ruken - Why mess up someones delusional satisfaction with made up information with your accurate facts? An education just ruins some of these people's postings, but for others - well it just doesn't matter.
Lets see American economy in the toilet and then the topic of the day is transportation? This is just one small part of what is now rotten in America. You need to look to the White House to establish blame.
Especailly the ones run by the republicans...32 years of tax cuts and out of control spending is not Obamas fault...its yours for electing the dummies that preceeded him...Obama has his own issues but causing todays economic problems isn't one of them...
Jacques--I am not as cynical as you. Transportation is one of the main functions of government.
Rick--Republicans deserve some blame, but Obama is far, far worse than any of the republican presidents when it comes to spending money we don't have. He may not have caused all of the problems today, but he isn't doing much to fix them either.
Rick,
I'll be fair and say Obama did not create all of the mess we are in now. And very little of anything he has done has had time to have any significant affect, and won't for some time.
I just ask that you be consistent and fair, and if the economy does start improving, make sure you don't credit Obama with most of it, as much of the steps taken to save and turn the economy around were started before Obama took office.
And what steps might that be and who took them??? Tax cuts and 2 wars are not steps to save the economy....
Alex...Bush and Democratically controlled Congress took the first steps after the crash in 2008, and passed measures so that when Obama took over he would have resources in place to work with from the beginning.
In case you never took Economics 101, tax increases, in the long run, reduce revenues to government and hurt the economy. Tax decreases create more revenue and help the economy in the long run.
"Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government." – John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964
“First of all, he’s right. Normally, you don’t raise taxes in a recession, which is why we haven’t and why we’ve instead cut taxes. So I guess what I’d say to Scott is – his economics are right. You don’t raise taxes in a recession. We haven’t raised taxes in a recession. …. We have not proposed a tax hike for the wealthy that would take effect in the middle of a recession. Even the proposals that have come out of Congress – which by the way were different from the proposals I put forward – still wouldn’t kick in until after the recession was over. So he’s absolutely right, the last thing you want to do is raise taxes in the middle of a recession because that would just suck up – take more demand out of the economy and put business further in a hole.” – President Obama, 2009
I don't see either side coming to terms with this problem. We need infrastructure (of which roads and bridges are the biggest pieces) and that will produce jobs (or at least maintain the present jobs). Figure out a way to pay for it, even if it means dumping all of the Bush era tax cuts, raising gas taxes and eliminating oil tax subsidies!
Eliminate oil subsidies and stop giving millions (billions?) in foreign aid to countries like Pakistan.
How about eliminating "green energy" subsidies as well?
So we can go to having air quality like China? No thanks.
China isn't throwing solar panels into landfills, as we are with Solyndras.
Solyndra was a bad idea. Granted. But renewable energy is not. It was the company that was flawed, not the idea.
Ruken makes a very good point. I have to assume that you are young hs321, because there was a time when our air quality wasn't all that good. China and India throw it our faces every time we try to bring them to the tables to talk about reducing pollution. We built our industry on pollution and we eventually realized we were killing ourselves. Why do you think we created things like the EPA in the first place? Things have gotten better and now people want to go back to the same old self destructive methods of the past because they were cheaper and easier. That is just laziness.
China is a leader in producing solar panels because Ronald Reagan stopped investment in solar research that was started by Jimmy Carter. The leaders of the Chinese solar industry have admitted as much. We would not need to try and give breaks to companies like Solyndra if Reagan had done the smart thing and invest in the future.
Conservatives, if you want to go in slow motion that is your choice, and you are welcome to it, but it's time that you get out of the fast lane with your horse and buggy mentality, stop blocking traffic and let the rest of us begin to make some progress. You aren't going to get ahead in the 21st century using early 20th century technologies.
China subsidized thier solar panel industry and dumped them on the market at prices noone could compete with specifically to destroy any competetion. Solyndra got caught in the tidal wave. Those communists seem to have capitalism figured out.You see in the final analysis a true capitalist really doesn't get a hoot about liberty.They call safety and workers right to a fair wage excessive regulation.So keep fighting righties for insurance companies right to suck up to your boss and determine your carrrier and benefits.Maybe they should start deciding what auto and home owners insurance company you use also.
Iowa Guy..."I have to assume that you are young hs321..." LOL!!!
I have two degrees, one in Environmental Management and one in Geophysics. I did a term paper on how implementing expensive air pollution controls in Los Angeles paid for itself in reduced medical costs and increased productivity.
Many younger people would be surprised to know that a great deal of the environmental regulations that were passed in the early days were pushed by corporations like 3M. 3M didn't push regulations because it cared about the environment, but because it realized that forcing it's smaller competitors to try and implement pollution reducing infrastructure and meet disposal regulations would drive them out of business. Simple economies of scale. Side benefit: PR. Many consumers bought in to it.
Our failing infrastructure has been ignored for far to long. Look to South Korea for inspiration. Most homes in South Korea have fiber optic hook ups to the internet because South Korea sees the internet as a part of their infrastructure for the future. Proportionally they spend almost twice as much as the United States on infrastructure.
The problem is that after WWII we had the best infrastructure in the world. But we got lazy and decided to coast on it, instead of keeping it up. Now it is falling apart and our infrastructure is looking more like that of a 2nd world country than a 1st world country.
It would be great if Congress could find a reasonable way to offset the cost of rebuilding our roads. Which is only a small part of what needs to be fixed with our infrastructure. However, I have very little faith in our politicians to do the right thing and I don't like the idea of ruining the environment to turn a quick buck.
The Keystone pipeline should be dead and buried at this point. If we need Canada's oil that badly, why are we not building a refinery in Wisconsin or Montana? Why is it so vital that it has to go all the way to Texas? Is that that we don't really want the oil and it is easier to ship overseas from Texas as the oil refineries there are all built on the coast?
I don't want to see gas prices go up any more than anyone else. But it makes a heck of lot more sense than some of the idea's that they are floating out there to pay for building roads.
See comment 10.1 below reply...
This isn't rocket science. You spend money to maintain and or improve our infrastructure and jobs are created. There's a ripple effect as materials are needed for these projects. The tea party acts like this is some kind of huge scam. Get real people. You need to maintain your infrastructure. It's a simple concept.
It is about frickin' time! Why wasn't this done years ago when the recession started! I've been complaining about this all along, but the Teabaggers are so tight fisted that they wouldn't let hardly anything pass, certainly not of this magnitude. However, isn't it ironic or perhaps unsurprising that all of a sudden the Republicans have "got religion" and are now wanting to spend money to create job? Hmm, must be an election year. Politicians: yuck! Extremist politicians: double yuck, puke, vomit.
this is not a left thing or a right thing, this is an American thing. we need to improve and add to our infrastructure. that's something we can all agree on. this bill will pass one way or another, since we're in an election year. who is going to say no to jobs in THIS economy? no one. the right will want concessions and the left will want concessions. so what else is new? everyone will have to give a little so that the greater good is achieved. right now, we're on a race to the bottom. we should stop being the world's police force and start taking care of our citizens.
Traditionally infrastructure has been a Republican main stay. President Eisenhower did the bulk of the national freeway system which allowed commerce to spread to more rural areas and was responsible for the economic boom of the 60's. This current crop of Republicans are more concerned with building roads and highways in Iraq or Afghanistan than here at home. In fact, they have been deliberately dragging their feet on anything that would help the economy because that is their primary issue to run on in the pending elections. So if they make sure the economy stays bad they can regain the White House. Everyone knows that. But should they regain the White House their stance will change in a New York minute.
Obama's number is probably more realistic than the rep's number on spending to fix the infrastructure. The rep's are throwing out bread crumbs thinking it just enough to get relected. They have to be real stupid to think that now the american public is going to forgive them and vote for them. The democrats in the senate are just as bad. Both sides still don't realize that the American people should have come first on their priority list. I'm still voting against everyone of these incumbents in the upcoming elections.
Iowa Guy..."The Keystone pipeline should be dead and buried at this point."
The area where the Keystone pipeline is to be installed is already covered with over 40,000 miles of pipeline. So if the environment is the issue, why all the hoopla now, instead of years, even decades ago?
"why are we not building a refinery in Wisconsin or Montana?" There are refineries in Montana and Wisconsin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_refineries), but they do not have the capacity to refine the oil from Canada. New, economically viable ones cannot be built due to environmental regulations. So we have a choice, the U.S. gets the oil or it is piped to the West Coast and shipped to China. The oil is going to be sold and used, regardless of where it is refined, so you tell me who wins and who loses if it goes to China and/or India?
Its a great plan to invest in Infrastructure. By using part of the US Military budget we could build with existing funds. Many of our US Interstates are designated as Military Routes. This is how Eisenhower created an entire system of interstate which millions travel today. Drop Afghanistan and building in Iraq, bring the money home to the taxpayers.
There is no money to bring home, last year the ENTIRE defense budget was less than $800 billion, while our deficit was $1.3 trillion, so even if we spend $0 on the military we would still have to borrow half a trillion dollars a year just to fund what we already have.
I can't speak for anyone else, however it would be refreshing to see some improvements to our infrastructure for a change. Not to mention something we could actually see, touch, feel or use become of our hard earned tax money we so diligently pay every year!
Let's see if this accually happens, I for one will not hold my breath. After all it is an election year!
Yeah. I would like to know where our tax dollars go!!! Oh now i remember. obama gives it away in the form of free government cheeeeeeezwhiz! what an awful president. ANYONE BUT obama IN 2012!
The transportation bill needs to account for the 350% increase in population every 80 years. Unless santorum or rubio becomes president. Then china will be having between 4 & 7 children per family & there will be 110B to 300B people, up from 7B today & 2B in 1930.
The Federal Government has no business in transportation. All the Federal DOT does is funnel money from states with more money to states with less money. I have never in my life been driving down the road and seen a USDOT crew working on a road, so let the states manage their own roads.
As long as they are only using the gas tax money and not borrowing money go for it. Thats what the gas tax is supposed to be for, infrastructure.
Gas prices up 83% under the awful president obama. he blocks drilling costing people jobs and subsequently costing all americans at the pump. his presidency is a disaster. ANYONE BUT obama IN 2012!
he blocks drilling???? links please.
http://newsok.com/obama-threatens-to-veto-keystone-oil-drilling/article/feed/348159
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/post-carbon/2010/12/obama_administration_will_ban.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/12/obama-offshore-drilling-m_n_643568.html
http://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Obama-suspends-offshore-exploratory-drilling-1539068.php
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-22/u-s-deepwater-oil-drilling-ban-lifted-today-by-new-orleans-federal-judge.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/environment/2010-12-02-oildrill02_ST_N.htm
"Moose8684" offers old links that are not true any longer:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/04/obama-offshore-drilling_n_804068.html
A house of lies is the same as a house of cards....The truth will eventually bring the house down.
The specific areas that the Repukes want to open to drilling....ANWAR et. al. will never get past the Senate....they are dead on arrival.
Inclusion of other controversial aspects that the Prez does not favor are also massive poison pills within this bill.
McPaddywack forgets the reason that gasoline currently is climbing is SPELLED "IRAN" AND "HEDGE FUNDS/LARGE INVESTMENT BANKS"....the cost of futures is currently being bid up the BANKS AND HEDGE FUND TRADING DESKS. Another spelling phrase should be mentioned here: "SIMPLETON TEABAGGERS"
So what you are saying is that Obama did not block any drilling? I never said that his blocks were still in place. All he asked for was evidence that Obama had blocked oil drilling, and I provided that. You cannot blame Congress for an executive order placing a moratorium on off shore drilling, nor can you say it didn't happen because it was overturned in court.
Mcpaddywackjob is a troll. Beware.
Some of those links are 2 to 3 years old.....
Obama is talking about opening up offshore oil reserves now and you people are saying that he is blocking drilling???
Listen to that, opening the United States Oil Reserves....
Did you ever think that day will come so soon?
First of all opening up oil reserves is not the same as drilling for oil. Second, I never said that Obama is blocking drilling right now, at least not in public, with prices going up it would be suicide to openly oppose drilling in an election year. You said that Obama does not block drilling and I simply showed you that he has, just because he is not doing it in an election year means nothing. Some of the links are 2-3 years old, but last time I checked Obama was president 2-3 years ago.
Dude do you even know what the word Moratorium means???
A DELAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why did he delay oil production back in 2010??? Big a$$ oil spill in the gulf!!!!!!!!!
We needed to find out what happened, and why it happened, and how to prevent it in the future.
But if you really want to get into all these back and forth dumb ideas, why not trow in the there the theory going around in other websites about how this was done on purpose to drive up oil prices and stop cap and trade.
Also do you forget how our president got BP to give 20,000,000,000 dollars to gulf residents which it helped gulf residents recover faster.
Alex...Obama put an illegal (federal court ruling) drilling moratorium into affect and extended well beyond what was needed to "find out what happened, and why it happened, and how to prevent it in the future."
"our president got BP to give 20,000,000,000 dollars to gulf residents" Right. BP gave that money to avoid future legal costs. (Not that anyone in the U.S. ever sues anyone.)
But, but, .... but, when the Dems propose infastructure spending, it's just wasteful spending. Only when Reps. propose such measures do they create jobs. And I suppose back in the day, when Republicans proposed mandated health insurance for everybody, it created jobs, but the Affordable Health Care Act is "job-killing".
Take the following words from the language and the Republicans have nothing to say: failed policies, European socialism, moderate [just for their own], job killing, national debt, deficit spending, class warfare, war on religion, and maybe some more.
They seem to have dropped "family values" all by themselves.
The judge who declare it illegal had stocks in some of the companies doing the deep water drilling. Obama's administration said the only way to reopen the rigs was to show proof that they had safe shut off valves, and that is still LEGAL....
allows some rigs to resume operating if its owners can prove they have adequate plans to quickly shut down an out-of-control well, that blowout preventers have passed rigorous new tests, and that sufficient cleanup resources are on hand.
Yippee another payoff to the unions and more $200,000 per shovel ready jobs.
This is going to make the debt hole a lot deeper.
Roads and bridges are a local and state issue--not a job for the Federal Government. On average, each State collects 47.0 cents per gallon of gasoline to pay for this stuff. The Federal Government tacks on an additional 48.1 cents (53.1 cents for diesel) to run it through the Great and All-Knowing Bureaucrats in Washington D.C. to only have it shipped back to the States, anyway.
How about getting rid of the Department of Transportation and letting the States take care of this how they see fit?
The Federal Department of Transportation was created by LBJ in 1966. Somehow, for 200 years prior to that, we all managed to have roads and bridges without begging for the largess from the teat of Washington.
I have been saying the same thing for years. I live in Charlottesville, VA and near downtown there is a bridge where the sidewalk is so torn up that they had to fence it off because so many people had been injured. The fence was there so long that people started to complain about its appearance, the response was that they were waiting for federal money to fix it. They held a public hearing and decided the best course of action was to put up a $300,000 custom wrought iron fence until the USDOT gave them money to fix it. How does this make sense? They could have fixed the whole sidewalk for $500,000, so instead of spending local money, and finding a way to get the other $200k they just pissed away $300k. Oh by the way, they are holding money to build a new $12 million homeless shelter.
Another "Paulesk" fake Libertarian heard from....just exactly when did our Federal Interstate Highway System begin construction....can you spell Dwight Eisenhower?
Your idea that highway construction is a local issue or even "state" is so backward of an idea that it's laughable....do you own a horse and buggy?? Just asking.
The Highway Trust Fund was created for a reason....one which you obviously don't understand... In the meantime, stay off our roads and highways that WE PAID FOR....and quit using our other "communally financed/owned" assets.
Who owns the roads? Who maintains them? Don't give me that BS, you are clearly the one who does not understand. The Federal Government does not "fund" highways, the people do. So how much sense does it make for citizens of a state to pay federal income taxes, filter it through a massive bureaucracy, to then turn around and give it back to the states with some skimmed off the top for the states to then work on the roads? There are no USDOT crews out there working on roads, they have no infrastructure to facilitate working on roads, the only infrastructure they have is to distribute money.
The USDOT exists for one reason and one reason only, to extract money from the citizens of the states, so that federal politicians can brag about bringing home the bacon during election years, and to keep the states dependent on the federal government for funding.
iheard...
And another History-Challenged Liberal squawks from the Peanut Gallery...
The Federal Interstate Highway System was originally the "National System of Interstate and Defense Highways".
"Defense" being the key word there (and kind of an odd word—don't you think?)
It was established during the height of the Cold War to ensure that there were adequate routes of evacuation and military transportation in case of nuclear war.
I'm from Jersey. Somehow things like the Holland and Lincoln Tunnels; Brooklyn, George Washington and Verrazano Bridges were built without a Federal Department of Transportation.
Other than the Brooklyn Bridge, I doubt any them were created to support horse traffic.
Moose…
My favorite all-time quote:
“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.”
A lot of people attribute it to Alexis de Tocquville, but that’s a different story.
"Diowhatever"
You might find this interesting
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/interstate/interstatemyths.htm
Moosekatier and the other tea pot taliban pointy hat clan who only want to fund what THEY THINK ARE THINGS WORTH SPENDING MONEY ON....well that's an idea...clearly that idea does not hold a lot of weight in that you folks ARE THE MINORITY PARTY, LOST THE WHITE HOUSE IN 2008 and are going down in flames again this fall...
You'll still be whining here with the same old odd ideas about socialists, kenyans, birth certificates, everything is unconstitutional in the modern world and the founders were a christian bunch who talked to jesus and then wrote the Constitution
Umm... I thought that using the gas tax for any infrastructure or transportation ended a while ago.... they are just using the taxes to buffer other things they don't have the money for right now. Especially in florida.... it's going to repay fraudulent loans that were taken out by a corrupt group of politicians. So no, we don't pay our gas tax and have it go to fixing roads.
x
"Like the House, the Senate has been hampered by a shortfall between current spending levels and fuel tax revenues, which are the main source of funding for transportation programs. Reductions in driving due to the economy as well as more fuel-efficient vehicles have lowered tax revenues." And with rising gas prices the demand will be less and less,and the economy will suffer also.
I've always said that transportation is the way of the future. I just hope it makes a difference in this day and age when everyone is hurting so badly (except those lovely Republicans. They just seem so disconnected from the real world)
Wait a minute... republicans are touting this infrastructure bill as a "job creation bill"? The republicans have been fighting tooth and nail to destroy jobs paid for by government and now they say this is the best way to create jobs? I agree it's a good way to create jobs in a recession and we should have been doing this a long time ago (like when Obama wanted to include it in the stimulus and repub's shot it down) but this sudden change of heart sure highlights the disingenuous positions of most republicans.
govt. looks for money but no mention of how it recently did a land swap with private corporation for land in ARIZONA that contains BILLIONS, yes BILLIONS, of millions worth of GOLD AND COPPER, the copper estimated to be be largest deposit in the U.S., for FREE! this is part of the COMMONS that belonged to us the AMERICAN TAXPAYERS, stolen from us by our GOVT. and given away! why isn't anyone Pi--ed about this?
No wonder everyone has had it with congress. What does opening up new areas for oil and gas exploration or the Keystone pipeline have to do with repairing infrastructure? Nothing. They couldn't get this stuff through one way so they are trying to back door it now. It has nothing to do with the merits of anything. Under rational rules these things would be considered separately.
Another Congressional initiative to refocus the idiot voters away from their total incompetence. We should all be proud of the job we've done as voters, we've continued our long history of keeping incumbents in place, doing their best at improving their own situations and not giving a tinkers damn about the country. Let's all try to act more responsibly and take Congress away from the incumbents starting in 2012.