Obama Proposes Doubling Highway Spending on Savings From Troop Withdrawal

[Purveyor]

By Carol Wolf - Mon Feb 13 16:15:12 GMT 2012

President Barack Obama’s fiscal 2013 budget proposed almost doubling the amount spent on U.S. highway, bridge and mass transit projects by using money previously spent on military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The White House budget released today proposes $476 billion over six years for surface transportation, and the president calls for an immediate $50 billion infusion in spending this year. About $38.5 billion a year would be transferred from the U.S. general fund, offset by “reduced overseas military expenditures,” the document said. The budget also provides a boost in financing authority for a transportation loan program beyond current estimated outlays.

The Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Program, or TIFIA, would have financing authority of about $5 billion under the president’s budget. In fiscal 2012, financing authority was $1.23 billion. The TIFIA program provides loans to help pay for toll-road and other projects in combination with private financing.

The Highway Trust Fund, which finances U.S. transportation projects using vehicle-fuel taxes, faces insolvency as soon as October, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The president and some Republicans have ruled out raising the taxes to fill the funding gap.

MORE...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-13/highway-spending-would-be-doubled-in-obama-s-budget-amid-military-savings.html

[liberal N proud]

1. Highway Spending equal jobs

The republicans alread oppose it because it would provide needed good paying jobs country wide.

[kestrel91316]

2. How about spending some of that savings on mass transit: not transit "infrastructure"

but MORE buses on existing routes, since our bus service has been slashed to the bone in the recession.

Stop catering to the car culture already.

[tridim]

3. Mass trasit is mentioned in the first sentence.

[kestrel91316]

8. Words are cheap. We need our BUSES back. Routes on maps

mean nothing if they don't have actual buses on them, on a schedule that makes them even slightly useful to the working public.

[phleshdef]

4. Right, because buses don't use highways or bridges, only cars do.

Despite the fact that the article in the OP mentions spending it on mass transit in the very first sentence, your premise just comes across as reflexive complaining for the sake of complaining.

[kestrel91316]

7. You missed my point. When you get rid of the buses and routes, improving

freeways ONLY helps the car culture.

[phleshdef]

9. I'm sorry, but "don't improve freeways" is not a winning message.

I'm in total agreement that we need to get on the high speed rail train and fast (no pun intended). But we still need to keep roads and bridges up to date. Almost everyone in America wants to see that happen. It generates jobs and cars aren't going away anytime soon. People want their own cars. and they want to be able to drive them on nice roads. And the vast majority of businesses rely on them to get their supplies moved around, via the trucking industry. Its absurd to be against the notion of keeping our highways maintained and there is no significant number of citizens in this country that will ever be responsive to such a message.

[gratuitous]

5. Here's the carrot

And the stick will be dealing with those doggone Iranians. We can't spend money on domestic programs because we're going to need to support the troops in Iran. Too bad, because we really, really wanted to put people to work, improve the country's transportation system, and achieve a small measure of national security by doing so. But you know how it is, and we have to set our priorities accordingly.

[Aerows]

6. And I can already hear the GOP howling

Heaven forbid we spend money in this country that benefits Americans and provides jobs. It's far better to engage in another war or give a billionaire a tax break.