Bush Conservatism: A "Bridge" to Nowhere

By: Lowell
Published On: 8/10/2007 6:50:03 AM

Well, isn't this a big surprise?  That's right, George W. Bush opposes a 5-cent-per-gallon gas tax increase to fix the nation's crumbling bridges before another one collapses.  And he's attacking Democrats for even suggesting such a thing.  Only four problems:

1. We need to fix our nations' bridges FAST, and that's going to take money.

2. It's not just Democrats suggesting a gas tax increase to pay for this, it's also a leading Republican on transportation issues:

There are 500 bridges around the country similar to the Minneapolis span, and "these are potential deathtraps," says Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, former chairman of the House Transportation Committee.

"We have to, as a Congress, grasp this problem. And yes, I would even suggest, fund this problem with a tax," he says. "May the sky not fall on me."

3. Bush offers no alternative financing for the needed bridge repairs.  All he does, as usual, is attack the Democrats for trying to do the responsible thing.  That's pathetic, but typical of the Bush Presidency.

4. Bush fails to acknowledge a fundamental truth: over the past 6 1/2 years, his Administration and a Republican Congress have failed to address this issue.  Instead of fixing our bridges (or shoring up New Orleans, for that matter), they've spent hundreds of billions of dollars to screw up the Middle East.  That's Bush conservatism for ya.  Heckuva job!

In sum, Bush and his Republican allies have a governing philosophy that is a "bridge" to nowhere when it comes to our nation's crucial infrastructure needs.  And guess what, it's the same thing in Virginia as in Washington, DC.  Here, we've got the flat-earth, anti-tax, Bush Republicans in the House of Delegates who believe that we can get out of gridlock through abundant deployment of smoke and mirrors.  But, heaven forbid, just don't call anything a "T-A-X."  Hence, the fiasco known as the "abuser fees."  Luckily, Virginia voters have a chance to do something about this situation in less than 3 months.  Needless to say, it's time for a change in Richmond - just as it's long past time for a change in Washington, DC.


Comments



Time to work with a different, realistic framework. (dsvabeachdems - 8/10/2007 7:10:19 AM)
I suppose that when you grow up never having to worry about the next paycheck, about paying the rent or the bills, the fact that debt will come due is an alien concept.

Someone should ask the President who the daddy is that will bail the United States out of this mess. A whole new meaning to "who's your daddy?"



National Fees... (Eric - 8/10/2007 7:51:43 AM)
The abusive fee system is working so well here in Virginia that Bush should consider enacted the same thing on a national level.  Make the "bad" people pay for bridge repairs - who could be against that?


Ha, I love it. (Lowell - 8/10/2007 7:56:07 AM)
Make the abuser fees national, and then see how many petition signatures that gets! :)


W has a point, though... (Dave N. - 8/10/2007 8:06:48 AM)
...when he says that Congress should examine their spending priorities. Doling out billions for special pork projects rather than taking care of our nation's crumbling infrastructure needs is shameless, no matter which party is in control of Congress. But Bush also signed those bills containing the earmarks, so he is talking out of both sides of his mouth (no surprise). The solution is there already. Congress just has to have the gumption to reign in their ravenous appetites for pork and instead attack the "un-sexy" issue of infrastructure before levying an additional tax on gasoline.


Has Bush ever vetoed a spending bill? (Lowell - 8/10/2007 8:10:42 AM)
I mean, he's happy to veto stem cell bills, or threaten vetoes on FISA bills that don't give Alberto Gonzales and him everything their little (emphasis on little) hearts desire.  But spending bills?  This is the most profligate, out-of-control, wild spending Administration ever.  Spend and spend and spend and....go shopping, everyone!

P.S.  Just don't spend on bridges, education, health care, the environment, New Orleans, etc., etc.  Spend it all on Iraq, corporate welfare, etc.



War on pork (bherring - 8/10/2007 2:53:13 PM)
I've never quite understood this whole all-pork-is-evil mantra that's gaining in popularity.  A lot of the earmarks, especially those from practically any Alaska congressperson, are utterly outrageous, I agree, but do these people actually not want the federal government giving any money to local governments?  Do they realize that that's how reps get re-elected, by bringing home the proverbial bacon?

I equate it to the war on lobbying that we've been seeing.  Bribing congress is one thing, but lobbying is an extension of our constitutional right to petition government.



Pork and Plain-Jane Appropriations (tx2vadem - 8/10/2007 5:44:47 PM)
Elimination of earmarks and pork does not mean the elimination of federal funding to localities.  Without earmarks federal appropriations are allocated based on need, that's what the people at the applicable federal department do.  Earmarks circumvent that process and thereby distorting an otherwise merit based system.  Now do federal agencies always come up with the best allocations?  Of course not, but that is what Inspector Generals, the GAO, and Congressional oversight are all about.  And pork, of course, is unnecessary spending so it wastes tax dollars.

I would be hesitant to say that reps get re-elected because of it.  I certainly don't vote for my representatives based on earmarks or pork spending.  And I'm not sure that other people do either.  I think most sensible people would be appalled if they knew their reps were doing that especially if they knew that said earmarks denied funding to some other state or locality that had a greater need.  And why would you vote for someone who added pork to a bill?  At a time when funds are tight and there are a lot more important funding priorities, how could you vote for someone who was just pissing funds away?



Or the war pork (Hugo Estrada - 8/11/2007 2:30:46 AM)
The war is the biggest wasteful program that we have in this country. It seems to benefit a very small group of American, military contractors. There will be no positive return on investment.

I can't take serious Bush on anything when his actions contradict his statements. He has zero credibility: you can't ask for restraint while you recklessly spend money on a never ending war.



It's a campaign against Congress (Teddy - 8/10/2007 4:07:11 PM)
The intent of the Bush's and the Republican's sudden  attacks on "pork" and on any legislation or Congressional oversight (see the latest Protect America Act which dispenses with oversight of domestic spying by Bush) is, simply, to denigrate and trivialize Congress, especially now that Congress under the Democrats is showing some signs of thinking it might be a co-equal branch of the government.

Remember the campaign against "activist judges" which has resulted in an almost complete cowing of the judicial branch by placing compliant judges throughout the system, judges who suddenly are interpreting the law solely for the objective of enhancing executive power? Now we are seeing the same sort of campaign against Congress. Remember the campaign against the "liberal media" which has resulted in the nearly total emasculating of the fourth estate, which now gives us stenographic repetition of Administration press releases under the guise of news?

Do not doubt this is all part of establishing the unitary executive as our new system of government.