Planning to Fail
by Ryan Avent
One of the benefits of winning a sweeping electoral victory, one might have assumed, would be that when climate change denialist and all around kook James Inhofe starts ranting that what we really need is a lot of new highway spending, we could tell him to go jump in a lake. One might have assumed:
Barbara Boxer and infamous global warming denier James Inhofe will present an amendment to the Senate stimulus plan that could funnel as much as $50 billion in additional funding to highways, Streetsblog has learned. Friends of the Earth tells us that Boxer’s staff confirmed she will introduce the amendment, which could bring the total for highways close to $80 billion, exactly the figure Inhofe demanded last week in a letter to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Of course, there are billions of dollars worth of highway repairs that could usefully be done, but Imhofe doesn’t seem as interested in that as in making the stimulus bill worse. Just today, Inhofe helped block an amendment to add highway funding (along with additional money for transit and water projects), because it added to the overall size of the bill. What he’s after is the replacement of other stimulus provisions with $50 billion in highway spending, which is likely to make the stimulus bill worse. Though there are more highway capital projects than transit capital projects that are “shovel-ready,” the number that can quickly be brought online is still quite limited — that, recall, is why the administration surprised observers by including so little infrastructure spending in the first place.
A new report from Todd Litman out of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute makes the point:
Overall, transportation infrastructure investments are not particularly effective short-term economic stimulation expenditures. If the only objective is economic stimulation it would be better to invest in more labor-intensive industries such as medical services, education and public transportation operation. Transportation facility investments are only justified if they reflect strategic objectives and future demands.
I’m not sure what Inhofe’s strategic objectives are, but they’re unlikely to match up with those of the Democratic leadership or the country as a whole. Given that he’ll probably vote against the bill in any case, I can’t see why Barbara Boxer would feel the need to humor Inhofe on this issue, and reduce the effectiveness of the stimulus in the process.
29 Responses to “Planning to Fail”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
February 3rd, 2009 at 7:52 pm
Because the Democrats in Congress either lack the intellectual horsepower to do their jobs, lack the courage of their convictions, or a combination of the two.
This has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions.
February 3rd, 2009 at 7:56 pm
How much of the new funds will be for California highways? I do think Highway repair can be a nice green use of stimulus funds, but it is an odd change and I agree with you that trying to please Inhofe seems almost sweet.
February 3rd, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Lest someone claim snow in their neighborhood as proof, my Aussie cyberpal has informed me that Australia is suffering the worst heat wave in their history of keeping records on the weather. Last Friday it was 113 F in Melbourne.
February 3rd, 2009 at 8:14 pm
Good for Barbara. At least there are a few decent Democrats in the Senate.
February 3rd, 2009 at 8:15 pm
“I can’t see why Barbara Boxer would feel the need to humor Inhofe on this issue, and reduce the effectiveness of the stimulus in the process.”
Duh, lots of highways in California and lots of road repair firms donate to candidates. Sen. Boxer (D-CA) wants to get her four trotters in the highway funds trough, too. It’s the new spirit of bipartisanship that Obama has brought to Washington!
February 3rd, 2009 at 8:57 pm
You’re sort of copying Matt’s bluffness, without his wit.
February 3rd, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Do the Democrats not understand that they’re in power now? WTF?
Lest someone claim snow in their neighborhood as proof,
Last night the local news was talking about how it was the warmest and driest January on record in Southern California. They’re predicting rain later in the week, but so far February has been warm and dry; highs yesterday and today were around 80, and I had to search to avoid a table at lunch that would have given me a sunburn while I was eating.
February 3rd, 2009 at 9:10 pm
Here’s a simpler explanation–no conspiracy, no corruption–just politicians in a democracy giving their citizens what they want.
Americans, like people elsewhere, prefer autos over mass transit; and Californians more so than most. E.g., enviros in California favor electric cars, not trains or buses.
Ms. Boxer is simply responding to–and likely shares–the needs and wants of her constituents … as, I suspect, Congress as a whole.
February 3rd, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Newsflash, Adam: Most Democrats, just like most Republicans, don’t use transit much and don’t care about transit much. Most Democrats have cars and like their cars and get around mostly by cars. Transit-obsessed yuppies like Yglesias are a small minority.
February 3rd, 2009 at 9:32 pm
i gather all the news i need on the weather reports…
you think of your first year college roommate; he came home one saturday or sunday and said “i slept with someone i shouldn’t have” (a certain musical television personality whose guyfriend was himself peddling gay substances and was murdered – infamously – by clubkids not too long after).
anyhow, buses take the highway too.
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:24 pm
“I can’t see why Barbara Boxer would feel the need to humor Inhofe on this issue, and reduce the effectiveness of the stimulus in the process.”
Because Boxer and Inhofe belong to the same party – the GOPocrats.
February 4th, 2009 at 12:21 am
So better freeways will keep the $4.50/gallon boogyman away?
February 4th, 2009 at 12:35 am
Will linus kindly inform us what it is he’s talking about?
I don’t think it’s an exagerration to say you’re being a bit opaque.
February 4th, 2009 at 3:17 am
Nothing wrong with money for highway repair…it’s desperately needed. What we don’t need is the same old ancient technology being re-applied to patching roads, when there are polymers that have been in existence for years that could make roads almost maintenance-free.
That said, we need to see matching funds going toward supporting and expanding our rails systems, with an eye to eventually replacing many roads with fast, efficient, affordable mass transit. Those who say it can’t be done don’t remember, perhaps, that we once had a rail system that extended into every little once-horse town. If we could do it once, we can do it again. It’s the will that has been lacking.
February 4th, 2009 at 7:34 am
One way to use highway funds to support energy independent transport is to use the highway funds for grade separations.
Regarding MattYoung, February 4th, 2009 at 12:21 am:
Shhhh … Americans support more cars everywhere, as government policy for over half a century has trained us to do, and Energy Independence, with over two centuries of history to get accustomed to the economic sovereignty it permits.
It’d be kind of upsetting to let people know that continued addiction to cars implies continued slide toward banana republic status.
February 4th, 2009 at 7:46 am
Elections have consequences, indeed.
February 4th, 2009 at 9:10 am
The whole lot of Dems and Republicans are out of touch and mired in the thick ooze of special interests and neo-liberal/neo-conservative propaganda. Bush-Cheney need to be tried and Obama is no great man of change. Same old, same old.
http://www.sunstateactivist.org/ssablog
February 4th, 2009 at 9:14 am
Riggsveda #14:
hose who say it can’t be done don’t remember, perhaps, that we once had a rail system that extended into every little once-horse town.
Probably a bad example. A: there were a lot fewer towns (and much smaller). B: a great many of these towns developed in response to the location of the Iron Horse, not vice versa.
February 4th, 2009 at 10:30 am
I, for one, am getting a bit tired of the “comity of the Senate,” which seems to be code for, “Senators can act however they want without consequence.” Senators should be ganging up on Inhofe (and Coburn, for that matter) to embarrass him and make his life difficult, not collaborating with him.
Then again, we saw some pathetic hagiographic tributes made to Sen. Ted Stevens after he was convicted of a few felonies.
February 4th, 2009 at 10:32 am
There is an inferential step in this argument that is missing, although perhaps justified anyway.
Inhofe wants to add funding for highway. He wants to do so not because he like funding for highway but because he wants to remove something else that would be more stimulative.
More money for highway funding is good in itself, but removing something more stimulative as well is bad on balance.
Boxer is agreeing to Inhofe’s request for more highway funding.
All of this makes sense. But the part for which no evidence has been provided is that Boxer has agreed to remove the unspecified more stimultive stuff from the bill. Does anyone actually know what the Boxer-Inhofe amendment would remove funding for? Otherwise it is hard to see that any evidence has been given that Boxer is deserving of criticism, although she may well be.
March 1st, 2009 at 10:18 am
viagra
Incredible site!
March 13th, 2009 at 5:10 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
March 14th, 2009 at 9:40 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
xanax
March 22nd, 2009 at 7:33 am
tramadol
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 22nd, 2009 at 11:24 am
buy viagra online
I want to say – thank you for this!
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:52 am
Incredible site!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 8th, 2009 at 3:57 am
thanks !! very helpful post!
viagra