Posted on 03/03/2011 9:37:57 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
Senate Budget Committee ranking member Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) took Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood to task Thursday for the Obama administration’s call for a massive increase in transportation spending.
Given the record deficit this year, Sessions said he was surprised to see Obama’s 2012 budget call for an 11 percent spending increase and a 9.5 percent increase for the Education and Energy departments, respectively.
But, he said, “I was flabbergasted to see Transportation wants 62 percent increase in spending.”
Sessions noted, ahead of LaHood’s testimony on the request, that the Obama budget calls for an unspecified new tax to raise $435 billion to pay for the new six-year, $556-billion infrastructure build-out.
“I just have to say that is unrealistic,” Sessions said. “If you can’t tell us what kind of tax this is, I think there is zero chance of us passing such a tax as this.
“This is another huge gimmick in the budget,” Sessions said later. “This kind of Washington logic has put us in the financial crisis we are in. We cannot continue it. We cannot continue to authorize spending based on a tax that is not going to be collected, probably.”
Sessions asked for suggestions for the tax, and LaHood did not offer any.
LaHood said “we want to work with Congress on that.” He said Obama is not in favor of raising the gas tax in a “lousy economy.”
The new tax would be necessary, in part, because the gasoline tax used to fund the highway trust fund is collecting less revenue than projected due to increasing fuel efficiency.
The exchange between Sessions and LaHood degenerated into a shouting match, with the Transportation secretary emphasizing that infrastructure can be improved and jobs created while paying down the debt.
Sessions shouted back that the Obama budget doesn't pay down a "dime" of the debt.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) countered Sessions by saying, "I think improving infrastructure is more important than tax breaks for billionaires. My colleague may disagree, but that is my view."
Committee Chairman Kent Conrad said U.S. infrastructure is now grade D, but called the funding shortfall a “harsh reality.”
LaHood said other Obama cuts make room for the increase in infrastructure investment, but the plan is necessary to reduce unemployment.
“The president recognizes this is a jobs bill,” he argued.
Less gas tax is also being raised due to over 15 million unemployed people NOT driving to & from work eash & every day.
For those of us who are retired- we cannot pay $4 +++ per gallon.
Last year, I drove my truck only 298 miles. My annual vehicle insurance on that vehicle cost me over $2 per mile—for it to sit in the driveway.
Deficits during the Bush years averaged 3 or 4 hundred billion”””
IF one takes out the funding for the money paid out to victims of 9/11, Iraq, & Afghanistan/Pakistan wars, how much was GWB’s budget deficit???
I would relaly like to know those figures
Every construction bill that NObama has signed calls for ‘prevailing Union wages’ to be paid- no matter what company does the job.
He will do his best to protect the Unions to his last breath.
For decades the Democrats have punished and waged war against achievement...and rewarded undesirable behaviors.”””
“ATLAS SHRUGGED” is happening, folks.
Time for many of us to “Go Galt”.
Can the Koch brothers, Blackwater and Halliburton get a construction company together? I want to see liberals blow a gasket.
I don’t care if the pay a prevailing wage to non-union members. That’s not the point. The point is to starve the unions.
We really should NOT spend this money, but I can still imagine the steam coming out of their ears.
“infrastructure” is progressive codespeak for “union payola”
That's a fair statement.
The question is, how do they throw the gauntlet down in a way that doesn't impose too high a political cost.
Because if the dems can raise political cost to the GOP high enough, that brings up the worst-case scenario: Obama getting re-elected.
I think it's actually a more delicate job than it seems. As huge as the issue is, I think most people are still in the cover-the-ears sayin "lalalalala" phase. The energy of the demonstrations in Wisconsin and elsewhere comes in large part from the suddenness with which the problem has been addressed.
It will take a better man/woman than Reagan to get it done.
High Speed to Insolvency-Why liberals love trains.
http://www.newsweek.com/2011/02/27/high-speed-to-insolvency.html
To progressives, the best thing about railroads is that people riding them are not in automobiles, which are subversive of the deference on which progressivism depends. Automobiles go hither and yon, wherever and whenever the driver desires, without timetables. Automobiles encourage people to think they—unsupervised, untutored, and unscripted—are masters of their fates. The automobile encourages people in delusions of adequacy, which make them resistant to government by experts who know what choices people should make.
Time was, the progressive cry was “Workers of the world unite!” or “Power to the people!” Now it is less resonant: “All aboard!”
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.