PDA

View Full Version : Bush Cool to states' call for Public Works



Ordie
02-27-2008, 02:48 PM
February 26, 2008

Bush Cool to States’ Call for Public Works Projects

By ROBERT PEAR (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/robert_pear/index.html?inline=nyt-per)
WASHINGTON — President Bush rebuffed appeals from the nation’s governors on Monday to increase spending on roads, bridges and other public works as a way to revive the economy.
Governors said Mr. Bush had told them at a White House meeting that he wanted to see the effects of his economic stimulus package (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/u/united_states_economy/economic_stimulus/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) before supporting new measures.
A bipartisan group of governors is pushing for major road and bridge projects as a way to create jobs and foster economic development. But the White House says the money could not be spent fast enough to be of much immediate help.
“There’s no short-term stimulus to the economy for some of these projects,” Dana Perino (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/dana_perino/index.html?inline=nyt-per), the White House press secretary, said.
Moreover, Ms. Perino said, the president will not accept any bill that raises taxes to finance such projects. Governors would have more money available, she said, if Congress ended the wasteful earmarking of billions of dollars for specific projects.
In a report on Monday, the National Association for Business Economics, a professional group, said, “Economic growth is expected to slow to a crawl in the first half of 2008.”
Asked about the president’s response, Gov. Christine Gregoire (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/christine_o_gregoire/index.html?inline=nyt-per) of Washington, a Democrat, said: “I think I can summarize his remarks best by saying he did not think he would be interested. He wants to see the results of the stimulus package that was just passed.”
Gov. Edward G. Rendell (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/edward_g_rendell/index.html?inline=nyt-per) of Pennsylvania, a Democrat who is vice chairman of the National Governors Association (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/national_governors_association/index.html?inline=nyt-org), described the response as “a fairly significant no.”
“There are tens of billions of dollars of infrastructure projects ready to go,” Mr. Rendell said. “I asked the president if he would support spending on those projects as part of a second stimulus package, and he said no.”
Other governors pushing for spending on transportation projects include Jon Corzine (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/jon_s_corzine/index.html?inline=nyt-per) of New Jersey, a Democrat; Charlie Crist of Florida, a Republican; Arnold Schwarzenegger (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/arnold_schwarzenegger/index.html?inline=nyt-per) of California, a Republican; and Eliot Spitzer (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/eliot_l_spitzer/index.html?inline=nyt-per) of New York, a Democrat.
After the cool reception at the White House, governors said they would take their proposals to Congress.
In his campaign for the Democratic nomination, Senator Barack Obama (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per) of Illinois has said he wants to spend $60 billion on roads, bridges and other public works over the next 10 years.
In an effort to avert a recession, Mr. Bush recently signed a $168 billion measure to provide tax rebates to encourage consumer spending and to offer new tax incentives for businesses to buy equipment.
Brian G. Turmail, a spokesman for the Transportation Department, said highway spending was not an effective way to stimulate the economy because “it takes too long to get the money into projects.”
Rather than asking for an increase in federal highway spending, Mr. Turmail said, governors should seek additional money from the private sector, including pension funds and investment banking concerns.
Mr. Crist said that he was exploring public-private partnerships and that federal officials had to “increase their investment” in transportation projects.
Transportation Secretary Mary E. Peters told governors, “The federal role in transportation should be more limited than it is today,” and should focus on the Interstate and Defense Highway System and traffic congestion in major metropolitan regions.
Instead of relying so heavily on gasoline taxes, Ms. Peters said, states should charge highway users directly.


Source:http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/us/26govs.html?ei=5088&en=7098a07f61326d29&ex=1361682000&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

Invisigoth
02-27-2008, 02:50 PM
Why invest in infrastructure when you can give everyone a thousand bucks to spend on a new flatscreen at Walmart? :)

Ordie
02-27-2008, 02:55 PM
Why invest in infrastructure when you can give everyone a thousand bucks to spend on a new flatscreen at Walmart? :)

Perhap one that is made in China

Invisigoth
02-27-2008, 02:59 PM
Perhap one that is made in China

Well, Taiwan if possible ;)

2Sheds_Jackson
02-27-2008, 03:02 PM
Well the feds can't pay for everything. What's wrong with states spending on projects that their own citizens will use? Put a proviso in those bills stating that only in-state contractors can bid on them etc.

Ordie
02-27-2008, 03:21 PM
Well the feds can't pay for everything. What's wrong with states spending on projects that their own citizens will use? Put a proviso in those bills stating that only in-state contractors can bid on them etc.

I'll keep that in mind when the next levy breaks due to the underfunding of the US Army Corps of Engineers budget. Causing billions in property damage, lost revenues, displaced people, and unemployment.

2Sheds_Jackson
02-27-2008, 03:33 PM
Well thanks for providing the perfect example - the Army Corps of Engineers is a federal agency, with a federal mandate, funded by federal money. Their funding requests were repeatedly turned down, because there was no money to pay for it. Meanwhile, Boston's Big Dig highway project - somewhat shorter than 8 miles of road - cost about $10 billion in federal funds. Now, where was that money better spent?

[edit] - obviously I think there are some things that it's appropriate for the feds to spend money on. But not everything. Just seems to me that the states are viewing "economic stimulus" money with the same lustful eyes that they looked at "homeland security" money with.

angry cow
02-27-2008, 08:31 PM
Why invest in infrastructure when you can give everyone a thousand bucks to spend on a new flatscreen at Walmart? :)

Or worse, use it to make a down payment on a new flatscreen and be even more in debt than before.

Freedom-Fries
02-27-2008, 09:16 PM
So what do these works projects or stimulus programs really do, can they solve our problems ? Will they save jobs ? Protect the environment ? I think we should be concerned but there are areas of the economy we shouldn't be concerned about ! Then of course you have people like Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger of California who have taken this opportunity to stab the GOP in the back once again.

So what do I really think ?

Hail, Bush, Hail! Ruler of the Universe

http://img108.imageshack.us/img108/2617/bushming3wh5.jpg

Ordie
02-27-2008, 09:45 PM
So what do these works projects or stimulus programs really do, can they solve our problems ? Will they save jobs ? Protect the environment ? I think we should be concerned but there are areas of the economy we shouldn't be concerned about ! Then of course you have people like Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger of California who have taken this opportunity to stab the GOP in the back once again.


It's called Keynesian economics.

Its a theory that in order to stimulate the economy one invest in capital projects (roads, bridges, airports, etc...) to create jobs that earn revenues to circulate into the economy.

It's what FDR did during the New Deal.

The infrastructure is getting worn out i.e. levys, bridges, highways and needs to be upgraded. However, the percentage of people that work in this sector is small as compared to 60 years ago. For example, whole tressel and bridge units are imported from China and assembled at a fraction of manpower.

the GOP prefers the hands off tricle down model vs. direct government investment. However, businesses take the tax savings and invest it globally where money can be made.

Governor Arnold does not owe anything to the GOP. He owes his office to the Democrats who voted for him. Besides he cannot run for president so he can run his state regardless of party politics. The highest he can ever get is Senator.

(This is my 4000 post- I need to get a life)

gaijinsamurai
02-27-2008, 09:59 PM
^ Congrats on you 4K post Ordie. I think you are supposed to post some pics of babes or something. I failed to do it on my 5k post, and got some flak for it.
Just sayin'.

Freedom-Fries
02-27-2008, 10:01 PM
I failed to do it on my 5k post

you're not one of those people who listens to the YMCA ? p-)

gaijinsamurai
02-27-2008, 10:09 PM
No-just ignorant of forum etiquette.

0rphie
02-28-2008, 09:46 AM
Meanwhile, Boston's Big Dig highway project - somewhat shorter than 8 miles of road - cost about $10 billion in federal funds.
$14B actually, and it still needs a lot of fixing, means more money.

2Sheds_Jackson
02-28-2008, 06:32 PM
$14B actually, and it still needs a lot of fixing, means more money.

I actually had a hard time finding out exactly how much of the total was federal money. IIRC the total was $14B...but some of that came from the state. And yeah I see where they've gone begging for more money. I haven't been through the new system there, but I have fond memories of listening to entire CD's sitting on the %$&* Mystic Tobin bridge :)

Rudolph
02-28-2008, 06:39 PM
It's called Keynesian economics.

Its a theory that in order to stimulate the economy one invest in capital projects (roads, bridges, airports, etc...) to create jobs that earn revenues to circulate into the economy.

It's what FDR did during the New Deal.

The infrastructure is getting worn out i.e. levys, bridges, highways and needs to be upgraded. However, the percentage of people that work in this sector is small as compared to 60 years ago. For example, whole tressel and bridge units are imported from China and assembled at a fraction of manpower.

Is that what Germany did? Worked out well for them before WW2. I thought it's common knowledge that public projects should be undertaken during hard times....

shocker1
02-28-2008, 06:49 PM
Local nuclear plants running at half capacity, dams leaking on the Tennessee, concrete from the walls of the lock falling off and hitting boats, water shortages, levees, Super fund cleanup of Chattanooga creek coke sludge, new bridge needed over the Chickamagua lake, I could go on about the roads too. I would imagine most areas need many of the same things. Heck, we need to build those clinics and spend billions in Iraq so the terrorists won't come here and blow up our leaky dams and rusty bridges. I got an idea, let's ask a Spanish company to build our bridge here and charge us tolls for the next 50years. Oh wait somebody already thought of that.

Violet Fashion by Mindy
02-28-2008, 07:33 PM
Why is America so against in having government railroad companies, postal services, electricity generation, phone companies, highways, health and ****?

I mean if they were government owned it enables for required infrastructure to be built when needed. Services that not profitable to be run where they are still needed.

It also enables regional areas to have large employment options. IE a government call center in a rural town of 10,000 instead of an overpopulated city.

Done correctly these services can also become highly profitable for the government thus lowering the tax burden on the population. Say a government owned rail network that has revenues of 5 billion and after tax profits of 2 billion. Same for power, post and phone services.

Just an idea.

noname
02-28-2008, 10:22 PM
I love all the blame for the president. Ever heard of the congress? That body of elected officials who haven't done a damn thing? How come they don't get the share of blame for failing to do the peoples work? Oh that is right, because that whore speaker of the house is still draining the swamp in search for the most ethical congress.

shocker1
02-28-2008, 11:17 PM
Actually local Members of Congress have tried many times to fix the locks and the dams. It turns into pork barrel spending sprees for Contractor buddies and never makes it to the floor. Their mailbox and email has many of my correspondence. However it is Presidential election time, that means bash the Pres and voice our needs through the election process. The local Beltway Boys will stop a Month before election time and tell us what we want to hear, based on all the mail from constituents. Not that anything gets done though, it is just what we do.