COMMENTARY
 by Ben Adler |
The intransigence of Republicans in Congress has become so extreme that even bad results are now considered victories by Senate Democrats and the White House. Raising the debt ceiling—once a routine matter—while agreeing to painful spending cuts is the most prominent example. But a less-noticed one occurred last week.
The Surface Transportation law, which determines how the federal government will disburse transportation infrastructure funds, is normally passed every six years, and it expired in 2009. It used to be a fairly simple matter: tally up the revenues from the gasoline tax, give 20 percent to mass transit, the rest to roads, and send it back to the states. But those days are long gone. Here's what happened this time around:
We needed a transportation law that would meet the needs of our diverse population: more money for bicycling, walking and mass transit and more money for fixing crumbling roads and bridges—as well as a raise in the gas tax, which hasn't gone up for nearly two decades. So after taking office, President Obama, working with congressional Democrats, issued ambitious proposals to meet these goals. But Democrats were afraid to say how they would pay for them. Meanwhile, as Congress focused on other matters, such as health care reform, it passed a series of temporary extensions that just kept the current rules in place.
Then in 2010 Republicans took over the House of Representatives and went to work on a right wing fantasy bill: They would eliminate dedicated funding for mass transit and eliminate environmental reviews for new projects, and tack on irrelevant measures such as building the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline. Even the House Republican caucus was divided on this approach, and they could not get the votes to pass it. In the end, Senate Democrats and Republicans agreed on a compromise bill that would last two years, and the House passed a temporary extension of its own.
But in reconciling the two bills, Democratic negotiators conceded far too much. The final bill, set for President Obama's signature, will continue current overall funding levels, but it includes compromises with the House GOP’s reactionary agenda, including eliminating funding for repairing existing infrastructure; cutting funds for making walking and biking safer; the removal of a measure that would have let cash-strapped transit agencies use federal funding to keep operations going; and cutting tax deductions for mass transit by half.
And yet, both Sen. Barbara Boxer, the California Democrat who chairs the Environment and Public Works committee, and Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, are praising the bill, as if the mere act of continuing status quo funding is a great investment in economic stimulus. Boxer estimated it would save around 2.8 million jobs, through a mix of dollars for highway and transit construction, and federal loan guarantees to spur private investment.
But that estimate assumes that the funding will otherwise disappear. If you use the current funding level as a baseline, the bill creates no new jobs at all. The number of jobs being created "is basically zero,” said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic Policy Research. “We would lose jobs if nothing had passed and Congress let funding lapse. Even then Boxer and Obama are hugely exaggerating the effects.”
Smart growth advocates, too, say the bill is step in the wrong direction. “On the whole, the bill supports development styles which are losing popularity,” said Alex Dodds, spokeswoman for Smart Growth America. “Walkable downtowns are seeing a renaissance across the country, and transportation infrastructure is a huge part of that. The federal transportation bill could have supported these vibrant places much better. What the bill does support are projects that won't deliver as well on their investment.”
LaHood described the bill as bipartisan. That's true if you define bipartisanship as Democrats—who control the Senate and White House—moving in the direction Republicans want. “I am so glad that House Republicans met Democrats half way, as Senate Republicans did months ago,” said Boxer.
That sounds a lot like Democrats moving three quarters of the way toward Republicans. Not exactly a result for Dems to brag about.
Ben Adler is a contributing writer for The Nation and federal policy correspondent for Next American City.
Leave a Comment:
The reason Dems. can't achieve every goal we would like to is that we have a major problem as a party and as Americans. The problem is the GOP. The author should familiarize himself with the "Republican Party" and the concept of the Democratic process. It would be instructive. Then he wouldn't embarrass himself like this. Gobama 2012!
Government doesnt "really" create jobs , they put people to work on the taxpayer dime. eventually you run out of Tax money. We need real jobs by real companies so we have less people living off the government.
We need "less people living off the government?" Okay, so anyone involved in infrastructure maintenance and improvements is "living off the government" and so therefore, let's just let everything crumble and go to hell, right? And as for whether or not they are temporary or permanent, well, maintenance of infrastructure is an ongoing process--there will never become a time when we are "done" and nothing else will ever have to be done again. And yes, the government creates jobs. The government has millions of full time employees--civilian and in the military. Government contracts (civilian and military) create jobs which is why, for example, Congress will often fail to kill off weapons that the military says they don't need--because it will also kill somebody's job in a district or state. And government jobs that put people to work doing the work of the nation--doing things that have to be done ANYWAY is undoubtedly something that is worthwhile for everyone. And the wages those workers earn turn over in the economy again and again and help other businesses and workers in the private sector. And the supply and equipment companies in the PRIVATE SECTOR benefit from ongoing (never ending) maintenance of infrastructure. AND kicking it up a notch when people are unemployed does help those individuals go back to work sooner rather than sitting home collecting unemployment--and it spurs growth in the private sector and helps to pull economies out of recession sooner.
This article is a hit piece on Democrats by a fellow with his head in the clouds and no actual reference to actual reality. It's an idealist lecturing and chastising and demonizing Democrats for the inability to attain the politically impossible. Is this fellow auditioning to replace Rachel Maddow?
the government doesnt create jobs, it creates more people working on the tax dole. eventually the tax money runs out and so do the jobs. we need real jobs by real companies, not more government jobs ( ask europe and greece how thats working for them). one more point. Its not a republican or democrat issue (the majority of washington politicians have been in power for DECADES) both parties are to blame. there have been demo controlled house and senate and repo controlled house and senate. and the people get screwed . THE HOUSE AND SENATE ARE INEPT as are most states government. this country prospered in the 50s and 60s because there was common ground (compromise). Not anymore. the democrats are controlled by the extreme left and the republicans are controlled by the extreme right. The majority of people are alittle left of center or a little right of center.. vote out ALL INCUMBANTS/
I don't understand the above comments. As far as I know, all infrastructure projects are totally bid out to private companies to win and do the work. The government doesn't actually build the project. Maybe there are exceptions to this, like within National Parks, or something, but, the GOP and the Democratic Party should have pushed new jobs forward and in not doing so, this Op-Ed by Ben Adler is justified, in my opinion.
I strongly support French style TGV bullet trains, German ICE bullet trains, solar, wind farms, and lots of mass transit system such as electric hybrid buses. I think the writer Ben Adler had some points that are worth pondering. This transportation bill is better than nothing but why are we not fully funding mass transit systems all across America? The GOP is living in an alternate universe, moving so far too the right winged ditch that it can not stay on the centrist roadway to govern. The sad part is that many Democrats are also not grasping the scope of the energy problem facing America. The BRIC countries and the Asian-Pacific countries will be producing at least 200 million vehicles during this decade. Peak world oil production has also been reached in all likelihood. If Iran and Israel for instance decide to shoot ballistic missiles, bomb, or by terrorist acts destroy the oil infrastructure in the Persian Gulf or disrupt the supertankers flowing through the narrow straits of Hormuz we can expect instant $200 per barrel oil.
Imagine a Congress in crisis with $8 or even $10 per gallon fuel? Shipping rates go trough the roof stifling commerce and agriculture. Our entire economy would start to shut down because Americans use twice as much fuel per capita as a German. The German population would simply stop driving and ride the trains leaving the fuel for the tractors of farmers. Americans start realizing that Germans built those ICE commuter bullet trains and the French built those TGV bullet trains for a really good reason.
Here is what would happen in America with $8 per gallon fuel that would not go down? We would bring German mass transit systems and French bullet trains here in America. We would close down the interstate system in densely populated areas and start building TGV bullet trains on them. No one could afford to drive internal combustion cars on long trips any longer. We would probably electrify much of our heavier traveled 140,000 miles of railways where diesel locomotives run today. We could power these electric railways with smaller nuclear plants spread out along the lines, similar to how the U.S. navy powers its carriers. We would of course start building electric cars and electric vehicles on a WW II mass mobilization scale. We would also build solar and wind farms on a huge scale.
Sound far fetched or farcical? All it would take is Israel and Iran to slug it out with ballistic missiles and what seems farcical today could well be America's reality tomorrow. If Iran gets a nuclear weapon expect Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia to follow suit with nuclear programs the same day. A ballistic missile arms race and military arms race will sweep the region putting it all on a hair trigger status. These countries will also invest in ballistic missiles in great quantity and in chemical weapons perhaps even biological or germ warfare weapons. Even poor countries that could not afford nuclear bombs would invest in short ranged ballistic missiles and chemical weapons such as nerve gas that with GPS guided warheads are relatively cheap and affordable even for small countries. Any country with a petrochemical industry can quickly produce chemical weapons. Countries that are threatened will make the investments to defend themselves against hostile neighbors with nuclear bombs. Chemical weapons can be really devastating under the right conditions a city could be paralyzed by them. All commerce would shut down devastating the economy, mission accomplished by the poor country.
We need a German style mass transit bill that builds bullet trains all across our most densely populated areas. Electrification of most of our arterial railways would help haul freight efficiently. We need an Apollo energy program with huge investment in green energy before a crisis happens. If Iran and Israel decided to slug it out with ballistic missiles armed with conventional high explosive warheads the results for world oil markets would be similar. When you see a picture of Israeli emergency workers pulling out the bodies of women and children from the rubble of buildings destroyed from an Iranian, Syrian, or Hezbollah ballistic missiles you can expect the age of cheap fossil fuels to end. Israel won't care about Washington's hand wringing they will be out for blood and the result will be a regional war fought to the finish. People who say this can not happen fail to consider how rapidly ballistic missiles, terrorism, and other asymmetrical warfare could change our energy world in one of the most volatile regions on the face of this earth.
Boo who - blues lose, reds win; blues win, reds lose. Keep thinking that way and nothing happens. This bill was no more than a modest enema that was needed to flush trash out of the transportation bill that had accumulated over time. There was no will (blue or red) in increase funding - the transportation funding on the federal side is bankrupt raising lots of questions about what the federal role should be in the first place. All the yak about smart growth, bike, transit and the like are outstanding initiatives - LOCALLY. And that is where the funding for these urban initiatives needs to stay. The interstate system by its nature was national - but we are done. In the west for years local metro areas have been passing gas tax, impact fees, sales tax, property tax, tax tax to fund key transportation investments - with priorities set locally for use locally creating jobs locally for the local economy - let get on that horse and ride rather than keep blathering about a decrepit federal system that just sucks $$$ off and delivers less. States or locals have the needs - they actually generate nearly double the gas tax revenue - this discussion should focus local and stay local. The only federal program should be about preservation of existing interstate assets and safety and how to move 30,000+ yearly carcasses to zero - it is embarrassing to spend a penny of federal money on anything other than a complete and narrow national focus on preservation and reducing this carnage NOW. Got projects that demonstrates where some of the 30,000 fatalities occurred and you can eliminate them - great. Those can be ped, bike, transit, freight and yes...even motor vehicle projects with CLEAR demonstration of how fatalities that HAVE happened will not continue. Trains and all these other ideas are great - for the states/cities they are in, they can decide priorities and pay for what is important to them. The rest of the county has a job to do to move fatalities to ZERO.
As for jobs - you are correct. Boxer is misstating the 2.8 million jobs. And if we closed congress we would lose the 5 million jobs of blow hards that spend all their time talking and doing little in the media, lobbyists and politicians - fantasy land numbers that mean nothing. Nobody was going to proceed without extending the bill...
Let's talk history. Significant user fees in transportation (called gas tax) has been raised significantly under four administrations (Eisenhower, Reagan, Bush, Clinton - note 3 red, 1 blue). In each case the increase was on the heals of a crappy economy/recession - and what resulted in EACH case? Some of the longest runs of employment growth in the history of the American economy. Four for four. While increasing federal gas tax now may not be what the doctor ordered now - at a metropolitan/state level where gas taxes are 30 cents compared to the 18 cents federal - that is where a difference can be made - as long as the funding gets to the local level (not hoarded by feds or state DOTs). But that can be decided locally without the feds wasted time, money or hot air.
Boo who - blues lose, reds win; blues win, reds lose. Keep thinking that way and nothing happens. This bill was no more than a modest enema that was needed to flush trash out of the transportation bill that had accumulated over time. There was no will (blue or red) in increase funding - the transportation funding on the federal side is bankrupt raising lots of questions about what the federal role should be in the first place. All the yak about smart growth, bike, transit and the like are outstanding initiatives - LOCALLY. And that is where the funding for these urban initiatives needs to stay. The interstate system by its nature was national - but we are done. In the west for years local metro areas have been passing gas tax, impact fees, sales tax, property tax, tax tax to fund key transportation investments - with priorities set locally for use locally creating jobs locally for the local economy - let get on that horse and ride rather than keep blathering about a decrepit federal system that just sucks $$$ off and delivers less. States or locals have the needs - they actually generate nearly double the gas tax revenue - this discussion should focus local and stay local. The only federal program should be about preservation of existing interstate assets and safety and how to move 30,000+ yearly carcasses to zero - it is embarrassing to spend a penny of federal money on anything other than a complete and narrow national focus on preservation and reducing this carnage NOW. Got projects that demonstrates where some of the 30,000 fatalities occurred and you can eliminate them - great. Those can be ped, bike, transit, freight and yes...even motor vehicle projects with CLEAR demonstration of how fatalities that HAVE happened will not continue. Trains and all these other ideas are great - for the states/cities they are in, they can decide priorities and pay for what is important to them. The rest of the county has a job to do to move fatalities to ZERO.
As for jobs - you are correct. Boxer is misstating the 2.8 million jobs. And if we closed congress we would lose the 5 million jobs of blow hards that spend all their time talking and doing little in the media, lobbyists and politicians - fantasy land numbers that mean nothing. Nobody was going to proceed without extending the bill...
Let's talk history. Significant user fees in transportation (called gas tax) has been raised significantly under four administrations (Eisenhower, Reagan, Bush, Clinton - note 3 red, 1 blue). In each case the increase was on the heals of a crappy economy/recession - and what resulted in EACH case? Some of the longest runs of employment growth in the history of the American economy. Four for four. While increasing federal gas tax now may not be what the doctor ordered now - at a metropolitan/state level where gas taxes are 30 cents compared to the 18 cents federal - that is where a difference can be made - as long as the funding gets to the local level (not hoarded by feds or state DOTs). But that can be decided locally without the feds wasted time, money or hot air.