Set Priorities
A week after a deadly bridge collapse in Minneapolis, President Bush on Thursday dismissed raising the federal gasoline tax to repair bridges at least until Congress changes how it spends highway money.
“The way it seems to have worked is that each member on that (Transportation) committee gets to set his or her own priorities first,” Bush said. “That’s not the right way to prioritize the people’s money. Before we raise taxes, which could affect economic growth, I would strongly urge the Congress to examine how they set priorities.”
The government has enough of our money. It’s about priorities.
Well put - in yesterday’s MJS there was a letter to the editor. I have copied it in it’s entirety. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that the Journal would print such a screed. I guess it was just a matter of time that Reagan would be blamed.
Small Government? It’s Bad Government:
Ever since Ronald Reagan hoodwinked people into believing that “government is the problem” and that “tax” is a four-letter word, what we’ve been treated to by Republican administrations is colossal deficit spending and progressively worse government.
If Huricane Kartrina wasn’t enough to prove it, we now have the I-35W disaster in Minneapolis. What’s next? An air disaster created by an overburdened air traffic control system?
Grover Norquist notoriously wants to shrink government so he can drown it in the bathtub. Instead, drivers have drowned in the Mississippi River - thanks to shrinking government spending.
The dream of the conservative movement for most people was that they could have the good American life without taxation. So, for example, we now are drinking bottled water because we don’t trust our local water supplies.
Instead of small government, we’re simply getting bad government and we’re slowly deteriorating into a second-rate country.
So much of what has made this country great has been public investment - in infrastructure, research and education, to name some obvious categories. Our parents and grandparents left a legacy of greatness through their public spending.
If the “conservative revolution” isn’t reversed, our legacy will be vast landfills - the detrius of consumer culture.
Greg Walz-Chojnacki—- Wauwatosa
A few points:
1) It will be 18 months before we might know what caused the collapse. Could it be human error (oversight on inspection) or catastrophic failure of some parts (bolts or something)?
2) Could it be miscommunication? Supposedly the crews that were resurfacing the bridge noted that it seemed to be getting wobbly as they worked on it.
3) If a crew was working on the bridge, how does this support the conclusion that because of the conservative movement, infrastructure is being neglected.
4) The bridge was constructed in 1967? Who was in control then? Maybe the spending priority was the Great Society social programs, and good engineering and construction took a back seat.
Personally, I will wait to find out what really happened, before drawing political conclusions. In the meantime, I support careful monitoring of existing bridges.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 09, 2007 at 1741 hrs
No more Bridges to Nowhere, bike paths and idiotic light rail systems. All the money wasted on garbage like that and other pork in the transportation budget shiuld go to rebuilding roads and infrastructure.
Not another damn dime in higher taxes!
Posted by Peter on August 09, 2007 at 1742 hrs
He was right. The question is why you support “priorities” here yet support a version of the state budget totally devoid of them.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 09, 2007 at 1841 hrs
After Reading This!!
I’m worried about Bush’s Memory!!
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=2967463
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 09, 2007 at 2008 hrs
Priorities? Priorities? ROFLMAO. Here is a guys who has pissed away billions in Iraq and he is lecturing about priorities.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 09, 2007 at 2232 hrs
yup kr just like he pissed away billions on the wastes of oxygen in New Orleans after katrina, and pissed away billions on 3rd and 4th generation career welfare recipients. We spend more on social programs in this country here and abroad than ever was spent on the military and yet that is a war (on poverty) that will never be won. With your logic, it is time to abandon all the efforts to help the terminally lazy, the habitually entitled and we still pour hard earned money on the useless. Sure some people still deserve our help but when you go into the business of applying for welfare because your mama did it and your mama’s mama did it and you seem to be too good to get a low paying job as a teen and work your way up like others do, you get no sympathy from me.
I also think that we should stop the war on the terminally stupid and start pulling out of MPS as well. Allow the folks that care to be able to move to a school that works and abandon the most expensive school system per student in the state.
Posted by fishaddict on August 10, 2007 at 0528 hrs
My goodness, fish. You should have a cup of coffee before you post. Maybe you’d be a little less angry.
George was obviously trying to bring a little humor into the tragic mood in Minneapolis. No one expects his administration to be able to set priorities at this point. They’ve had no practice at it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 10, 2007 at 0534 hrs
Looks like you just showed us all of your racist cards fish.
No matter what you imagine we are spending on “the colored people”, it falls far, far, far short of your (whine) money being blown in Iraq.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 10, 2007 at 1109 hrs
Grumps, is Congress included in HIS administration or do they get the ‘better than Bush’ nod because their priorities were set a little less bad, and no matter how much you hate Bush Congressional priorities are only a little less bad.
Sadly, that seems to always be the case these days, we argue hotly how our party is less bad than your party on any issue. Do Republicans really want to lower taxes and clean up waste, they certainly didn’t prove it when they had the chance. Do Democrats really want better, more affordable health care. No, they just want money and votes too.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 10, 2007 at 1117 hrs
Do Democrats really want better, more affordable health care. No, they just want money and votes too.
That is pure cynical BS, not to mention slightly irrational.
If you are taking money out of the system, how does that benefit you as a politician, except giving people what they want. That is what’s called doing the job people elected you to do. And people are pretty fed up with this for-profit health care system.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 10, 2007 at 1505 hrs
If that is true kr why isn’t this a national proposition?
Why is Doyle not behind it?
If it is being modeled after successful public health care from other countries that is two to five times less expensive, why is there not at least a more pronounced savings?You are not taking any money out of ‘the system’. The system is Government, and you are adding 15.2 billion that will be allocated or raided or increased by necessity as the Government sees fit, only you will not be allowed to opt out in any way, except to pay more in private supplements.
I am fed up too, this particular proposal, however, is not a good answer. Nice shining example of my point, btw. I noticed you only attacked for my comments against your party.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 10, 2007 at 1525 hrs
Irrational? Explain.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 10, 2007 at 1526 hrs
Thanks for the invite. I’d be happy to explain.
If that is true kr why isn’t this a national proposition?
Why is Doyle not behind it?There are ten health care lobbyists for every member of Congress. As for Doyle, why should he take the heat for “raising taxes.”
If it is being modeled after successful public health care from other countries that is two to five times less expensive, why is there not at least a more pronounced savings?
The problem is we are starting off with one of the most expensive health care systems in the country. Also consider doctors in this country make way more than doctors in other countries. In fact in our system, everyone has their hand out.
You are not taking any money out of ‘the system’. The system is Government, and you are adding 15.2 billion that will be allocated or raided or increased by necessity as the Government sees fit, only you will not be allowed to opt out in any way, except to pay more in private supplements.
But it will work out to be about one billion less according to the audit than what we are paying now for health care. As for not being allowed to opt out, it has to be “everybody into the pool” in order to affect true group rates.
As for your statement being irrational, the big money—insurance companies, health care networks, etc.—is being dumped into the pockets of the politicians that support the status quo. Sure, a lot of regular citizens will support politicians who push reform, but the special interests will outspend by many orders of magnitude.
Thanks for not using the word socialism once.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 10, 2007 at 2104 hrs
kr, your arguments seem good, but I don’t see how they are supporting your argument as much as mine. “There are ten lobbyists…” supports me, unless you are saying Democrats aren’t accepting any money and THAT is BS. If Democrats are not accepting all that money there WOULD be a national proposal. (See how it supports my statement that all they want is money and votes?) Doyle not ‘taking the heat’ also supports my argument that Democrats are not serious about passing it. He is really talking to those lobbyists saying read my lips no new healthcare. He is counting on the Republicans to take status quo heat and turning it in to votes for Dems, but he is politically fence sitting for no other reason than to count votes for the next election and accept some of that lobbyist cash. My statement being ‘irrational’ would only be tenable if it were a National proposal and if it was ever meant to pass.
Yes we do spend much more on Doctors and if it is not addressed in HW the 15.2 billion is a low estimate. I agree “everybody into the pool” is necessary, but as a nation. Letting everyone who comes to Wisconsin in the pool also makes the 15.2 a low ball figure. It figures current people only.
It is not yet an issue of socialism or socialistic ideals. First the Democrats would have to actually be serious about it. It would need to be supported nationally and by leaders such as Doyle. They would have to propose it when it could be passed, when there is a Democratic majority in the assembly as well and then still pass it (like the republicans couldn’t qu-i-t-e pass that taxpayers bill of rights). Right now it is good old fashioned political grandstanding, a fully approved DEMOCRATIC method in a representative democracy.
Suffice it to say that I understand your argument, but I think the details (I hesitate to call them facts, too much theory involved) support my argument better and I respect that you feel the opposite.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 13, 2007 at 0901 hrs
Total Entries: 20001
Total Comments: 134057
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 03:10 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 02:38 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 101
Total anonymous users: 2
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 03:16 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).