(Source: Huffingtonpost; The Washington Monthly)

Let me make this clear upfront that my intention is not to make a political statement with this post.  I’m simply trying to find a reason and logic (possibly seek help from others to find these elements in our society).  Today’s Huff post had this article

“…On Tuesday morning, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) told the Minneapolis Star Tribune that she wants to redefine exactly what an earmark is. Specifically, she said, transportation projects should not be placed under the umbrella. Advocating for transportation projects for ones district in my mind does not equate to an earmark,” said the Minnesota Republican. “I don’t believe that building roads and bridges and interchanges should be considered an earmark… There’s a big difference between funding a tea pot museum and a bridge over a vital waterway.” The Star-Tribune notes that Bachmann “did solicit some earmarks when she first came to Congress” but “has been outspoken in pushing House Republicans to continue an earmark moratorium enacted last year.” But transportation funds are vital for job creation. And it seems likely that the reality of having a major spigot cut off is a bit frightening to even the self-proclaimed fiscal conservatives on the Hill.

Isn’t that what the White House was trying to accomplish via the Stimulus package – revitalize our nation’s infrastructure with targeted spending? Why did they take so much flak and blame for out of control spending? If such selective exclusions are to be made for one sector (i.e., transportation), why not make it possible for other sectors (i.e., agriculture, education, etc.)?  Does this mean Ms. Bachmann would be supportive of building a High-speed rail network, which is  identified (and funded) by the White House as an important piece of the nation’s future growth strategy, if it is funded as an earmark?  Are Earmarks are bad, unless they’re going to Ms. Bachmann’s district? Cutting spending is good, except for the “legitimate projects that have to be done.”Are we missing something here?

Related articles

• Bachmann Wants Earmarks Redefined To Exclude Transportation Projects (huffingtonpost.com)
• Bachmann explains budgeting as only she can (washingtonmonthly.com)
• The Earmark Game (talkingpointsmemo.com)
• Leave Earmarks Alone (newser.com)
• Obama, Republicans agree: Reform culture of earmarks (ac360.blogs.cnn.com)
• Inhofe says he’ll keep earmarking (politico.com)
• GOP Supports Earmark Ban … for Now (pajamasmedia.com)
• Top Senate Republican joins push to stop earmarks (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• After DeMint: How Will Senate Democrats Handle Earmarks? (swampland.blogs.time.com)
• Senate Democrat joins GOP pushing for earmark vote (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Mitch McConnell Changes Course, Moves to Ban Earmarks (politicsdaily.com)
• Conservative senator lauds McConnell on earmarks (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Chris Weigant: Tea Party Republicans Win Earmark Fight (huffingtonpost.com)
• Earmark Ban Won’t Get the Federal Deficit Under Control (politics.usnews.com)

(Source: Public Discourse – The Witherspoon Institute)

It might seem as if nothing could be less important to social conservatives than transportation. The Department of Health and Human Services crafts policies that affect abortion, the Department of Justice and the Federal Communications Commission play crucial roles in determining how prevalent obscenity is in our society, but the Department of Transportation just funds highways, airports, and railroads, or so the usual thinking goes. But decisions about these projects and how to fund them have dramatic and far-reaching consequences for how Americans go about their lives on a day-to-day basis. Transportation decisions have the power to shape how we form communities, families, religious congregations, and even how we start small businesses. Bad transportation decisions can destroy communities, and good transportation decisions can help create them. 

Sadly, American conservatives have come to be associated with support for transportation decisions that promote dependence on automobiles, while American liberals are more likely to be associated with public transportation, city life, and pro-pedestrian policies. This association can be traced to the ’70s, when cities became associated with social dysfunction and suburbs remained bastions of ‘normalcy.’ This dynamic was fueled by headlines mocking ill-conceived transit projects that conservatives loved to point out as examples of wasteful government spending. Of course, just because there is a historic explanation for why Democrats are “pro-transit” and Republicans are “pro-car” does not mean that these associations make any sense. Support for government-subsidized highway projects and contempt for efficient mass transit does not follow from any of the core principles of social conservatism. 

A common misperception is that the current American state of auto-dependency is a result of the free market doing its work. In fact, a variety of government interventions ensure that the transportation “market” is skewed towards car-ownership. These policy biases are too numerous to list exhaustively, but a few merit special recognition: 

-If a state is interested in building a new highway, the only major regulatory obstacle is completing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). After this, the federal government will typically pay for a large portion of the project, and leave the details of its planning and construction to the state’s Department of Transportation. If a state or municipality is interested in a transit project like a subway, a streetcar, or a bus system, however, not only must it complete an EIS, it must also clear a barrage of regulatory hurdles, including a cost-effectiveness analysis, a land-use impact analysis, and a comparison with other transit systems. None of these requirements is necessarily bad in itself (though many of these regulations were designed only to make it harder to build transit systems), but highways aren’t subject to any of them. Naturally, states therefore find it easier to channel transportation dollars into highways. 

-As a 2003 report by the Brookings Institution points out, “federal funding for highway projects is more secure and generous than for transit projects; making highway projects easier to finance.” The Department of Transportation will typically match 80% to 90% of state funds directed towards highway repair or construction. Those same funds directed towards transit usually receive less than a 60% federal match, and carry further burdensome requirements for local funding that highway projects do not need to meet. 

-Zoning requirements in most municipalities mandate that shops and houses must be separated. It is widely illegal to build the old small-town main street with the mix of shops, houses, and apartments that many find charming (so charming that some of these towns have been turned into tourist attractions). Furthermore, in most states it is mandatory for new schools to be built next to hundreds of acres playing fields, and thus far away from residential neighborhoods (see this report and this paper for a fuller discussion of policies that affect travel to school). These and similar regulations ensure that there are no shops or schools—that is, major household destinations—within walking distance of the average American’s home, which in turn requires the average American to own and use a car, not merely to commute to work but to perform basic tasks like picking up a gallon of milk or sending the kids off to school in the morning. 

(Source:  Wall Street Journal)

President Obama and Vice President Biden spoke with Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood Tuesday at Transportation Department headquarters, where they announced the first batch of stimulus funds getting distributed. In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Mr. LaHood talked about spending stimulus money wisely, his opposition to an increase in the gasoline tax, new fuel emission standards and more. Below are edited excerpts from the interview.

* * *

The Wall Street Journal: What’s being done to ensure that the $48 billion going to transportation projects in the stimulus bill is spent wisely?

Mr. LaHood: Our people are in touch daily with these DOT secretaries. We generally, having worked with them for years and years and years, know what is fundable. It really falls under two categories. Projects that were started and then stopped because they ran out of money, and something that’s been sitting on a shelf in a DOT office because they didn’t have the money to fund it. Some of these, like the one we announced today (a road repaving project in suburban Maryland), have been in process…These are projects that these folks have known about and have been talking about for some time. This isn’t something brand new that’s been sprung up on them…I don’t think you’re going to see something weird pop up…It’s pretty traditional stuff. It really is.

WSJ: Are you concerned when you hear squabbles between mayors and governors over how to spend the stimulus money?

Mr. LaHood: [Cities] are concerned that 70% of the money is going to the states and they’re only going to get 30%…These disputes, look it, they’re going to take place….In the end, I’m not going to be able to change the idea that 70% of this is going to the states and 30% are going to them. I tried to make a case for them. But the way it’s designed here…it is what it is.

(Source:  Whitehouse.gov via Planetizen)

Just two weeks after signing that legislation, we’re about to start the biggest investment on our nation’s road, bridges, highways and tunnels since we built the Interstate Highway System over 50 years ago.  It’s a big deal.  The work is beginning now, with hundreds more projects getting underway in the next few months.  Some project will start this month, some won’t get going until the summer.  We’re going to do everything we can to get them moving as quickly as possible.  But Americans didn’t get in this mess overnight.  And unfortunately, unfortunately, it’s going to take some time for us to get out of this.

     Mr. President, you also made it clear that we have an obligation to the taxpayers of this nation to make sure their money is being used wisely, to make it accountable and transparent.  Folks, we’re going to ask of you a sense of diligence and transparency and responsibility as has not been asked before, because we’ve never made this kind of investment before.  This is a big deal.  Never before in the history of this country have the people been more able to see with such complete transparency how we’re going to put their money to work, not just in this agency but particularly here. 

Excerpts from President Obama’s address:

     Of the 3.5 million jobs that will be created and saved over the next two years as a result of this recovery plan, 400,000 will be jobs rebuilding our crumbling roads, bridges, and schools, repairing our faulty levees and dams, connecting nearly every American to broadband, and upgrading the buses and trains that commuters take every day.  Many of these projects will be coordinated by Secretary LaHood and all of you at the Department of Transportation.  And I want you to know that the American public is grateful to public servants like you — men and women whose work isn’t always recognized, but whose jobs are critical to our nation’s safety, security, and prosperity.  You have never been more important than you are right now, and for that we are all grateful.  (Applause.) 

     Now, in the coming days and weeks, my administration will be announcing more details about the kinds of transportation projects that will be launched as part of the recovery plan.  But today, I want to speak about an investment we are making in one part of our infrastructure.  Through the Recovery Act, we will be investing $28 billion in our highways, money that every one of our 50 states can start using immediately to put people back to work.  It’s an investment being made at an unprecedented pace, thanks in large part to Joe Biden, who’s leading the effort to get the money out the door quickly.  Because of Joe, and because of all the governors and mayors, county and city officials who are helping implement this plan, I can say that 14 days after I signed our Recovery Act into law, we are seeing shovels hit the ground.