Re: "It's funny how repubs are against spending... "And
it's way beyond funny that Democrats are in favor of just about any spending,
unless it's for something important, like defense.Government
spending has become the lifeblood of the Democrat Party. Since our numbers are
so small, our only hope is to use taxpayer money to buy the votes needed to stay
in power. Lord knows the party platform will never draw sufficient numbers,
being composed almost entirely of Ervin-like "warmed over baloney."
Wish the article had made the point that the approved funding is way above the
tax revenue being generated. And, the main culprit is not bicycles and
beautification it is mass transit. Re: mcclark, not need for an
increase in the gas tax if the funds were being spent for the purpose they
passed to do. And, no need for Mr. Obama's infrastructure
expenditure on bridges and roads because they would all be well maintain.BTW has anyone ever seen a bicycle rider in the new bicycle paths that
took our a lane each way on main street from 17th South to 13th South. Nice use
of the last stimulus funds by SLC.
It's funny how repubs are against spending... Unless it's for programs they
like. Then they're all for it.
They didn't have cars in 1776 EJM. Are we supposed to stick with the 18th
century because that's what the founding fathers did?Only single
shot muzzle reloads for you.There cam be no standing army and
definetly no Air Force then because the constitution only mentions an army and
repubs hate this topic, but ultimately, the solution is to stop having so many
kids.With fewer kids, we'd need fewer schools and teachers. property
taxes would come down.With fewer kids, fewer cars on the road, tearing up
our highways. Gas tax would go down.With fewer kids, fewer enrolled in
entitlement programs. Of course, it's just easier to blame the
government on everything.
The Senate passed the bill, 92-6. No votes by Coburn, DeMint, Paul, Toomey,
Johnson, and their boy, Lee. These guys would have the nation grind to a halt.
Stop everything, yet have nothing constructive to add. Can't Utah get its own
Senator rather than provide a third Senator for South Carolina?
After the vote to unfund the Highway bill, lets remember to throw the baby out
with the bath water and cut off our nose to spite our face!I have
never read a less well reasoned and poorly timed editorial than this one.. At a
time when our Nation's infrastructure is crumbling and we have millions
unemployed, the Des News actually advocates for not doing anything to to begin
to fix our infrastructure and put millions to work.This is
professional journalism at its finest? Oh, I forgot, this is semi professional
journalism at its mediocre best. This is the Des News.
Last time I checked -- Utah had a higher per cent gas tax than the Federal
tax...(24.5 cents per gallons, as to 18.4 cents per gallon respectively) and the Federal Government bears the lion share and bigger brunt of much
higher ticket priced items like Freeways and Insterstates and subsidizing those
very same Oil Companies billions of $$$ every year!While I'm against
all wasted taxes...Typical Utah rant -- the Feds are terrible, rotten and
good for nothing, While the State is pure and innocent while factually
The American Trucking Association, to which I belong asked Obama to raise the
fuel tax we pay because we understand how important the highway system is to our
business's. Obama said no because the Republicans would scream bloody murder
about raising taxes. So much for Republicans caring about anything but replacing
Mike, I'm just saying that we can all use reasons for justifying any
federal expenditure, or for not justifying any federal expenditure. Some folks
use the Constitution as the basis for their argument. If you go back 200 years
the only roads mentioned are for post roads as to what the government should
build. All other roads were left up to the states/local municipalities for
construction/repair. Defense is an enumerated duty but not the building of
roads throughout the country for that. So, it is an implied duty under the
Constitution since "the building of roads for defense" is not spelled
out specifically under Article 1. As for bicycle paths they could end up being
a function and here's why. 200 years ago we didn't have automobiles. The
Founders weren't planning on them but did plan on having what they had: dirt
roads. But we have roads today and our federal government provides money not
only for interstate but for the national highway system (i.e., US 40). $$ goes
to the state and then they decide how that road gets fixed/repaired/built. Not
an enumerated power and not part of the interstate highway program. Just saying.
EJM,I think that you've inserted more into my post than what I
wrote.During the "Cold War" Eisenhower claimed that we
needed a roadway system to enable the military to move troops and equipment from
any point to any point. We already know that the military needs airbases for
military airplanes. We already know that the military needs its own
"Internet". In fact, DARPANET (Defense Advanced Research Projects
Administration Network) was the beginning of our current Internet.Just how is the military supposed to move equipment and troops without
roads?Defense is listed at least six times in Article 1, Section 8.
It is an enumerated duty of the federal government. Taxes were
levied to pay for those roads. Those taxes were to have expired, but Congress
added to them, which is the problem upon which the Deseret News based its
editorial.The federal government has limited duties. Building
bicycle paths is not a function of the federal government. Building roads for
military deployment is a function of the federal government; just as much of a
function as building military bases and airports.
giantfan: "They are spending us into bankruptcy and the example of the gas
tax is spot on in that once a tax is implemented, it is near impossible to
rescind it, even when it's promised."Like the Bush tax cuts?
Just as stop-gap measures to increase resources are hard to rescind, so is it
very difficult to reverse measures that were intended only as a temporary
relief. The road runs both ways.As to the local vs national
argument when it comes to highway funds, keep in mind that a good portion of the
travelers are not local. Did you buy groceries lately? What if Nevada decided
to not spend money on its highways, making direct passage from California by
truck unfeasible? Does it affect you when you pay higher bills on groceries to
allow Nevada a lower highway fund? Our nation owes much of its
prosperity to its infrastructure, and to let that go is what will lead to the
end of our economic position.
@ bricha, quality control IS at the local level. The feds don't do it, they
just provide the funds to the state. The state and local entities execute. So
much for the quality of local control....
Well, here's the thing, very large infrastructure projects seem to require some
significant federal involvement. For the example the rebuild of the rail
freight corridor out of Washington into the interior is a cooperative of Norfolk
Southern Railway, states, local governments, and the feds. It's probablly not
practical to be purist in how we do these things.
So that excuse for the building of the interstate highway system justifies the
building of it when it is not enumerated under the Constitution? Sounds like
Article 1, Section 8 and the "necessary and proper" clause came
through again. All I am asking is this. We all, as Americans, cannot say that
one program is constitutional and another is not. Take that back. We can say
that but we have to realize that the Supreme Court is the Court of Last Resort
and has the final say as to the constitutionality of programs. Americans can
agree to disagree on this. Mike, I know that you are a strict constructionist
and like to post on here your views as to programs that you feel are
unconstitutional under that view of the Constitution. My argument with those
who hold that view is that they like to pick and choose as to which ones should
be, and which ones should not be, constitutional. I was tossing out a nugget
there. Nice to know that you aren't playing the "enumerated" card on
this one and that deep down...you are more of a loose constructionist after all.
EJM,Eisenhower built the Freeway system citing national defense as
the criteria. He knew that moving an army via the existing roads would never
work if we were attacked.From Wikipedia:"Eisenhower
gained an appreciation of the German Autobahn network as a necessary component
of a national defense system while he was serving as Supreme Commander of the
Allied forces in Europe during World War II. He recognized that the proposed
system would also provide key ground transport routes for military supplies and
troop deployments in case of an emergency or foreign invasion."
The point of this editorial is that the federal government holds more power over
states then they were ever intended to. They are spending us into bankruptcy and
the example of the gas tax is spot on in that once a tax is implemented, it is
near impossible to rescind it, even when it's promised. Why should
we have to beg for monies to build things like highways when we, as citizens,
pay into it every time we fill up our gas tank? Why isn't it reasonable to get
rid of the federal gas tax and leave it up to the states on how they want to
build and maintain their highways? Right now, if the state wants to improve a
stretch of existing I-15 and if they request federal dollars that once resided
in the pockets of Utahns anyway, they have to agree to all federal standards,
like 15 foot sound walls to insulate highway noise from houses that didn't even
exist when the highway was originally built. Some of you may think that a good
idea but shouldn't that be a local government decision and not that of
Re: "So I guess that national debt thing doesn't matter when it comes to
getting money for roads, but it does matter when it comes to education. What
hypocrisy."To get back to the point -- the opinion piece
decries the waste of federal roadbuilding funds. Liberals love to change the
subject, when backed into a corner, but it is inarguable the federal
roadbuilding funds are being squandered on a lot of liberal feelgood waste that
is completely unrelated to efficient road transportation.This is s
standard liberal tactic -- gain power by arguing that interstate roadbuilding is
a proper exercise of federal authority, then engage in vote-buying profligacy in
the exercise that authority.All with funds fleeced from people that
would never donate to their cause.Hypocrisy, indeed.
What I don't understand is why no one here is talking about all the apparent
waste in Highway funds. Maybe I just don't understand, but it seems like we rip
up the same roads every year. As an example right now they are repaving I-15
every night from draper to Lehi. Didn't we just finish that stretch of road a
few years ago. I personally think quality control can be managed a lot better
at a local level.
Is the creation of a federal highway system an enumerated power under the
Constitution? In reading it I see that the federal government has the power to
create post offices and post roads but nowhere do I see that power enumerated,
spelled our specifically under the Constitution. But, we have interstates being
paid for by tax dollars. I would enjoy reading comments by posters on this
issue. Again, we get upset about the federal debt. We get upset about federal
intrusion in our lives. We get upset about the Constitution and the federal
government engaged in activities that for some are seen as unconstitutional.
Should this be one of those activities that only the states should now be
We have federal roads, i.e. I-15, I-80, I-70, US40. We have state roads, i.e.
State Route 111. And, we have county and city roads. After driving more than
two-million miles (that's not a typo), I haven't seen the need for bicycle paths
on federal roads. Sure, some people ride their bicycles on US40, US89, US91 and
other federal roads, but it wouldn't make practical sense to add bicycle paths
to those roads.Bicycle paths should be part of the State/County/City
road system and paid by State/County/City funds collected from State/County/City
I just find it amazing that with all of our rhetoric here locally about the
intrusiveness of the federal government into local affairs (and the national
debt fiasco) that our state legislature continues to have its' hands out asking
for more money for roads. So I guess that national debt thing doesn't matter
when it comes to getting money for roads, but it does matter when it comes to
education. What hypocrisy.
You ridicule "bike paths and other necessities for livable
communities." Bikes can be practical transportation if given half a
chance. BTW, is this piece a D-News editorial or something else? It's not
If anyone ever wants clear proof that the current incarnation of conservatives
(_not_ conservatives of Eisenhower or Reagan's eras) are contemptuous of
long-neglected and urgently needed improvements to critical national
infrastructure, so that oil companies and millionaires may have still more tax
breaks, while keeping unemployment high (to keep the rage machine in high gear
for election fundraising), look no further than this editorial. The
Heritage Foundation? Really, Deseret News?
Oh, so we let our highway system fall apart?Wise. Really wise.
Anyone that needs to quote the Heritage Foundation to prove their point, needs
to seriously reanalyze the point they're making. These are the same folks that
don't believe that poor people need microwaves and refrigerators....
Are you saying Utah should fund its own highway system? Are you kidding me?
Utah could not have afforded the I-15 reconstruction that has been ongoing for
many years. It simply could not have been done. It is easy to take this
position AFTER the money has been spent and the project built. This is an
astounding position from a paper that is supposed to be a leader. you are no
different than the selfish tea party crowd who don't think things through but
instead echo political rhetoric.By the say, "local sidewalk and
beautification projects, bike paths and other necessities for 'livable
communities'" are indeed related. If cars are taken off the roads, there
are commuting alternatives, etc. not only is the quality of life improved, there
is also less wear and tear on the roads and bridges infrastructure. It is
actually a good investment.You have fallen into the political games
trap of the Republicans in Washington. I am deeply disappointed.
We wouldn't want all those Dr's, lawers, nurses and businessmen to get to work.
Who's business friendly? Not the tea-party types.
Although it is hard to disagree that federal tax dollar shouldn't be misspent,
it is telling that this article relies on the right wing think tank, the
Heritage Foundation, for some of it's "facts". It is also revealing
that the authors use right wing catch phrases like "environmentalist
agenda", a term which has no real meaning. It is very hard to take the
DNews seriously when they write editorials with such a hard ultra conservative
edge, and get their "research" information from organizations with
"The Heritage Foundation found that 38 percent of highway funds were spent
on local sidewalk and beautification projects, bike paths and other necessities
for livable communities."Is it really your contention that
making our local roadways more aesthetically pleasing and getting bicycles off
the roadways is a bad thingand NOT related to highway funding?The
bill passed in Congress this week, and also in the Senate last night, is a
stopgap funding bill to avert a shutdown of federal aviation and highway
programs with Federal Aviation Administration funding set to expire at the end
of this week. So you would suggest that it was appropriate to cut off funding
for the FAA and all of its necessary services, like air traffic control?House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman John L. Mica
said that while the bill signifies a bipartisan agreement to move forward,
"it must not be just a temporary Band-Aid for our important aviation,
highway, rail and safety programs and for job creation. This action represents a
last chance to roll up our sleeves and get transportation projects in America
moving again."Your suggestion to do otherwise is shortsighted