Bush Tells Congress to Change Its Own Priorities to Fund Bridge Upgrades

[babylonsister]

Bush Tells Congress to Change Its Own Priorities to Fund Bridge Upgrades
By CQ Staff | 1:30 PM; Aug. 09, 2007 | Email This Article

By Martha Angle and Avery Palmer, CQ Staff

President Bush fired back Thursday at members of Congress, including some in his own party, who have called for increased federal infrastructure spending in the wake of an Aug. 1 Minneapolis bridge collapse, even if that requires raising taxes.

Bush, at a morning news conference, specifically took issue with Rep. Don Young of Alaska, a former chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, who said an increase in federal gasoline taxes may be warranted to upgrade hundreds of structurally deficient bridges around the nation.

The federal excise tax on gasoline is 18.4 cents per gallon, a figure that has not changed since 1993. Young and James L. Oberstar, D-Minn., who succeeded him this year as chairman of the Transportation committee, battled Bush for two years over the last six-year surface transportation reauthorization. That bill, enacted in 2005 (PL109-59), totaled $286.5 billion, far below the $375 billion the two committee leaders had sought. The larger spending total would have been financed by indexing the gas tax to inflation, allowing it to rise over time.

“My suggestion would be that they revisit the process by which they spend gasoline money in the first place,” Bush said.

He noted that the 75-member House committee is the largest in Congress and said, “From my perspective, the way it seems to have worked is that each member on that committee gets to set his or her own priority first, and then what’s ever left over is spent to a funding formula.

“That’s not the right way to prioritize the people’s money. So before we raise taxes which could affect economic growth, I would strongly urge the Congress to examine how they set priorities. And, if bridges are a priority, let’s make sure we set that priority first and foremost, before we raise taxes.”

more...

http://www.cqpolitics.com/2007/08/bush_tells_congress_to_change.html

[aquart]

1. He argued with YOUNG?

Oh, that's just entertaining.

[SoonerPride]

2. How bout we spend two months or Iraq wasted money and fix em all?

I hate bush.

I really do.

[ladjf]

3. Yes, and how about some real assistance for New Orleans?

[mvd]

4. Oh geez - what a moron Bush is

I know he is, but it never ceases to amaze me. No, we are not going to shift money from other vital areas like health care to spend for infrastructure. To get more money, sometimes the rich need to pay their fair share. It sounds like infrastructure still isn't BUSH's biggest priority.

[Igel]

12. He's telling them in no uncertain terms to stop earmarking

federal highway funds.

A significant portion of the earmarks aren't spent in any given year, and often the earmarks don't necessarily match what state and federal highway engineers would say is most important.

I have no problem telling congressfolk--dem or repub--to stop earmarks. Personally, I think I'd like to see 99% of them prohibited, a view I've held for, oh, going on 30 years now.

[malaise]

5. Isn't the Federal government responsible for 80%

of funding for federal bridges and highways?

[Bitwit1234]

6. What he is trying to do is shift the blame on our crumbling

infrastructure to this Democratic Congress. The whole administration and their enablers the MEDIA are going at it.

[Johonny]

7. basically

“My suggestion would be that they revisit the process by which they spend gasoline money in the first place,” Bush said.

He's blaming the new Democratic congress for the previous congresses transportation bill that he signed. So basically he failed to veto a bill he didn't like and now it's someone elses fault. That in the fact he still believes there is magic "wasted" government money that if only he could find he could balance the budget. You can fight a war, build new infrastructure, revise health care... all with out and new money streams and a reduction in current streams.

[maxsolomon]

8. no more infrastructure for cars

maintenance, ok - but EXPANDING highways while europe builds bullet trains is simply fucking stupid.

biofuels are not a panacea. the era of cars is ending - and no one in politics has the cojones to say it.

[bighart]

9. so are we saying we

favor a gasoline tax increase, which will hit middle class and the working poor much harder than it will the rich, to fund infrastructure?

[maxsolomon]

13. we favor a gas tax to fund

-public transportation subsidies
-public transportation infrastructure
-alternative energy research
-conservation
-telling Saudi Arabia, et al to go fuck themselves

i'm sorry for the impact to the sainted poor & the vanishing middle class, but it needs to hit everyone, including me - as the globes' foremost energy gluttons, america must change its behavior to set an example for the rest of the planet.

in addition, CAFE need to be raised, and Dingle needs to get the fuck out of the way. subsidies for oil & gas need to be halted. immediately.

i think $4/gallon ought to scare the fuck out of people. $5 isn't needed.

and we need Gore to run.

[bighart]

14. I don't disagree with you.

But the fact is the working poor cannot afford to pay the additional tax on fuel and still make ends meet. I guess one way around that would be a tax credit or some kind of subsidy to help off-set the cost. We should be working RIGHT NOW
on alternative means of transportation and alternative fuels, but NOT alternative fuels made from food crops.

[maxsolomon]

16. yep

how would the tax credit encourage conservation? the working poor could conserve, too.

[bluedog]

10. America First!!....no more funding for Iraq....

that was easy to figure out!

[coco77]

11. He will do anything for a tax cut...

I'll bet he'll be dying saying something about a tax cut.

[radfringe]

15. fine - pull out of Iraq

and we'll have plenty of money to repair bridges...

repairing bridges over there so we won't have to repair bridges over here