Boxer to ask for $50 billion more for highways

Government

Boxer to ask for $50 billion more for highways

by David Alpert • February 3, 2009 5:40 pm

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) is ready to throw in the towel on America's future. Friends of the Earth has just learned that she and global warming denier James Inhofe (R-OK) will introduce an amendment to add $50 billion in highway-only funding to the Senate's version of the stimulus.

Boxer liked transit in 2005. Photo by Metro Library and Archive on Flickr.

Already, the Senate stimulus devotes about three-fourths of money to new roads at a time when transit systems across the nation are cutting service. $50 billion more for roads will push the country years if not decades behind in efforts to fight global warming and add choices for more sustainable living. If Boxer's amendment passes, state DOTs will be spending years ensuring that housing far from jobs is very, very cheap while our transit-oriented communities languish from neglect.

Please call Boxer's office NOW at 202-224-3553 and ask her to NOT offer this amendment.

Update: I just called, and the mailbox is full. I'll update if there is another place to call.

20 comments

Tags: Barbara Boxer, Congress, stimulus

Oh, right, the environment (Feb 5, 2009)
Stimulus compromise won't cut transit (Feb 7, 2009)
Nadler transit amendment passes on voice vote (Jan 28, 2009)
Sustainable Transportation Five, please step forward (Feb 6, 2009)
Senate committee backs infrastructure, but not bike lanes (Jan 27, 2011)

David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington and Greater Greater Education. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He loves the area which is, in many ways, greater than those others, and wants to see it become even greater.

Comments
Add a comment »

Boo. Let us wean our oil addiction by making us ever more dependent on cars. Good one.

by NikolasM on Feb 3, 2009 5:54 pm • link • report

Depends on the stipulations attached.

$50 billion is a drop in the bucket compared to the highway needs out there.

Though if they're going to be pushing that much into infrastructure, they should drop the highway part to about $42 billion, raise the total to $60 billion, and distribute it in a similar fashion to what I proposed here 4 years ago...

by Froggie on Feb 3, 2009 5:57 pm • link • report

is the new 50 billion going to be for new construction or for maintenance and improvements to the existing infrastructure?

the federal interstate act passed in 1956 allowed for the creation of the network, but federal funding only goes to the creation of the roads and bridges -- from there on, it's the state's responsibility to maintain the infrastructure--despite the fact that a very significant portion of the travel on the roads does not come from state tax payers. making things worse, is that most state DOTs get almost all of their funding from Gasoline Taxes, which politicians are woefully (woeful for many reasons, i'm sure you know!) unwilling to increase.

the result is a literally crumbling infrastructure that's both deadly and inefficient. Inefficiency isn't just frustrating, it's extremely environmentally damaging (if you're stuck in traffic, you're getting 0 mpg, wasting money and polluting the air for no reason).

We need smart roads AND smart transit.

I hope that any extra money Boxer wants to send to the Federal Highway she sends with the condition that it be used only to maintain and improve the current infrastructure, and not to extend it needlessly.

Honestly, i'm opposed to almost all of this "stimulus" package -- but politics aside, our Federal Highway system badly needs to be modernized, along with our transit systems.

by jarebear on Feb 3, 2009 5:58 pm • link • report

A- She's only accountable to CA citizens, not DC area bloggers.

B- Didn't you guys get a democratic Congress and an 'urban' president? What more do you want?

by MPC on Feb 3, 2009 5:59 pm • link • report

I'm constantly amazed we have leaders that continue to support the "drive until you qualify" mentality. Aren't foreclosures in Boxer's home state of CA disproportionately in these exurbs?

by Paul S on Feb 3, 2009 6:01 pm • link • report

jarebear: According to the EDF action alert, there are no requirements in the bill, meaning DOTs could use it for repair or for new construction. Groups previously discovered that many states were planning to prioritize construction over repair, since that wins more votes and is more exciting for the highway builders.

by David Alpert on Feb 3, 2009 6:08 pm • link • report

Sent an email to the Senator. Trying to get California friends to call now.

by John Cain on Feb 3, 2009 6:16 pm • link • report

well david, then this definitely is unfortunate. I guess the silver lining is job creation -- but at what cost?

by jarebear on Feb 3, 2009 7:26 pm • link • report

MPC: Every member of Congress is accountable to District citizens. That's why we don't need our own voting representative..

by cminus on Feb 3, 2009 8:52 pm • link • report

cminus

Maybe on paper. Do you vote for the California senator? I didn't think so. She'll take your comments and stuff them in the "people who won't be voting for me in November" filing cabinet.

by MPC on Feb 3, 2009 9:07 pm • link • report

I won't bother calling, but I passed it along to an acquaintance who works for Boxer. :)

by Gavin Baker on Feb 3, 2009 10:19 pm • link • report

This is just as bad:

Barbara Mikulski added a $11 billion provision to the stimulus bill that provides for new tax deductions on new car sales. Now, you can get a deduction for sales tax and loan interest.

In her words:

"“This amendment is actually about creating jobs...Our automobile industry is languishing...For the consumers, it means they get a deal: It’s a market incentive to get them into the showroom.”

Since Mikulski is much closer to home, let's call her office and complain. How about a larger tax deduction for transit tickets? Not a stimulus per se, but as far as I'm concerned nothing about her proposal is good for America in the long run. Her office number is (202) 224-4654

NYT article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/04/us/politics/04stimulus.html?ref=us

by JTS on Feb 3, 2009 11:06 pm • link • report

JTS

You sound like you're surprised...

The writing was on the wall for this but some of the people on here ducked their heads. I stated earlier that this stuff is zero-sum. And once they see that they don't have to fund you and you'll still support them, game over.

Plus, libertarians will argue that tax cuts are more just than fiscal policy for this very reason: the spending by politicians is done by them and you don't have a final say on it. Now, if you got your money back and some transit bonds were being floated, you could conceivably show your support that way.

But those advocating fiscal policy are more comfortable with the money out of the hands of the people and in the place of our government 'caretakers'. And aren't they doing a wonderful job?

I feel no sympathy for those who were pro-spending and now have reservations about it.

by MPC on Feb 3, 2009 11:22 pm • link • report

Let's see if I can close the italics.

by cminus on Feb 4, 2009 9:27 am • link • report

Do you vote for the California senator? I didn't think so. She'll take your comments and stuff them in the "people who won't be voting for me in November" filing cabinet.

And thus, unlike Rep. Gohmert, you see why District residents deserve their own representative with voting rights.

I feel no sympathy for those who were pro-spending and now have reservations about it.

Does that apply to all spending? For example, if you ordered a book from Amazon for $15, and they sent you a different book and charged your credit card $30, do you have any grounds to complain? Or does your previous "pro-spending" position on books render any complaints invalid?

Better trolls, please.

by cminus on Feb 4, 2009 9:31 am • link • report

MPC - You asked for a free market and you got it. You've got no right to complain if Mr. Madoff chooses not to give you back your money.

by tt on Feb 4, 2009 10:02 am • link • report

cminus you're being naive. This is why a lot of people are fiscally conservative in the first place. If gov't were even modestly efficient and spent money in an efficient and appropriate way, most people wouldn't mind letting gov't spend their money, but that's rarely the case.

by Vik on Feb 4, 2009 10:03 am • link • report

I would not call cminus naive. Consumers aren't exactly efficient with their money either. Remember Billy Bass? Why did Zima stick around for so long?

We need government to creative a framework of incentives that encourage good behavior. Mikulski's plan doesn't cost any money, it just prevents the government from taking in $11 billion, and in the process gives people a reason to buy any car they want. Why did she not draft something that only allowed you to claim that deduction if your new vehicle was fuel efficient? At current gas prices, such an incentive only gives people another reason to buy that SUV. This is a terrible policy that does not push the market in the right direction.

by JTS on Feb 4, 2009 10:29 am • link • report

Cminus

Come on, are you really trying to make that point?

If I patronize Amazon and Amazon screw up, I have the right to never send them a single penny for the rest of my life.

When the government screws up, regardless of my opinion, I am forced to still send them money (taxes).

by MPC on Feb 4, 2009 10:59 am • link • report

MPC: As citizens of the United States, we have a Constitutional right to petition for the redress of grievances (even if we're District residents!), which is what's being discussed here.

Let's be honest: we're in the same boat. You think the government is going to spend money unwisely. So do I. You presumably vote, or write letters, or make political donations, to support politicians who think like you do. So do I. Your support for tax cuts is no more or less a petition for redress of grievances than is my support for new infrastructure spending, and if you believe that I have no grounds for complaint when spending is poorly considered then you likewise have no grounds for complaint if the government cuts my taxes while doing nothing to reduce yours, and pays for that tax cut by cutting spending on roads that you use but I don't. After all, you called for smaller government, and you got what you asked for, right?

(And if you don't think Amazon is a good analogy, how about WASA? If they screw you over, you have the right to never send them another penny for the rest of your life, which will be a life spent without running water. Unless you want to move, of course, but that's an alternative available to people who don't like how their taxes are being spent as well.)

by cminus on Feb 4, 2009 11:57 am • link • report