Posted on 02/04/2018 5:26:14 AM PST by Nextrush
A very business as usual Republican Congressman from Pennsylvania, Bill Shuster, announced his retirement recently. Shuster and his father (Congressman Bud Shuster) 'milked the system' with great success, focused on transportation matters like building new roads.
Bill Shuster chairs the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
Bill Shuster's involvement with lobbyists is the stuff of legend, his marriage suddenly ending in December of 2015 and Shuster revealing he was dating a female lobbyist for the airline industry.
That may have something to do with the decisions by Shuster and dozens of other Republicans to call it quits. Some of the 40 plus members are actually running for other political offices.
But maybe there's another reason for their decision to call it quits like a scheme to raised taxes to help big business as the expense of the little people. A tax increase that would doom them politically.
The US Chamber of Commerce (the "Cheap Labor Express") has called for a 25 cent a gallon gas tax hike to fund "infrastucture".
At the Republican Congressional "retreat" on Thursday, Bill Shuster called for a 15 cent a gallon gas tax hike to raise billions of dollars to fund "infrastructure" projects proposed by President Trump. He was interviewed by Bloomberg TV.
He rationalizes the whole thing down to its like "a cup of coffee a week....or its two bottles of water".
Big government in Washington DC keeps getting bigger (in 2017 Washington DC was designated the sixth largest media market in the USA by Nielsen, moving up from seventh).
There's no sign anyone is serious about cutting the spending of the federal government or its size.
They are trimming or modifying regulations and controls, but that's a drop in the bucket in comparison to what really needs to be done.
The timing on such a tax increase is a wonder. Can it be rigged before the election this fall with Republicans and Democrats joining forces to support it, allowing members who want to portray themselves as "Conservative" to vote against it while it passes?
Or would it be better to do it in a lame duck session during the holiday season this November and December the election behind for Republicans safely re-elected, the retiring Republicans without a care in the world and looking forward to being taken care of by special interests in their retirement.
I'll opt for the latter.
THE GAS TAX INCREASE IS COMING, THE GAS TAX INCREASE IS COMING
Like my father who like myself voted for Donald Trump said, the taxes to pay for the 'infrastructure' should have come from the big people, not the little ones.
Any gas tax hike will be a stain on anyone who plays a role in its enactment.
Perhaps, but I’m referring to limited access highways, where the vast majority of federal money is spent. So the bike trails that I refer to have nothing to do with the road - it’s just a handout to a bunch of assholes who won’t use an exercise bike (in my opinion).
I could agree on sound walls for new work, but if the highway has been there for a long time, and is only being expanded, then tough - they knew what they were getting when they bought in. No different than buying a house next to a small airport and then DEMANDING that the airport be shut down because of the noise. If locals want sound walls for houses they bought cheap (because of the highway) they can put up the money to have them built.
Stop all these senseless wars and foreign entanglements, bring our boys home, and redeploy these trillions of dollars and valuable human resources to rebuild the deteriorating infrastructure.
Use Thorium energy.
Problem solved.
High time to send the NeoCon nutjobs to the back of the bus. Or better yet, throw them under the bus.
We would really have to get into the specifics of a particular project to go further. It's one thing if work is being done on maintenance of existing infrastructure. It's quite another if the character of an existing road is being changed: e.g., a secondary road or city street in an urban area that is being widened and turned into a commuter artery; a rural road in the outer suburbs, now developing, with winding roads being upgraded for high speed commuter traffic that makes them unsuitable for sharing by cyclists or pedestrians.
Areas that are on the fringe of suburban development today should be looking ahead to a time not far distant when they will be rather urban and will want urban amenities like sidewalks and safe bike corridors. A lot of sensible infrastructure can be built at low cost if it is planned from the ground floor onwards.
I live in the city. My pet peeves are stretches of road where the sidewalks were sacrificed years ago to create another traffic lane; limited access, high speed commuter roads with so few crossings that they become real barriers to lateral movement and fracture neighborhoods; and chokepoints that force pedestrians and cyclists onto unsafe roads, or bar access entirely. A bridge or overpass that has no sidewalk or bike lane is a recurring example.
We would really have to get into the specifics of a particular project to go further. It's one thing if work is being done on maintenance of existing infrastructure. It's quite another if the character of an existing road is being changed: e.g., a secondary road or city street in an urban area that is being widened and turned into a commuter artery; a rural road in the outer suburbs, now developing, with winding roads being upgraded for high speed commuter traffic that makes them unsuitable for sharing by cyclists or pedestrians.
Areas that are on the fringe of suburban development today should be looking ahead to a time not far distant when they will be rather urban and will want urban amenities like sidewalks and safe bike corridors. A lot of sensible infrastructure can be built at low cost if it is planned from the ground floor onwards.
I live in the city. My pet peeves are stretches of road where the sidewalks were sacrificed years ago to create another traffic lane; limited access, high speed commuter roads with so few crossings that they become real barriers to lateral movement and fracture neighborhoods; and chokepoints that force pedestrians and cyclists onto unsafe roads, or bar access entirely. A bridge or overpass that has no sidewalk or bike lane is a recurring example.
True a while ago, but now I’m seeing what were regular traffic lanes in cities turning into bus-only lanes - so I guess it goes both ways.
A regular street grid can usually accommodate mixed traffic, as bikes can generally stay on a quiet side street and leave the busier road for the car. The problem arises when roads get turned into limited access, high speed commuter corridors with few crossing points. When that happens they become barriers to non-motorized traffic. Bottom line, people should be able to safely cross the street at virtually every corner in a residential neighborhood. If commuters don't want to wait for traffic lights and pedestrian crossings, suck it up and pay for pedestrian and biking overpasses/underpasses at reasonable intervals.
And again, landscaping and noise abatement are not frills. If the commuter lobby wants to drive an arterial road through other people's neighborhoods, or convert a quiet street into a commuter expressway, the people whose neighborhoods are being degraded should be protected as much as possible. If that makes roads more expensive, so be it.
I won’t argue that, but it is mostly at the local level. I love walking too!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.