A Republican Worth Listening To
Rather than endless coffee sessions with John Boehner, maybe the White House should pay more attention to this guy:
Rep. John L. Mica (Fla.), the ranking Republican on the transportation committee, called the proposed infrastructure spending “almost minuscule” and expressed regret that the administration had not crafted its plan around an ambitious goal such as building high-speed rail in 11 corridors around the country, which Mica said would cost $165 billion.
“They keep comparing this to Eisenhower, but he proposed a $500 billion highway system, and they’re going to put $30 billion” in roads and bridges, he said. “How farcical can you be? Give me a break.”
I wouldn’t call the proposals farcical. My understanding is that the predominant administration view is that the stimulus shouldn’t be infrastructure-focused but that infrastructure should be tackled in a serious way in separate legislation down the pike. I’m not sure I would have gone that way, but it’s not a crazy view. But Rep Mica’s view isn’t crazy either. And when you’re looking to craft legislative compromise, sitting down with the people who have non-crazy objections seems like the way to go.
36 Responses to “A Republican Worth Listening To”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
January 28th, 2009 at 11:28 am
Just you wait, Matt, the conservatives will purge him from the party soon enough.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:30 am
Oh look, there is Al ready to prove my point. Right now conservatives are using the talking point that the stimulus isn’t going to be “fast enough” unless it is a tax cut. Of course the last round of tax cuts A) wasn’t fast and B) wasn’t effective, but facts were never important in show trials now were they?
January 28th, 2009 at 11:37 am
Rather than endless coffee sessions with John Boehner, maybe the White House should pay more attention to this guy
Or, maybe it shouldn’t.
Yeah, that second thing.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:47 am
This guy used to be my congressman, he’s a total hack. He’s trying to get light rail built in Orlando but it’s a pure pork play.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:54 am
Why am I not surprised.
Mica is probably on the take with lobbyist from CAT and other construction equipment companies.
This is one big scam and both parties are complicit.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:58 am
Didn’t Krauthammer make some snide comparison of Obama’s stimulus plan to Eisenhower’s interstate highway system? Seems like a growing number of voices on the right are unwittingly pointing the way: stimulus needs to be spend on infrastructure and it shouldn’t be scattershot, but directed at large national goals.
Why not the new power grid, for one?
January 28th, 2009 at 11:58 am
But Boehner has much better suits. They are impeccable.
January 28th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Why? Why does it have to be 80% by 2009-2010?
January 28th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
the idea that we can’t spend on infrastructure because the spending ‘won’t happen right away’ is just silly on its face, and can people stop spreading it? all of these projects, in all of their various states, create jobs right away. you need offices, you need administrative work being done, you need people to evaluate all kinds of factors, you need procurement, somebody keeping track of what’s procured, etc and on and on.
just because the high speed rail wouldn’t be fully finished for a number of years does not mean that an immediate focus on it would not create jobs. it most certainly would.
January 28th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Mica has a better rug.
January 28th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
oh please, above me, do not listen to the ‘Al’-robot, it doesn’t want to hear facts or information. no matter that predictions show the recession lasting well into 2011 and 2012, and that the bill is designed for new rounds of spending to kick in during those later years to alleviate longer term effects of the current downturn, if Al says that 80% of 800B should be spent RIGHT NOW, who are any of us to argue with it. except that, really, do any of us believe that Al even believes what he’s saying? why the sudden support for this bill, as long as the money is just immediately ejected out there to…I dunno, some people. or something.
January 28th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
onceler,
Right, it is a red herring put forth by conservatives. They would argue that any infrastructure spending that you might propose “won’t be fast enough”, and therefore shouldn’t be done at all. The only stimulus they will accept is tax cuts. Al’s quip about being open to infrastructure spending is smoke and mirrors.
January 28th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
anybody know what the “11 corridors” referred to in the quote are? Or am I going to have to actually go read the piece myself?
January 28th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
If we needed stimulus for the year 2019 or 2024, maybe Mica’s point would make sense.
Huh? If such a project makes sense on the merits — outside of whether or not it will help stimulate the economy out of deflation — if indeed it’s a good idea to build a kick-ass, 21st century rail high speed rail system, then I’d argue the good Republican is correct. Again, as Matt points out, an Ike-style rail infrastructure bill could obviously be put together at a later time with later legislation. But it’s not clear why it “doesn’t make sense” to do this now, when there’s a lot of support for Big Gubmint. As usual President Obama is doing the right thing (grrrrrr!) by being forthright. But an argument could be made for a bit of pro rail/transit demagoguery at this particular time in history.
January 28th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
And, being that Mica is actually for something rather than just against excessive spending and sex, he’d be much more likely to vote for the bill if you gave him what he wanted.
January 28th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Because the recession is occurring in 2009-2010.
Why 80%?
January 28th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Obama’s plan to lower the minimum wage to attack unemployment is pure genius.
1. Raise minimum wage.
2. Inflate value of that minimum wage below previous levels.
3. ?
4. Profit.
The average political hack praises him for his unflinching love for the poor while he inflates the value of that money below the previous level. Solve unemployment AND raise wages. Free lunch was never so easy.
January 28th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
I would like those using the word economist to place it inside quotes from now on, especially when trying to group all economist into one opinion. It’s a little misleading when people without degrees in economics know far more about economics than the average “economist.”
January 28th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
A lot of commenters seem to think Rep. Mica is playing some elaborate ruse. I call Occam’s Razor: he’s just doing what his constituents want. Mica’s FL-7 district is a J-shaped corridor from just south of Jacksonville to just NE of Orlando. That so happens to be the “missing link” between the DOT’s Southeast and Florida Corridors. See http://www.house.gov/mica/projrailnational.shtml . If Mica can get that connection filled in — not at all a crazy request if he can get people to start thinking of rail as “urgent” — and then actually get it built, he will have pulled off the kind of local jobs-creation projects that gets guys re-elected for the rest of their lives.
January 28th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Mica is my Congress-bot. Even though I’ve never voted for the man, I’ve talked with him socially a couple times … he’s a pretty nice guy with a horrendously aggressive hairpiece writhing in anguish on top of his head. He has long been focused on transportation and isn’t afraid to advocate big-dollar highway and mass transit projects – … unusual for a Republican. On every other issue, however, he’s a party-line hack.
So to recap … Mica’s a lock-step GOP tool who makes a small amount of sense on one single issue, but in every other respect is emblematic of what’s gone horribly wrong with the American conservative movement. Uhh, I’ll pass.
Issue-wise, we’d be a lot better off renovating our existing national rail system than in sinking huge dollars into hi-speed rail in selected localities.
January 28th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
But, as indicated immediately above, stimulus that is being provided once the recession ends is likely to be harmful to the economy.
Evidence? This statement seem quite contradictory to reality. Was Eisenhower’s 500 billion highway spending harmful to the economy? No. Why would spending 500 billion in medium to long term infrastructure harm the economy?
Of course your response to the above is quite amusing.
If we still have a recession in 2011, then we can address it with further stimulus then.
So you mean that, instead of taking a rather conservative approach and assuming that the economy will still be sluggish in 2011, we plan for a short term stimulus that is ineffective in the long term, and if it doesn’t work we lather rinse and repeat?
January 28th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Was Eisenhower’s 500 billion highway spending harmful to the economy?
Obviously. Everybody knows that, back in the 50’s, it was much more difficult for rich people to spike their earning power to ever-higher multiples of their employees’ incomes.
January 28th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
I think it’s also good to keep in mind that recessions and stimulus are to a great degree an expectations game. The slow down is exacerbated in part by people who DO have money to spend, and things to spend it on, but are holding onto it because they think things are going to get worse.
So in addition to DTM’s point about the different multipliers, you also have to deal with what I think is some pretty substantial ’stimulus inflation’ – i.e., 3 months ago, maybe a $400 billion stimulus would have done as much as $800 will do today, or $1 trillion would do if this drags on another month. Given the probable magnitude of this effect, it makes Al’s (and the Republicans’) foot dragging about 80% vs. 60% or whatever pretty ridiculous. There’s no conclusive economic rationale for the objection, and more importantly, this just isn’t the time to make the perfect the enemy of the good – by the time you figure out the ‘perfect’, it’s likely going to be worse than the ‘good’ used to be.
I’d also say that with regard to expectations, some kind of credible commitment to grand, long term infrastructure development can do a lot of good even if most of the money won’t actually marry the shovels with the dirt for a couple years. Half the battle is just convincing people things are under way – including private investors who might spend money in anticipation of all the near future opportunities created by such a commitment.
January 28th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Issue-wise, we’d be a lot better off renovating our existing national rail system than in sinking huge dollars into hi-speed rail in selected localities.
While I’m not prepared to argue that renovations of the existing system aren’t needed at all, I wonder why you would say that those renovations should take the place of developing true 21st century systems in areas that would be well-served by them.
January 28th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
If we can find two such lock-step tools for every issue, we have a filibuster proof majority.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:27 pm
Mica’s a lock-step GOP tool: it was his party that wanted more tax cuts and less spending!
The taxcuts made up 33% of the stimulus plan, yet infrastructure got only 18%. To make room for all these taxcuts transit spending had to drop.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3nWhxmPY00&eurl=http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/1/28/171926/077/404/690141&feature=player_embedded
Taxcuts trumps infrastructure spending every time with Republicans,…. when did Mica ever speak out about this silly notion!
January 29th, 2009 at 4:06 am
You are right Larry. You unlike Matthew and most of the people on this thread for get that Republicans that the original bill had too much money going to infrastructure. If he was serious he would mention his infrastructure during negotiations, not at the last minute. Mica is being disingenuous here.
March 1st, 2009 at 4:56 am
viagra
It is the coolest site,keep so!
March 2nd, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Hi. ers me like! Where can I perceive and download Far Cry? All order shekels = (. Is it not reasonable to understand for honest!? http://www.kriatoroff.narod.ru/smile.gif yavmyase28.02.2009game
March 12th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 17th, 2009 at 2:16 am
Great site. Good info
tramadol
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:13 am
viagra
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:18 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 3:58 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 1:47 am
Very interesting site, Hope it will always be alive! viagra
April 16th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
Hello. Looks are part of business. A businessman should never stand out more than his customers. His mannerisms, his clothes, everything about him… Moderation is the key.
I am from Kiribati and bad know English, give true I wrote the following sentence: “Cheap vacations, cheap airline tickets, cheap flights, cheap airfares, cheap cheap airline tickets.”
With best wishes
, Trayton.