Thank You, Russ Feingold

...and for what has to be the first time, that was not meant to be sarcastic.

From USA Today, via Captain’s Quarters, via Nick.

WASHINGTON — Six weeks after a fatal Minneapolis bridge collapse prompted criticism of federal spending priorities, the Senate approved a transportation and housing bill Wednesday containing at least $2 billion for pet projects that include a North Dakota peace garden, a Montana baseball stadium and a Las Vegas history museum.
That’s not the half of it.

Total spending on transportation “earmarks” next year is likely to be about $8 billion, when legislative projects from a previously approved, five-year highway bill are factored in. A newly released report by the Department of Transportation’s inspector general identified 8,056 earmarks totaling $8.5 billion in the fiscal year that ended in October, or 13.5% of the Transportation Department’s $63 billion spending plan.

Writes Ed:

Senator Tom Coburn attempted to stop the pork party, to no avail. He offered an amendment that would have forbidden earmarks on transportation bills until all deficient bridges had been properly updated. That just barely failed—by a vote of 82 to 14. Eighty-two Senators voted to prioritize pork over infrastructure maintenance.

Russ Feingold is a member of the itty bitty minority of 14.  Herb Kohl and 81 of his Republican and Democratic spending buddies voted to table Coburn’s amendment.  Take THAT, taxpayers.

1. Mr. Feingold is a man of principle, no matter what you think of his position on individual issues.  I do get sick of hearing him described as a disingenuous political charlatan (looking at you, Fred).  Nice to see a conservative acknowledge that he does in fact stand up on principle.

   Posted by scott on September 13, 2007 at 1623 hrs




2. He may stand on principle… but I rarely agree with those principles.  In this case however, he stood up for something everyone should agree with.  The most unfortunate thing is that very few stood with him.

   Posted by Nick on September 13, 2007 at 1630 hrs




3. One often finds him in a minority like that.  One can assume, I think, that the same thing that motivates him to take these unpopular stands is the same thing that motivates him most other times: an honest believe that it’s the right thing.  You have to admire that - even if you’d never vote for him based on issues.

   Posted by scott on September 13, 2007 at 1632 hrs




4. I agree. Kudos to Feingold.

   But what did strike me about this story was the amount of money that the DOT was going to spend in the first place.  $63 Billion!

   There is no way they need that much money - especially where things like bridges are concerned.  Why would that not be up to each individual state?  Instead, the money get funneled to the Fed’s, who take a cut in administrative costs, then give the money back to the same states who just gave it to them.

   Not very efficient…

   Posted by David on September 13, 2007 at 1644 hrs




5. David,

   That’s how highway transportation has worked for, well, decades now. Feds pick up 80% of the cost.

   The administrative costs of the DOT are actually quite small.

   Do you know which federal law it is that governs highway and transit projects?

   I ask this as someone whose work appears in said federal law.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 13, 2007 at 2149 hrs




6. That’s how highway transportation has worked for, well, decades now. Feds pick up 80% of the cost.

   Does that make it right? Or unworthy of a re-assessment of its usefulness?

   Do you know which federal law it is that governs highway and transit projects?

   No.

   Maybe I’m missing something here by not being in the industry.  But from a purely logical standpoint I don’t see why a state’s bridge repairs should be paid for by anyone other than the state itself.  It’s the people of the state who use those bridges.  Why funnel the money through the Fed’s, just to have them take a cut and then send it back to the state?

   In cases where a bridge connects two states, or is a major link to other areas, then have the states collectively pool their money for the upkeep.

   Posted by David on September 14, 2007 at 1150 hrs




7. Perhaps because a lot of those bridges are on federal highways?

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 14, 2007 at 1903 hrs