Right now, our infrastructure is crumbling but it hasn't reached the stage where corporations are affected enough yet.
You should have watched 60 minutes yesterday. They did a segment on the deteriorating infrastructure. Several CEO’s have already addressed congress to complain how it’s hurting them.
“Several CEO’s have already addressed congress to complain how it’s hurting them.”
…plus the president of the National Chamber of Commerce.
Unfortunately, our Congress has turned a deaf ear to all pleas for increased highway/bridge repair funding for a couple of decades.
Yes, that segment on 60 Minutes was extremely revealing.
I did watch it. That’s why I did mention it. CEO’s can complain all they want but you know as well as I that the “donors” get heard first. I just hope that those with the real power and the ear of the legislatures are heard. But you have to pay to play Washington.
^
Well, then I guess that the ultimate question is…
Do the Koch brothers stand to gain from bridge & highway reconstruction?
If they do, then their well-paid friends in DC will see to it that it is done.
OK, I watched that 60 Minutes too and thought it was full of a lot of baloney. The federal money is drying up? Huh? Yesterday there was an article in the Minneapolis paper to spend $150 million to add a bus line on 7 miles of an interstate. Half paid by the feds. That’s $75 million that could go to pay for bridges falling down. If you’ve got that big a problem, raise the state gas tax to fix it. Its that simple. But when you spend all your money on buses and trains instead of roads and bridges, naturally you’re not going to have enough money.
And I think it is malfeasance for state and federal transportation officials to spend on trains and not bridges if there is not enough money to go around. Lets have a separate mass transit tax that folks can vote on instead of dipping into the road and bridge money.
Plus I read the NY Gov is not happy with the NWS storm predictions. So he is going to use $19 million he got from the feds for hurricane relief to set up his own state weather system. Holy cow, does it ever end? Don’t tell me these jokers don’t have enough money.
Oof, I better go take a pill or something. You got me riled up again.
@Bing my good friend. The millions you are referring to doesn’t make a perceptible drop in the Federal Budget bucket. A billion is ten hundred million. We are taking about many billions of dollars of many years to put a dent in our infrastructure problems. The amount raised in taxes to address this problem is well beyond the user fees you are suggesting. Totally impractical. Funding infrastructure with local taxes and user fees would reduce America to a third world nation made up of villages.
Gotta disagree. The federal and state taxes per gallon of gas are precisely what funds the infrastructure. So raise it a dime or a quarter but stop the siphoning of the money to glitzy mass transit projects. Agree 75 million is not a lot but it just illustrates the misguided priorities.
That particular I-35W stretch in question, I used to drive every day. Back in the 70’s there was no traffic problem. The traffic problem started when there was a major building boom in downtown Minneapolis for the benefit of developers and the Minneapolis tax coffers. Then they added another lane and for two weeks traffic moved right along. Then that extra lane was made buses and HOV and traffic snarled again while the HOV lane stayed open. Now spend another $150 million to add bus lanes, all with the help of federal highway money and under federal regulations. All they would have to do is take down the HOV signs for a few thousand dollars. This is repeated hundreds of times in cities across the country with governors whining they need more money for infrastructure.
“The federal and state taxes per gallon of gas are precisely what funds the infrastructure. So raise it a dime or a quarter”
I agree, but our esteemed Congress has failed to do this for a few decades.
Meanwhile, the American public is demanding better roads & safer bridges, while telling their representatives that they don’t want to pay even one cent more in taxes. I don’t know about you, but I learned when I was a child that this type of math just doesn’t add up.
Oh contrare. The idea that people are unwilling to pay more in tax to fund needed and detailed expenditures is simply untrue and used by certain politicians to increase polarization. Minnesota voted overwhelmingly to raise the gas tax to fund roads and bridges and additionally to raise the sales tax to fund environmental projects. What is needed is clear and honest problem identification with realistic and bipartisan plans to resolve it along with realistic budget points. Voters aren’t as stupid as some think though and smell foul when the money gets siphoned off for purposes that the voters would not have approved of otherwise.
How refreshing it would have been for our leadership to now work with congress on highway funding proposals instead of throwing all the goodwill away on 5 million illegal immigrants.
So roads and bridges yes. We are willing to pay. But bike trails, trains, and bus lanes, no, not with the gas tax.
“So roads and bridges yes. We are willing to pay”
Yes, you are willing to pay, and I am willing to pay, but it seems that most people nationwide want something (in this case, better roads & bridges) for nothing.
In my state–which has one of the lowest gas taxes in the nation–surveys show steadfast opposition to any increase in the gas tax. And, it appears that our esteemed governor will likely veto an increase in the gas tax if any of the current gas tax bills in the legislature do pass.
After all, he wouldn’t want to tarnish his (totally inaccurate) image as a governor who has cut taxes, as that might limit his opportunities on the national level.
Transportation taxes pay for roads, automotive bridges, and automotive tunnels, but they don’t pay for other infrastructure. Water and sewage from DC to Boston are in terrible shape, and all they see to do is patch it. I imagine that all older cities have similar issues no matter where they are. In the USA. Then there is the electrical infrastructure, in many cases nearing 100 years old. How will these important improvements be paid for?
@VDCdriver
“After all, he wouldn’t want to tarnish his (totally inaccurate) image as a governor who has cut taxes, as that might limit his opportunities on the national level.”
By chance, is your governor Chris Christie . . . ?
For the record, I can’t stand him
He is an unpleasant bully, and I hope somebody puts him in his place some day
If his lips are moving, he’s probably lying like a rug. I don’t believe that he supposedly knew nothing about what his cronies were doing
No offense intended to any fans of that particular governor
User taxes while maintaining roadways cannot fund high cost items like bridges, tunnels and re routing roadways. It just doesn’t happen. The monies barely pay for the upkeep. It takes some high level thinking to come to the conclusion that federal funds to replace Pittsburg’s dozens of bridges and construct Boston’s big dig can contribute to my standard of living here in northern New England…but it does. Our Economy is so intrinsically tied together from engineers commuting to and from their homes while working at a defense contractor plant far away to laborer getting material overland while making the goods we buy and the food we eat. Of course it requires federal funding. I know people want simple solutions they can under stand like user taxes only for those who use the infrastructure to a variety of other issues. Little things like delivery charges for automobiles, food stuffs and energy would go out of sight if user fees were the only way to pay for infrastructure. If you just do the math,…
The Brooklyn Bridge which cost about 15 to 18 million dollars in 1870 would be nearly a billion dollars today. (.8 plus) That’s just one bridge.
It takes some high level thinking to come to the conclusion that federal funds to replace Pittsburg's [sic] dozens of bridges and construct Boston's big dig can contribute to my standard of living here in northern New England...but it does
Wow…you really drink the Kool-Aid by the pitcherful! 
Federal funding of local “pork projects” does not have a benefit to those outside of the immediate area. Or, not of sufficient magnitude. It exists mostly as a way of rewarding congressional seniority, and providing cause for local voters to continue to “hold their nose and vote” for the guy: “Yeah, Senator Blarg might have 17 mistresses and cheat on his taxes–but boy, does he bring home the bacon!” Pork projects have (rightly) been cited as a shining example of the fact that there aren’t just corrupt pols–the system (both State and Federal)–is corrupt by design, or at least biased towards rewarding corruption.
It also, disturbingly, serves as a lever for the Federal government to apply extra-constitutional pressure on the states: “Either agree to legislate [an activity], or we’ll withhold all of your [something that requires funding] money!”
OTOH, use taxes are simple. They do not require a complicated, and costly, collection system. They are very transparent…if funds are honestly and correctly allocated. They (justly) tax those who derive greatest benefit from the finished product. In the case of fuel taxes, they have a desirable side effect of encouraging conservation and discouraging frivolous use of the product.
They, admittedly, tend to encourage Black Markets and out-of-state purchases…which I contend is a GOOD thing, as it acts as a practical brake on the power of government: keeps 'em “right sized.” Unfortunately, fuel taxes ARE regressive, and there’s no getting around it. This last one has long kept me from advocating for their use BUT, having grown so SICK of political games, waste, inefficiency, and corruption, I now am in favor of using fuel taxes, provided they fund their mandate exactly–and have safeguards in place to make diversion damned difficult! I dunno, find some other means of being extra nice to the American Workingman to make up for it.
P.S. Note that this is all in the interest of a good, friendly debate (note I was smiling for the “Kool aid” bit). I can’t help but notice, however, that you exhibit idealism, bordering on naivete, W/R/T government. This seems shocking, considering your career: to put it nerdily, I didn’t think that the “Set of all idealistic (bordering on naive) people” ever intersected with the “Set of all non-rookie police officers!”
@db4690–Yes, you are correct on all counts, including your assessment of his true character.
Federal funding of local "pork projects" does not have a benefit to those outside of the immediate area
Sure there are many pork belly projects that only effect the local economy. But to make a blanket statement that they all are is just plain WRONG. There’s this small railroad bridge in NJ that is in drastic need of repair…It’s a swing bridge that opens several times a day to let big boats through. Sometimes it doesn’t lock back in place…when this happens it has effected railroad traffic from Maine to Chicago.
Many years ago ONE bridge on I-90 in NY near Albany was washed away…For the weeks it took to build a temp solution it drastically effected traffic for hundreds of miles.
The list is endless.
We have had this debate many times before. Anything you do to help the health and well being of in the way of infrastructure for those you absolutely depend upon for goods and services, helps you. If that means cutting the pollution and providing well designed “breaks” for these same peoples while increasing their the quality of life…,we can have a sane debate about what that includes, but it is definitely part of the debate. You may not think “national parks” are part of the infrastructure we should pay for either…I do. You may not think local parks are either. The issue is quite fluid but to my way of thinking it’s worth considering.