Maybe. Maybe not. Do you have seen a balance on that? Could very well be that Minnesota’s highways are subsidized by the folks in NYC and Ca. Btw, the collapsed bridge was build with federal funds…

However, a few glitches here: one is that this type of tax is pretty regressive since rich people aren’t necessarily the ones who pay more- think of farmers, truckers, etc who are hurt by this (and consumers who pay the extra at the retail level when that cost gets passed along). Another glitch is that as the tax rises and fuel costs more, a certain amount of conservation will then occur so that the higher rate per gallon doesn’t necessarily translate into that much net gain in revenue.

And consider the history of the current gas taxes and the Highway Superfund. Just like all taxes that are meant to be dedicated for a particular use, it doesn’t take long before Congress and presidential administrations find it too tempting to use the money for other purposes. Both Bush 41 and Clinton ended up raising the gas tax while simultaneously diverting funds into the general treasury for debt reduction instead of continuing to use gas tax for infrastructure maintenance. It looks to me that that’s where we went off track because if that money had stayed in the Highway Trust then we’d have had a better chance of having the funds needed today. They could have looked to other sources to pay down debt but it was easier to raid the fund. Does anyone seriously think that if we raise the gas tax again that the money won’t later be diverted?

I’m not happy about his priorities. He’s willing to veto a bill that would expand health care access to children of working families, and one that would raise revenue to repair our crumbling infrastructure, but seemingly is blase about the billions being wasted by his big contributors. I don’t mind a tax increase, if the money is spent appropriately, but wouldn’t it be better to examine how money is being wasted by these no-bid contractors?

I agree with Nick, that pet projects are a problem, especially those that the congressman has a vested interest in, but at least most provide some benefit for those in their district.

And with you not so happy with the way he’s spending our money, I presume you’re pushing for tax cuts?

Actually, I’m disappointed with the way both Democrats and Republicans are spending our money. Both parties criticize each other as being fiscally irresponsible ever as they propose even more spending on their own pet projects.

And with you not so happy with the way he’s spending our money, I presume you’re pushing for tax cuts?

I agree with Chris- that Bush has no problems handing out federal tax revenue to big GOP donors, who often have not performed up to even a minimal standard on contracts. What, not one word about all of the 12 billion lost in Iraq or the 160,000 weapons unaccounted for? Nothing about the fraud and waste with companies like KBR?

Yet, he is looking out for our tax dollars when it comes to bridge safety and children’s insurance programs. What a guy! How reassuring to know that he knows how best to spend our money.

Please point to where Bush ruled out “dismissed dealing with the nation’s 70,000 structurally deficient bridges until Congress changes the way it spends highway money”

From the stories I’ve been reading he ruled out raising the gas tax to ….. Are you unaware of this particular NUANCE, do you simply not fathom that there are other ways of dealing with problems than raising taxes (gasoline or other) or are you just taking another cheap shot at Bush?

Ah, but you don’t care… you’ve got your rabid fans here cheering you on. were all of us so easily impressed.

Year after year, the amount of money spent on highway bills goes up and up and up. All that money didn’t prevent the bridge in Minneapolis from going down.

I stand by previous statement. Whether its national security, our highways, our schools–simply throwing money at the problem doesn’t fix the problem.

The federal government spends more money on education today than it did forty years ago, and there’s no evidence to suggest that the quality of education has gone up.

If taxpayers in Minnesota weren’t forced to pay for Alaska’s “Bridge to Nowhere”, Boston’s “Big Dig” and other expensive boondoggle’s, they’d have more money to take care of the intrastructure in their own state.

Consider this. Taxpayers in Minnesota, despite having their own infrastructure problems, are being forced to pay for highways in Alaska, while taxpayers in Alaska are being forced to pay for highways in Minnesota. There’s got to be a more efficient way of building our country’s infrastructure than having people on one state subsidizing the building of highways and bridges in states two or three thousand miles away.

Anyway, I was just going to say, as regards “picking” on Bush, I know there is Bush bashing fatigue in some quarters, and I know Shaun’s post isn’t about that, but is there any less loss of blood, treasure, or chaos generated because some folks are tired of hearing about it?

I didn’t think so.

Are you serious? How, do you think, those bridges will get repaired?
a) By giving money to construction teams?
b) Or by simply discussing the problem?
c) Maybe by a new kind of meditation or prayer?
Chose a,b or c or add your idea at d)

Who are you to give orders here? If you want to know how much money is needed, go looking for the necessary information for yourself. Afaik even experts don’t have a plan on how high an investment is needed to catch up with the needed infrastructure repairs yet.

The governor and state legislature of Minnesota are far more qualified to determine which bridges and highways need to be fixed than the president and the U.S. congress.

The governor and state legislature of Minnesota are more qualified to determine which bridges and highways within their own state, I should say.

Very well. Since you all seem to think it’s extremely important for the federal government to fund the construction and/or renovation of our nation’s bridges, tell me:

1) How much money are you proposing the federal government spend?

2) What states and/or cities should this money targeted?

3) Where will the federal government come up with this money?

Is the government to raise taxes to come up with the revenue or is it to simply take it from already existing government programs?

Throwing money at a problem is an easy thing to do, but it’s hardly a way to solve problems. People who argue that we need to fix our infrastructure are quick to demand that we do something about it but are loathe to offer specifics.

It’s one thing to argue that we need to beef up port security. It’s a quite another to suggest that the federal government is responsible for ensuring the upkeep of every single bridge and highway in America. That ought to be a state responsibility. The governor and state legislature of Minnesota are far more qualified to determine which bridges and highways need to be fixed than the president and the U.S. congress.

At the point I’m sure Bush will claim it’s a national emergency and that we must give Halliburton (or whoever) a nobid contract pronto! And while we’re at it, let’s repeal construction safety laws so they can make more money!

Of course, nowadays everything, including tics and mosquitos at the lakes, is all Bush’s fault, as if he doesn’t already have enough legitimate criticism aimed at hi.

It seems as if Bush is only interesting in saving taxpayer money when the proceeds wont go to his friends that sell oil and make bombs.

(1) We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office.

(2) In politics, your enemies can’t hurt you, but your friends will kill you.

(3) Among politicians the esteem of religion is profitable, the principles of it are troublesome.

(4) Justice without force is powerless, force without justice is tyrannical.

(5) A politician should have three hats. One for throwing into the ring, one for talking through, and one for pulling rabbits out of if elected.

(6) The two greatest obstacles to democracy :
the widespread delusion among the poor that we have a democracy and the chronic terror among the rich, lest we get it.

(7) In our age there is no such thing as “keeping out of politics” All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies.

(8) In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.

(9) Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

(10) A good politician under democracy is quite as unthinkable as an honest burglar.

(XXX) Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.

If that’s the only way to save lifes, YES.
8-|