Me: I think a raised gas tax is a good idea. ... But it takes Republicans like Eisenhower, Reagan, and Bush to put it into practice, apparently.
You: Ouch. I think that's a re-writing of history. The more than doubling of the gas tax took place during Reagan's term, true. But that emanated from a Democratic Congress, was over Reagan and his administration's objections - and done only in trade for Congress giving Reagan his massive military increases. In a nutshell, O'Neil and Co. gave Reagan huge increases in military spending which they didn't like or want, but in return got Reagan's complicity in sweeping expansion of social programs and "hidden" increases for General Revenue.
I don't think it's "re-writing history" at all, I think the record shows that it's literally true.
Carter tried and failed to implement a big gas tax, largely because Republicans opposed it ('over their dead body', I believe). Reagan succeeded with a smaller tax, in large part because he was the leader of the Republican party at the time, and while some Republicans still opposed it, others under his leadership went along. Really, they had little choice -- this was before deficit spending became a permanent part of the Republican fiscal platform and those were recessionary times, just as they were under Bush 41, and just as they are today.
Whether or not today's Republicans will have the juice or the motivation to oppose a gas tax, or a car tab tax (which I believe would have to be implemented at the state level), or a congestion toll (however that gets implemented), with a Democrat in the White House, remains to be seen. But I think President Obama (first time I've written that, and it feels good!) could go a long way towards making that happen by selling it early in his administration as a highway/infrastructure repair bill, by building in some protection for commercial truckers, and by relying on states to kick in revenue, too. It should also be bipartisan, emphasizing past high-profile Republican support of the idea, or it would seem likely to run into the same wall that made it a no-go under Carter.
I stand by my comment that there isn't money to fix our highway infrastructure right now, though I would welcome a substantive correction. The fact that some gets diverted to other projects is part of the problem, sure, but right now I don't think there's enough even so. It has been neglected for too long.
You know where I stand on public transit better than anyone else here, and I think share my stance on it in many ways. We both know that it may be the biggest boondoggle in American politics, for which any project you or I might think of should bear immediate witness. So much money gets thrown at new capital projects that no one in the political arena seems able to resist the impulse to dip their wick in that kind of money (to mix metaphors, perhaps egregiously), or influence (for political gain, or to score points, and/or to advance their political career) the process of spending it. "Government being government" is how you put it more succinctly, which is exactly right. And so the contractors get to charge outrageous amounts to satisfy the urge of various political entities for what often become vanity projects with small returns on that outrageous investmest. That doesn't invalidate the urge to innovate in public transit, it just means the process has to be managed with a good bit more discipline.
One example might be to compare how London ( http://www.atsltd.co.uk/news/29/32/First-Flight-at-Heathrow/ ) and the United Arab Emirates ( http://www.thenational.ae/article/20081104/FRONTIERS/357775919/1036/NEWS ) are managing their amazing new Personal Rapid Transit ( http://kinetic.seattle.wa.us/prt.html ) projects. London started three years ago and will get their first piece done next year. The UAE started a much more ambitious project this year and will also get their first piece done next year, maybe even earlier than London. Both are being done largely as private projects, and both are getting done extremely quickly by the standards of public transportation. Both are going to be an order of magnitude (or more) less expensive than traditional public project in this country. And both are going to move passengers faster, more conveniently, in greater safety, with less energy, and more cost-effectively than anything else could. One has somewhat less regulatory oversight and with a lot more freedom than the other, but both are still getting it done.
They will use a transportation technology that was invented in the United States, which has been indefensibly timid about innovation in the pork-rich transportation sector for the last 35 years (emphasis not directed at you). And being built by companies based in England and Holland, respectively.
KCMW,
Read the first paragraph you wrote in #80740 and tell me again that it's not a strawman. Your points are not invalid, but they are misdirected (at BD, and at me), and also redundant (all political "solutions" are based on emotion as well as facts, evidence, and "common sense" whether each side of the electorate thinks so or not -- the real question is the mix of each in the "solution").
Much of what President-elect Obama said during his primary and general campaign leads me to believe that he will be a pragmatic, bipartisan, and relatively moderate leader. That he will appoint similarly like-minded and knowledgeable advisors.
Exactly none of this occurred during the last eight years. With highly predictable results. Which is exactly why "Happy Days Are Here Again".
For what it's worth, I thought John McCain was the best Republican candidate of my adult life, possibly excepting John B. Anderson in 1980. At least until the party political machine got hold of McCain after his primary win, subverted his message, derailed the "Straight Talk Express", and some frickin' bonehead(s) in his campaign had the genius idea to run Sarah Palin as his Veep.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
