Posted on 07/14/2005 1:00:29 PM PDT by SmithL
WASHINGTON -- The House voted to approve the nation's costliest waterway navigation project Thursday, a $3.6 billion undertaking to ease shipping on the upper Mississippi and Illinois rivers. Environmental and taxpayer groups have opposed the project.
Barge operators and farmers want to speed grain to Gulf of Mexico ports, and the Mississippi is the cheapest route for shipping to export markets commodities such as corn and soybeans, coal, chemicals and construction materials.
Government scientists, however, had said that grain exports probably won't increase enough to economically justify the lock overhaul plan. House members overwhelmingly agreed to the plan anyway, as part of a bill to authorize spending $10 billion for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects nationwide over the next 15 years.
"If a project is broke, it's time to fix it," said Rep. Kenny Hulshof, R-Mo. "You don't wait to see if it gets better. Traffic has been increasing on the inland waterways system everywhere except in the upper Mississippi because of the declining condition of these locks and dams."
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Got to keep the commerce moving.
Pork Barrel - Feed at the trough!
'twould be hard to find any mode of transportation that doesn't get some subsidy.
"Government scientists, however, had said that grain exports probably won't increase enough to economically justify the lock overhaul plan. House members overwhelmingly agreed to the plan anyway,"
Because it's not their money, and it's all free, free, free!!!!
If this is legitimate, I don't have a problem with it. If it's just graft, put a stop to it. And don't listen to the envirornmentalists. The pilgrims wouldn't have been able to cut down a single tree or catch one cod if they were around then with all their assorted boards and committees.
The lock and dam system was built in the 1920's and 30's. There is little question that it needs updating.
I always thought that 'pork barrel' referred to a pet project slapped onto an unrelated bill, usually one that was virtually guaranteed to have to be passed, that would only benefit a localized special interest in one congressman's district.
This seems to be not only a major part of the bill, but also a project covering a large region of interstate (and international) trade.
In case you're not good at math, $3.6 billion isn't a pothole.
In case you're not good at generalizations, 'pothole filling' is a sweeping term that means taking care of maintaining public throughways and means of interstate commerce.
I'm almost certain you didn't think I literally meant that this meant they should only fill a single pothole and no more.
" In case you're not good at generalizations" 'pothole filling' is a sweeping term that means taking care of maintaining public throughways and means of interstate commerce.
And in case you're not good reading the article, this is a project of extremely questionable value that almost no one but a small group of farmers want.
This isn't filling a pot hole. This isn't maintaining interstate commerce. This is like putting up a $3.6 billion superhighway that only will benefit an extremely small group of businesses.
There is no vital need here. It's a program to spend $3.6 BILLION so some businesses can make a few extra million each a year. That is idiotic.
Without the inland river barge system, the nation's bulk grain and coal would be moved exclusively by rail. Do you have any idea how screwed up the RR system is right now ?
The farmers are actually some corporations involved in raising cash crops, but, even more important, moving them to market, and, if they are vertically integrated, advertising, packaging, manufacturing, bookkeeping, fleet management, stocking, real estate, product testing, lobbying, and dealing with futures and finance.
1 & 2
Why spend 3.6 billion (remember, this things almost always go higher) to generate a couple extra million per year?
There is no point. Alternate transportation methods are available. They can get what they want done another way, it's jsut that if they do it the other way, THEY have to pay for it instead of the taxpayers.
Hey, I'd like to have a new $5 million, 20,000 square foot house built at taxpayer expense. Just think of all the jobs constructing it will provide. Think of how much I'll need to spend to furnish it! Just think of all the property taxes the state will generate every year! Just think about how I can make somebody else pay for something I want just buy telling them that they'll actually being the ones who benefit!
It's the same scam that gets pulled day after day in place after the place in the name of 'public good'. Most times they just benefit some special interest group with a nice serving of pork paid for by the rest of the poor schlubs who pay taxes.
btw, click on the rest of the story if you haven't already.
"An academy panel in 2002 recommended the Army Corps submit all project studies for review by outside experts. That came after an Army Corps economist accused agency officials of doctoring a $54 million study of the Mississippi's navigation system to justify expanding the barge locks. The Army's inspector general also concluded the Army Corps tilted its analysis to favor Midwestern agribusiness interests."
My, isn't that interesting. Can you hear the piggies whine in anticipation of getting all this free money out of everyone's pocket? SOOOOOEEEEEEEEEEEEEE SOOOOOOOOOOOEEEEEEEEEEE!!!
RE: your statement on the rail system agreed; there is no way that this could move by rail in mass quantity at the moment. This 3.6B project would be a boondoogle for the "river" states in terms of construction, does anyone know if the states are being asked to provide any funding for this project? Also, I noted that 'SFgate' was the source on this story - is this really a trustworthy conduit of information?...
Too bad farmers can't sell all their grain as upgraded products within 20 miles of their farm. Untill that happens, cheap transportation via barge is just one of the ways farming (and to a certain extent coal and stone, etc) is subsized.
So you would be satisfied with the amount assuming the businesses in question would profit in the billions instead of in the millions as you claim they will? See, I'm just the opposite. If an improvement will result in so much increased revenue for a company that they will easily recoup the cost or even make a profit then I think they should have to pay for it. Or at least repay the public funds out of the increased profits. It is when the improvements are needed, but not fiscally practical for private businesses that I think the public should chip in for the common good. Kinda like how we all pay a little for our Interstate highway system. We all don't personally drive every mile of it, but it is in the best interest of the general public to have an efficient road system for coast to coast travel and commerce. But then, you might feel we should each just maintain the chunk of road we personally use and not use any other piece without paying the citizen that maintains it. I'm sure that would be a much fairer system and would work very smoothly.
By the way, which specific companies will be making a few million more? Did I miss that list in the article?
Obviously you have this information, since you also cite that not enough companies will benefit. I'm just curious exactly how many companies are on that list and how many would need to be on that list for you to feel it was worth it.
And as for your claim that there is no point because alternate transportation is available, that is true. Grain, coal, lumber, steel, and the other bulk products of the Midwest could be sent via tractor trailer, for example. Of course, it would take 60 semis to carry the amount hauled on a single barge. Maybe that's why barge transport, while making up around 17% of all commercial shipments in the U.S., only consumes about 4% of the commercial transport costs. Of course you might doubt that figure since it came from the Army Corps of Engineers and the only person you seem to be willing to believe from there is the guy that leveled an accusation you liked. I'm sure the fact that you liked his accusation had nothing to do with why you choose to believe him out of all the people in that organization; after all he also...well, I have no clue about anything else he may have done or even who he is. I'm sure you do, though, since you are so confident in him.
Oh yeah...Good luck with the house idea. However, I don't quite agree that such a project would meet a reasonable definition of benefiting interstate commerce, so I fear I won't be able to lend my support to you in this. Now if you can somehow use that house to cart some 113 million tons of grain, coal, steel, lumber, and other goods from Illinois to the Gulf of Mexico like barges from Illinois do, according to the Illinois Dept. of Transportation, then I might reconsider. Because unlike you, I'd be willing to qualify that as interstate commerce.
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.