In addition to the flap with Governor Paterson, there is another democrat that doesn't see eye-to-eye with President Obama. In this case, Representative Jim Oberstar (D-MN) is resisting Obama's wishes to delay a new federal transportation bill until 2011. The Obama administration has indicated that it would rather see an 18-month extension of the current bill, rather than go through a contentious round of debate over federal transportation reform at such a politically sensitive time (i.e. health care reform).
That is too bad for cities and metro regions, which are clamoring for reform of the status quo. A new bill backed by Oberstar, the Chair of the House Transportation Committee, would funnel more federal dollars directly to metropolitan regions rather than through state governments, where money is often diverted to the less populated and less productive areas of the state (this was certainly true of the federal stimulus dollars). Additionally, the bill would streamline the processes that currently prevent new transit projects from being completed or even begun.
But Oberstar does not seem like he is willing to wait. Instead, he is proposing a three-month extension to the current bill.
It seems that if Oberstar has his way, cities and metros will have a lot more control of their federal transportation funds. In that case, what should our metros do with the money? According to conservative policy wonks, we should be identifying farmland on the fringes of our urban areas for future highways. To them, transit is a boondoggle and only takes money away from roads, which are inherently better. Wendall Cox even asserts that transit systems sap the productivity from our urban areas!
"One common claim is that transit will provide alternative mobility. However, transit trips tend to be twice as long as car trips and no transit vision has ever been put forward that would replicate the efficiency of the automobile."
But Cox then makes an even weirder claim: transit is an inefficient waste of time and money, except when it is not. Cox goes on to talk up the importance of transit in the country's most productive metropolitan regions: "None of this is to deny the inestimable value of transit in serving the nation's largest downtown areas (such as Manhattan, Brooklyn, Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago and San Francisco)."
File this one under "Hypocritical, conservative/libertarian." First, the Heritage Foundation thinks that some estimates under-represented the actual number of protesters who showed up in DC last weekend to tell Congress just how angry they are about having to pay taxes and stuff. "Metro delivers hundreds of thousands to 9/12 rally," Heritage proclaims, citing the number of people who rode DC's subway system to the National Mall-nearly half a million people!
Heritage's assertion struck me as a bit odd, especially considering the fact that Heritage loves to tell us that no one really rides transit in this country and that we'd be better off just building more roads. Lucky for the protesters, though, that people with more sense made the decision to build a wonderfully efficient mass transit system in DC. Otherwise, I'm not sure that any type of road network could have handled the crowd.
Hopefully the protesters learned that our highly productive urban centers need robust mass transit systems. Indeed, mass transit allows our urban centers to be even more productive. If mass transit service was discontinued in our urban areas it would result in 646 million hours of delay and the consumption of 398 million more gallons of fuel, all at a cost of $13.7 billion.
But incredibly, the same people that rode Metro to the National Mall to protest taxes and government spending were upset about Metro's level of service. "These individuals came all the way from Southeast Texas to protest the excessive spending and growing government intrusion by the 111th Congress and the new Obama administration," wrote Texas Representative Kevin Brady. A spokesman for Brady commented that "there weren't enough cars and there weren't enough trains."
What! Maybe we could provide more transit service if those in Congress, especially transit-hating Republicans, provided more funding for transit. Oh, I forgot. We shouldn't invest in transit because no one rides transit.
Last month, Senators John D. Rockefeller and Frank Lautenberg introduced a bill that would establish performance-based goals for our surface transportation system. The bill would, according to Senator Lautenberg, "establish a national policy that improves safety, reduces congestion, creates jobs, and protects our environment."
Among these goals is to reduce the amount Americans drive, or more specifically, to "reduce national per capita motor vehicle miles traveled on an annual basis." Basically, Americans should be driving less-fewer trips over shorter distances. This has as much to do with the way we use our land as it does with transportation policy. Where we choose to live and work and get the groceries largely determines how much we drive. We are driving longer distances to work and to complete all the other little errands that populate our days.
However, Gabriel Roth argues in a Wall Street Journalop-ed that reducing the amount we drive should not be a policy goal of the federal government.
Reducing the total miles traveled-whether the length or number of trips-means people would have to reduce the activities they want and need to do. People would be "coerced," in effect, to live in less desirable places or work in less desirable jobs; shop in fewer and closer stores; see their doctor less frequently; visit fewer family members and friends.
Roth's claim of coercion is absurd. Americans have already chosen to drive less. VMT per person leveled off some time around 2001 and began dropping around 2005. At the same time, public transit ridership has increased dramatically as cities build or expand rail systems and build higher-density, mixed-use developments.
Other claims, such as the assertion that reducing VMT will drive down economic growth, are equally absurd. Just look at driving trends. The reduction in VMT per capita began when the country was experiencing quite rapid economic growth.
On the other hand, there are many good reasons why we should, as a nation, be driving fewer trips over shorter distances.
Humans are creatures with imagination. We are all, in part, who we imagine ourselves to be, in varying ways and varying degrees. Delusional politics follow from delusional self-imagining, as exemplified, but not limited to the 101st Keyboard Brigade. But healthy politics is also based on imagination--freedom, justice, equality have all been imagined long before they have been achieved. In this diary, I want to combine three different strands of thought:
(1) In my diary, "Demos Reports: Airline Deregulation Isn't Good For You. Thoughts On Transportation & Freedom Ensue ", I wrote about the contrasting liberal and conservative notions of freedom, and their connections to the contrasting ideas of "negative liberty"--freedom from restraints--vs. "positive liberty"--freedom to engage in pursuing our hopes and dreams. Behind these differences lie simple historical facts: liberal notions of "freedom" derive from historical struggles of commonfolk to be free to follow their dreams, while conservative notions of "freedom" derive from the freedom of feudal elites to do what they damn well please to whoever they damn well please. Getting lowly peons to buy into this notion of freedom is quite a feat of engineering their imaginations.
Some people may never have had the experience of passionate desire. To them, "love" and relationships are akin to a personal contract, a transaction (I'm looking at you Mrs. Sanford). When it hits them for the first time mid-life they have no experience dealing with it. It's as if their experience of the world up to this point has been AM Radio and all of a sudden they are exposed to Color TV. I say we should pity them.
She goes on to expand on this, reflecting on how there's a deep relationship between "having a colorless life and having dreary social conservative views, too", and, of course, the converse:
If you've experience the neediness that desire can instill in a person, it's a lot easier (if you're straight) to understand how being gay isn't a choice, but a deeply felt need that has to be expressed, even if you face severe social costs.
the closer I get to seeing who thrives in DC, the closer I get to the culture, the more the shrink in me sees Narcissistic Personality Disorder rampant and writ large. It's warp and woof of what makes most people want to become public political figures, be they elected officials, tv talking heads, hot shot consultants and lobbyists. . . the whole ecosystem.
Not everyone in the system is an NPD type, but the milieu, the culture and tone, is set by the dynamics of the personality type. And the personality type requires a large coterie of weak egos who try to attach themselves or associate themselves with the dominant personalities and thereby feel big and important themselves. So, they flatter and follow the power to manage their own deeply felt insecurities.
This is, I think, the extreme end-point of what Amanda and I were both touching on. On the flip I ruminate further on how these three stands interconnect, and how the politics of our country may well turn on just how we imagine who we are.
In order to comply with new transparency requirements under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, state governments across the country are scrambling to put up websites that track how they spend recovery dollars. In just the last week, the White House’s count of state transparency websites has jumped from ten to twenty-five. Of all these websites, not one lists the number of jobs to be created by private contractors. Without such data, the sites are close to meaningless.
Fortunately, Oregon is leading a push to require contractors to report the number of jobs they create, as well as the hours worked and wages received by their employees. These requirements, created under Oregon HB 2037, would ensure that Oregonians get a website that doesn’t just make an empty gesture toward transparency but one that ensures their tax money actually goes toward creating quality jobs.
The benefits of such a site are simple. If contractors are creating jobs with recovery money, they can get more. If they aren’t creating jobs, the state can take away their money and target it to contractors that are. If they are serious about using recovery dollars to turn the economy around, Oregon lawmakers should make it a top priority to adopt these new standards
If the country is serious about getting the recovery plan right, they will push their states to follow in Oregon's example. Considering the fact that states are poised to distribute over $300 billion of the $787 billion set aside under ARRA, the transparency standards we adopt at the state level will more or less amount to the transparency standards we adopt as a nation.
With the stimulus legislation finally released to the public (read a summary of the bill here), and with Congress expected to pass the bill today or tomorrow, let's look at some of the goodies we are discovering about the bill today. In all of the areas where we had focused our attentions at Open Left--Buy America provisions, executive compensation, transportation funding and net neutrality--there was good news at the end of the process. Plus, the political situation improved in at least two ways, as well.
The first amendment, proposed by Senators Patty Murray and Diane Feinstein, was defeated 58-39. That sucks, because it would have added $18 billion in transportation funding to the stimulus.
The amendment would have passed with two more votes. Ted Kennedy did not vote for health reasons, and Judd Gregg did not vote because, well, I don't know. It is worth noting that this amendment, by itself, more than twice as large as the budget of the entire Commerce department. So yeah, I'm glad that he is being so useful already.
Al Franken would also have been a useful vote, but obviously he hasn't been seated yet. Mary Landrieu, the least reliable Democratic vote on cloture motions, voted with Republicans. I think we should nominate her for President.
Any combination of two votes from the four listed above would have resulted in another $18 billion for transportation funding. But, it didn't happen.
This is an open thread for Senate voting, and debate, on stimulus amendments.
All three of the Obama transition team leads charged with reviewing the Department of Transportation are privatization advocates. Not only that, but their private sector activities suggest that they stand to profit substantially from further privatization of the nation's transportation infrastructure (highways, bridges, tunnels, and so on).
Nadler's amendment is a go. Now everyone can play, because there will be a floor vote tomorrow.
Alright! Thanks to everyone who called!
Now we can move forward and start whipping on the Nadler amendment. Call the congressional switchboard at 202-225-3121 in order to reach your member of Congress. Ask him or her to vote "Yes" on the Nadler amendment to H.R. 1 tomorrow.
Things are moving fast on the stimulus bill, but a short window has opened where we can make a difference on rail and mass transit funding in the stimulus. Here is the situation:
As reported by WI Dem in Quick Hits, several House members are submitting amendments to increase rail funding to the stimulus package:
The amendment would distribute $1.5 billion for the Transit Capital Assistance Program and $1.5 billion for Capital Assistance Grants, known as the New Starts Program.
The bill is introduced by Representative Nadler, and can be read here. There are other amendments introduced by Representatives C. Brown and Hare, that would increase rail funding by $3.9 billion and $500 million respectively. Any and all amendments to increase rail funding would be great.
This gives us two hours to make our voice heard for more rail funding in the stimulus bill. To do so, please contact the Rules Committee. Politely state your support for the Nadler, Brown and Hare amendments for increased rail funding. Ask the committee to approve these amendments for a floor vote tomorrow.
Their phone number is 202-225-9091.
This is a very short window, as the situation is fluid and happening fast. However, this also means we can make a difference. Please call now, and let the Rules Committee hear your support for the Nadler, Brown and Hare amendments to increase rail and mass transit funding.
Update: Lots of calls coming in. The committee is noticing! Commenter lord_mike writes after taking action:
Staffer said "We've been getting calls on that."
Commenter art3 writes:
called them and they have gotten many calls on this.
Also, if you live in a congressional district for a Democratic member of the Rules Committee, contact their office directly, and make the same ask listed above:
Chair Louise Slaughter, New York 28th
(202) 225-3615
Rep. Michael Arcuri, New York 24th
(202) 225-366
Rep. Chellie Pingree, Maine 1st
(202) 225-6116
Rep. James McGovern, Massachusetts 3rd
(202) 225-6101
Rep. Alcee Hastings, Florida 23rd
(202) 225-1313
Rep. Ed Perlmutter, Colorado 7th
(202) 225-2645
Rep. Jared Polis, Colorado 2nd
(202) 225-2161
Rep. Doris Matsui, California 5th
(202) 225-7163
Rep. Dennis Cardoza, California 18th
(202) 225-6131
Less than an hour before the meeting starts. Make a quick call now!
More updates, this time on the stimulus, from my visit to the Senate today.
First, at a Senate progressive media summit today, Senator Charles Schumer said that he was unhappy about the amount of stimulus money set aside for mass transit and rail. He indicated that several other Senators from highly urbanized states were also unhappy about this portion of the stimulus, and that when the legislation reached the Senate, they would be jointly pushing for an increase in money set aside for mass transit and rail. The current amount for mass transit and rail in the stimulus bill is only $10 billion.
Second, I had a chance to speak to Senator Amy Klobuchar, who sits on the Environment and Public Works committee. I asked her about the $6 billion set aside for high-speed Internet expansion currently provided in the draft of the stimulus bill. She indicated that, in her opinion, $6 billion was not enough. Further, she said that she had spoken with the Appropriations chair on this matter (Senator Daniel Inouye), and was hopeful that broadband funding in the stimulus would be increased.
Also, I asked Senator Klobuchar whether the grants for high-speed Interent access in the stimulus would primarily be given to state and local governments, or to telecommunications companies. I am concerned that if the money was given to telecommunications companies, that broadband access would not be increased. After all, if those companies were not serving rural and other low-access areas in the past, why would they do so during an economic downturn? The Senators response was that she hoped the grants would be given to public / private partnerships of the sort that she thought were previously successful in Minnesota, and also to smaller, rural telecoms through the universal service fund. More on this later on.
So, in two key underfunded areas in the stimulus, mass transit / high speed rail and high speed internet, there appears to be significant support in the Senate for increasing funding. Again, this is good news, and a story that I will continue to follow.
$800 billion is a lot of money, so you'd think that it would see more reporting than the stupid Blago story, which reveals more about the insipid priorities of the traditional media than anything about the Obama administration. Alas, we have the media that soap companies pay for, not one that we pay for. There is however some reporting on the package - this Washington Post piece on the stimulus by Paul Kane and Michael D. Shear sticks out for three reasons. One, they actually try to explain some of the substance of the package and delve into the internal debates within the Democratic caucus and the Obama team. It's basically a fight between people who want to build environmentally sustainable public works projects and those who want more roads and highways in exurban dying areas. The advantage of building roads and highways is that you can put shovels in the ground today, the advantage of smart growth projects is that they are, well, better.
Of course, it's the Blue Dogs who want roads and highways, and progressives and labor people who want sustainable infrastructure.
But the green-collar proposals have also come under fire. Hill, the incoming Blue Dog co-chairman, said he opposes including these proposals and the medical technology project in the stimulus plan, suggesting that "somewhere down the road" they be considered under the normal legislative process.
Traveling in excess of 220 mph, the new high speed rail system being proposed in California may be the answer to many of the Golden States transportation problems.
It doesn't get much more visionary and ambitious than Al Gore's recent speech on energy and climate change, and this sentence in particular:
Today I challenge our nation to commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years.
My only quibble with this fantastic speech was that Gore said little about the transportation sector, which is the second largest contributor to U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.
Changing our transportation policies and funding priorities could greatly help us address the climate change emergency. More on that after the jump.
For tonight's look at promoting liberal ideas through living liberally, we wanted to highlight one of the coolest projects that've come out of our Drinking Liberally chapters in recent months - Biking Liberally, an effort to get Houston liberals to live their values through their mode of transportation. I'll let David, the main organizer, take it away from here.
One day at Drinking Liberally, I biked and another member biked as well. While here we were discussing the MS 150 ride leaving Houston, I asked, "Why not have a Biking Liberally group?" E-mails were sent and replies were received. The word was out. Biking Liberally was born.
As I am an avid biker of the roads, as are many of the other DL'ers, Houston has many trails to offer us. I thought as a group we could exploit these routes less taken. I realized the group would promote exercise and friendship one mile at a time, took the idea from a another biking group in town and made it my own extension of DL.
