Cantor Caves? Tweets Supprt for 'Smart' infrastructure spending.

http://twitter.com/#!/EricCantor ^ | 9-10-2011 | Eric Cantor

[Maelstorm]

Eric Cantor (EricCantor) on Twitter

[FromTheSidelines]

I really don’t think that it’s so dang hard for the Republicans to craft a response to Obama’s “Jobs Bill” along the lines of.......We will study the legislation when it is written and scored by the budget office. We will attempt to find common ground on as much as possible, providing that all American’s will benefit and that long term job growth will be assured with it’s passage.

Nah, to many here that would be sign of capitulation and caving and being RINOs... When you get people calling Eric Cantor a RINO, you know you're way over-the-edge in terms of sanity!

[rabidralph]

This is what Gov. Palin was talking about in her Iowa speech. Both sides are addicted to our money and they'll never take serious steps to control spending. Because there's nothing in it for them.

[KansasGirl]

[The Republican game plan is to give 0bama about 90% of what he wants in that bill. They will hold back on the 10% which is the worst. They will make sure that there are just enough Republican votes to pass the bill (ensuring that every Democrat must vote for it).]

Are you serious? The GOP plans to spend 1/2 trillion taxpayer $$$, $ that we don't have, to better position themselves for the 2012 election? EXACTLY what is WRONG with DC. And btw, it is a horrible strategy. The Tea Party will go 3rd Party if that's the game the GOP plans to play. That is outrageous. If the strategy you outlined is true, they really are just 2 sides of the same thieving, corrupt coin!

[Jim Noble]

What in the hell is this?

Oh c'mon! You don't get it yet?

The differences between the wings of the ruling class are minor. They ALL believe certain things which are false, anti-human, and destructive to the Republic and to the Constitution.

Every last one of them. You place WAY too much reliance on the "R" brand.

But change is coming. Change is inevitable. You betcha. < wink >.

[FromTheSidelines]

“RINO” = I disagree with the last thing he said.

Precisely. Too many conservatives have gone over the edge and become purely reactionary - which allows them to be even more manipulated. It's crazy. Sometimes spending is actually needed - repairing roads, bridges, and expanding airports seems like a good idea to me - just like replacing our military infrastructure as well.

If there's going to be any spending, then spend it on things that benefit ALL people, and build the nation and its economy - that's actual, hard infrastructure - not food stamps and subsidized housing and bailing out big union companies.

In fact, highways and airports ARE a Constitutional domain of the Federal Government - they are used for postal roads/delivery of mail, and per Article 1, Section 8, Clause 7 of the US Constitution - Congress gets to establish postal roads - roads (and I would assume ports as needed as well) for delivery of mail. That's the highways and airports.

Keep the infrastructure spending on these things - get rid of the social welfare spending that eats up 100% of the Federal Revenues and is actually unconstitutional.

[texmexis best]

The problem with infrastructue spending is that the interstate hwy system is finished and the need for new monstrous international airports is limited. Stadiums? No real need.

There is a need for maintenance but that too is limited. This is not the nineteen fifties.

[shield]

When we cream the dems in 2012...ALL LEADERSHIP ROLES must be replaced in the senate and the house.

"So when we hear the leaders of the American Establishment declare war on the tea partiers, we would do well to remember that such movements are deeply imbedded in our national DNA, that those Establishment types owe their own status to such a movement, that the dreams of the tea partiers are shared not only by millions of American voters, but by freedom-seeking peoples in some very unexpected places, and that it is no accident to discover that a global movement in the name of freedom coincides with a global Great Awakening, with roots in America and its unique revolutionary tradition." Michael Ledeen

[righttackle44]

Geez, let’s kick him while he’s down.

[Georgia Girl 2]

Cantor caves. Who among us is shocked? He was, is and continues to be a whiny azz country club republican.

These guys just don’t get it. Not one more penny on this stimulous nonsense. I made a $10 bet at lunch yesterday with my best friend that the Pubbies won’t give Barry another nickel for stimulous and now I’m getting worried that I’m going to lose. I never learn. LOL!

[Siena Dreaming]

Don't worry...this is what Obama should have targeted in his first Porkulus...Cantor is saying he agrees with it. This gives them the opportunity to now discuss the details and Cantor will make a clear case of why the Fed Gov't should not target it toward union jobs which is what Obama wants to do.

Meanwhile, Cantor will be proposing a 20% deduction from income for small businesses. Lots of negotiating to come in which Obama liberal positions will be exposed and there will be more opportunity for his base to consider him as "weak" when he again has to back down.

[PieterCasparzen]

Cantor was arguing that the Feds shouldn’t control the transportation money. He calls for taking transportation designated money out of the Feds hands and putting it in state hands.

Feral money getting sent back to States IS THE PROBLEM.

That is why we have RUNAWAY Feral government spending.

Congress should not send 1 red cent to States for anything.

It is not necessary. That is the lie. There is NO LOCAL PROJECT "TOO BIG" TO BE FUNDED LOCALLY. That is hogwash. But that is what congresscritters tell us.

The Feral government is insolvent right now by any sane accounting standard. Yet Congress continues to borrow. And send money back home to key industries in their districts.

[Eva]

The infrastructure spending bill is already written and sitting in the transportation committee of the Senate. It is S.942, submitted by Patty Murray, designed to fund multi-modal infrastructure projects like the one her home state of WA, the Gateway Pacific Coal Terminal.

That’s not the interesting part though, the company that is building this terminal is SSA, the same company of longshoremen who have recently been in the news for the union violence in Longview,WA.

Oh, and it gets better. Patty Murray’s husband is a lifetime employee of SSA, which is fully owned by CARRIX, and Goldman Sachs is the majority stake holder in CARRIX.

[Eva]

Thank you for the clarification, but putting some of that money in the hands of certain states is not necessarily a good thing, either.

As I posted previously, the infrastructure spending bill is already written and is sitting in committee in the Senate. It was submitted by Patty Murray, Dick Durbin and Susan Collins. It is designed to fund Gateway projects around the country, many of which are not popular with local residents, and the states who have been requesting the money are being denied funds for punitive reasons. Those states are South Carolina and Wisconsin. Big surprise, considering who submitted the bill.

South Carolina wants dredging of their port and the bill excludes dredging. Wisconsin was dropped from the funding by Ray LaHood.

The infrastructure and transportation bill doesn’t really create any “family wage”jobs anyway. It pays for permitting, environmental studies, land purchase and even interest on the start up money, but no real jobs. It’s just more of the same old, same old that we have had from the Obama administration since day one.

If he gives the money to the states for the projects that the people don’t want, what good is that?

[PieterCasparzen]

...Sometimes spending is actually needed - repairing roads, bridges, and expanding airports...

...In fact, highways and airports ARE a Constitutional domain of the Federal Government - they are used for postal roads/delivery of mail, and per Article 1, Section 8, Clause 7 of the US Constitution - Congress gets to establish postal roads - roads (and I would assume ports as needed as well) for delivery of mail. That's the highways and airports.

Let's take an example. NJ. We have Newark Airport. It's not a postal road. It's primarily for commercial air travel, it also moves freight (many flights move freight along with passengers, but people don't know that). Ok, do you have any idea how much wealth and how many large corporations are in NJ ? Now, I can hit NYC with a rock from Newark airport. Any idea how much wealth is flowing around there ? Look at how many large infrastructure projects in the NYC-metro area are funded by a wonderful little thing call bonds. NJ issues bonds, NYC does, there are so many public utility/transportation/infrastructure bonds issued it would make one's head spin. Investors - big funds, instituttional investors - the whole of the American capital markets - they all jump in and buy these bonds.

So if I need $50 billion to put in an airport, do I need Feral government "grant" money ? No. But if it's offered to me for free, in addition to all the other capital I raise to build my airport, do i take it ? YES ! ABSOLUTELY.

And I say - THANK YOU CONGRESSMAN _______ . Me and and my investors thank you for the financial handout that you gave us that improvied our ROI - for FREE ! And by the way, all the UNION guys, they send their best as well. They'll be sure to do some legwork come next election, and go out and crack some heads, or drive vanloads of people to vote for you, the bringer of free money to our district. Ssshhhh, we just won't tell the rubes voting for you that it's because of our FREE money scam that their taxes start to get oppressive the minute they start having any comfortable amount of income, and our whole little government tax-and-regulate-cabal is the reason why their jobs have gone overseas.

The Congress has INSINUATED ITSELF into the whole "infrastructure" industry.

If NJ used IT'S OWN money to pay for Route 80 within NJ, then, when it got into PA, PA used IT'S OWN money to maintain Route 80 within PA, etc..... it would be very affordable. It is very possible. The Feral government has many smart people thinking that building a highway is like building a space ship - only governments can possibly afford it. Wrong. The private sector has MORE MONEY than the Feral government. It has to - that's where the Feral government gets IT'S money from. The only reason the government had to fund the space program is because it did not have a reasonable payoff at that time - it did not make economic sense. It was a political effort, "let's prove we can do this" but far before the technology was cheap enough and the uses were there to make it worthwhile.

Is it Constitutional ? Absolutely not. Post roads were needed only because, again, there was no earthly reason why businesses at the time would create roads in certain places where they were needed for the mail to get through. Mind you, these were dirt roads, horse and buggy trails, not spaceships and airports. Should the postal system be run efficiently ? Of course. That's why much of the trucking they need is OUTSOURCED to guys with trucks who want to make a buck. This clause is merely saying that Congress is permitted to fund road building for the Post Office if the private sector has not already built roads where the Post Office needs them and there is not earthly reason why they would build the roads needed, given that getting the mail to that dude living way up on the mountain is the only reason a road is needed up on the mountain. That's the opposite of saying Congress can and must build all interestate roads, used for private sector passenger and shipping traffice, just because a few times a day a Post Office vehicle drives over that same public road.

Of course, nowadays almost every house has a road leading to it - for private sector reasons. So, plainly speaking, the road-building phase of the country - IS OVER !

What we really see here is the States that keep re-electing the same Congressmen over and over, so their Congressmen have SENIORITY and become POWERFUL COMMITTEE CHAIRS, are more effective at wrangling around other Congresscritters and getting more Feral funds sent to their own state than other States who don't have such finely-tuned State political machines. So we've been having a 150-year race to see who can bilk the Feral government out of the most money. And where does it get it's money from ? Well, the old slick willy congresscritter just smiles that smile, and shrugs, and says well, I guess we just need to raise more taxes. But I'm a man of the people - I will just tax those evil rich folks !

We all know the drill...

IMHO.

[PieterCasparzen]

Any and all congresscritters who openly say they want to send Feral dollars (that were ripped out of people’s paychecks) back to States are NOT PART OF THE SOLUTION, THEY’RE PART OF THE PROBLEM.

Those who want infrastructure built - if it is so NEEDED in the their State - then it should be WORTHWHILE for THAT STATE to FLOAT BONDS to PAY FOR THE STINKIN’ PROJECT.

Why should my State of New Jersey ask people from MINNESOTA, OR NEW MEXICO, OR TEXAS - TO BUILD IMPROVEMENTS TO THE AIRPORTS IN NEW JERSEY - OR NJ BRIDGES ?????

WHY ????

If NJ roads and bridges are falling apart - NJ needs to maintain them - or it will see it’s commerce suffer.

If Texas maintains it’s roads better and attracts more workers and businesses to their State - then I guess NJ better gets it’s rear in gear if it wants to compete.

[Reily]

I don't want to get into a huge discussion on this, but I have seen in the past (and I am sure I will continue to see!) a lot of so-called “infrastructure work” being done seemly because the government is there handing it out! Does this employ people how might be unemployed maybe! But it also sucks money out of the economy so there is lost investment opportunity that might otherwise be employed in jobs that not only have some permanence but add directly to the over-all productivity of the economy. I am always skeptical of these claims that we as a nation need “infrastructure investment” there always seems to be enough local public money laying around when there is the need to a new sports complex. (Full disclosure I am a sports fan!) I assume you are trying to bait me into a “for Palin - against Palin” argument. Sorry I am not interested. Crony capitalism is practiced by both parties just much much more so by the Rats.

[CharlesWayneCT]

I don’t like public stadiums. I also don’t like public financing of private stadiums, although it’s better than public stadiums. Then there is tax breaks to someone to bring a team to a state — that’s like giving tax breaks to any company, so they have to be weighed on a case by case basis.

When I speak of “good infrastructure” spending, I am talking about items which need to be either built or repaired anyway, that we’d normally wait until we had the money for, but which if we spend the money now, we won’t have to spend it later.

So for example, if there is a bridge that has to be replaced in the next 5 years, starting the work now rather than waiting 3 years could stimulate the economy, and we’ll get the money back when we DON’T have to do the work 3 years from now. The hope being that 3 years from now we’ll be in a recovery and won’t need the government work.

Adding lanes to overcrowded roads, or building new miles of highway where needed, are both valid federal tasks, and contribute both to extra labor, and to economic growth because people who spend less time on the roads spend more time being productive.

Fixing existing government buildings that are falling apart, or building a new facility in a better location could also be “good” — like moving an agency from an expensive lease in Arlington to an owned building out in a cheap county in Maryland or Virginia — not only do we get a boost from building, we save money on the lease, and then we get cars off of crowded highways.

The infrastructure projects have to be “smartly” chosen. I don’t trust Obama to do this — he’ll build things with forced union labor in places to pay his political donors. Unfortunately, the “no earmarks” push will make it hard for the republicans to properly target infrastructure spending, since that is what “earmarks” are — spending targetted to the specific projects the legislature believes are important.

This is why INhofe was opposed to the earmark legislation. He knew SOMEONE was going to choose what projects were built, and felt it was better for the congress to do that than let Obama do it.

[FromTheSidelines]

Why should my State of New Jersey ask people from MINNESOTA, OR NEW MEXICO, OR TEXAS - TO BUILD IMPROVEMENTS TO THE AIRPORTS IN NEW JERSEY - OR NJ BRIDGES ?????

Because a lot of those airports and highways and bridges are Federal assets - they're owned and governed by the Federal Goverment. At least out past the original 13 colonies (see the US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, clause 17).

Why should a State get stuck repairing and maintaining a Federal road? Why should they have to pick up the bill for a Federal asset? Rather, the Feds should spend their money maintaining their own properties and assets - and stop trying to buy people with giveaways and freebies.

[Reily]

In principle I agree.

However I have rarely seen “smartly chosen” in action.
Usually its chosen based on which constituents waves the most campaign funds or helps legislator out in other less obvious but "financially rewarding" ways. And I have seen this done by both parties though the Rats are by far the worse and utterly hypocritical about it! My favorite two recent examples are Chelsea Clinton and Rahm Emanuel. Chelsea went from receiving a liberal arts degree from Brown to a 6 figure Wall Street job. The ink was barely dry on her diploma. Then there is Rahm who went from Congress to Wall Street and was reported to have made a cool $24 million there. Now tell me what investment acumen did either of them pick up either as a Brown liberal arts major or as a Rat "Wall Street-Hating (at least publicly!)" congressman? I am sure I can find GOP examples, but I find those two be particularly egregious because of the shear Rat hypocrisy!

Also I am not necessarily opposed to earmarks, earmarks are a micro-drop in the federal spending bucket compared to entitlements. Ranting about earmarks is the same as ranting about federal salaries; makes everyone feel good but doesn't address the spending problem. The problem is "entitlements" and Ryan is the only one who has attempted to address that, but I digress. My original comment was based on my disgust of personally witnessing the "gimmie gimmie" attitudes of some so-called local GOP supporters. It bothered me so much I never returned to local meetings. And I am sure the "Gimmie crowd" has elbowed and out-shouted their way to first in line to Cantor's ear. Hence his statements.

[SaraJohnson]

I thought we were out of money and had to hack social security! Goes to show what I have always said. These GOP socialist idiots will cut Social Security to please wall street and then turn around and spend even more money on every other whim that passes by.

They are incompetent liars.