There are climate-change deniers, evolution-deniers, science-deniers, reality-deniers that are running rampant in our politics. Their day, it seems, has dawned, and there are many who have some prospect of becoming President of the United States.
Nonetheless, to my knowledge, there are no infrastructure-deniers. That is, no one is claiming that we do not have $2.2 Trillion backlog of road, rail, bridge, dam, water, sewage, school repairs/replacements that need to be done.
The President has proposed a rather modest start to that rebuilding agenda, and the right-wing opposes it.
So, let us say that the right-wing takes over the presidency and both Houses of Congress in 2012.
What happens then to our nation's infrastructure? Will they let it continue to deteriorate? If not, who is going to rebuild it? With what money? Will grandma have to make a choice between having a road to the hospital she cannot afford to use, or having a hospital she can afford but no road to get there?
Will they continue to oppose the government spending on infrastructure after President Obama is defeated? Or, will that spending, now magically, become, as Lloyd Blankfein described Goldman Sachs, "god's work"? Where will the money come from? When our children's education falls further behind world competition, is the right-wing suddenly going to embrace immigration?
At the next Republican debate fiasco, why not put the infrastructure question to them, what are they going to do about it if they become President? [And, when Ron Paul asserts the free market will handle it, ask him for the evidence to prove it.]
Follow Paul Abrams on Twitter: www.twitter.com/pabrams2001
Bush signs $286.4 billion highway bill
Legislation includes funding for 6,371 pet projects; Alaska a big winner
updated 8/10/2005 8:31:54 PM ET
MONTGOMERY, Ill — President Bush, saying it will help economic growth, on Wednesday signed a whopping $286.4 billion transportation bill that lawmakers lined with plenty of cash for some 6,000 pet projects back home.
With fanfare, Bush signed the more than 1,000-page highway bill into law at a plant operated by Caterpillar Inc., which makes road-building equipment. For the president, it was his second trip away from his Texas ranch this week to highlight recently passed legislation.
"If we want people working in America, we got to make sure our highways and roads are modern," Bush said. "We've got to bring up this transportation system into the 21st century."
"I mean, you can't expect your farmers to be able to get goods to market if we don't have a good road system," he said. "You can't expect to get these Caterpillar products all around the United States if we don't have a good road system."
(This was the largest spending bill in history until ARRA)
How'd that infrastructure spending turn out? Within 2 years, the economy took a dump.
And what does your comment have to do with the price of a bridge to nowhere in Alaska?
We cannot pave roads as citizen volunteers.
We can't protect commerce with roads and bridges in disrepair.
We CAN understand that funding and maintaining the infrastructure is an investment in a more stable future for out people...or we can ignore it...and pay three times as much for a band-aid fix when something blows.
It's not rocket science, people...just reality.
Ron Paul's statements on the Constitution seem more like an argument against it, than for it. He believes that we gained our independence from Britain, and then formed the Constitution soon thereafter. We didn't. In between, came the loose federation under "The Articles of Confederation", where nearly all power was in the states. It did not work, even then. The Constitutional Convention was held to AMEND the Articles, but the delegates realized they needed a new document that granted more power to the central government. The powers of Congress include taxing for the general welfare; and to make all laws necessary and proper to carry out the above powers. The 10th Amendment, by design, omitted the word "expressly" from its language as that was used in the Articles, and found to be a major barrier to collective action.
Finally, Ron Paul treats the Federal Government as if it were an absolute monarchy as was Britain when we revolted. It isn't. Our elected representatives are empowered to act collectively for the good of all. If you don't want them to do something,,,fine. But, just because you don't like it, does not make it unconstitutional.
I
As to how Republicans will change course on spending, they will likely start a war and claim anyone who doesn't support them is unpatriotic.
Ron Paul has stated many, many times that we should spend money on our own infrastructure rather than bombing and rebuilding other coutries' infrastructure. Look it up.
You also have stated whether Ron Paul believes that if we weren't spending money on military adventures that the GOVERNMENT should spend that money on infrastructure, or whether he expects the private sector to do it. Again, just askin'.
If elected, the Ron Paul would immediately end the undeclared wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Yemen. He would bring the troops home and start closing the 900 military bases that the USA has spread all over the world. The only way that Congress coud block him would be to declare war. Congress has not done that since World War 2. So no one would stop Ron Paul on those aspects of foreign policy. And the world would change on day one of his presidency, if not on the day that he is elected.
As far as what he means by spending the money here, why not ask the campaign.
At any rate, Ron Paul is the only candidate who knows how to find money to get anything done. Everyone else, Obama and Republicans included, would borrow from China and expect our children somehow to repay it.
But he's a tragedy of the commons denier. A prisoner dilemma's denier. A collective action problem's denier.
In short: he's a flat-earther, economically speaking.
And he will fall off the edge of that flat earth. I am quite sure of that.
Your free-market vision is a fiction report from a thought experiment. It's disconnect from reality is matched only by the communist's claim that deep in our hearts, we all know that all it takes to achieve paradise on earth would be to stop people from making money.
Later on, Congress (both parties, I might add) added to the Fed's mandate/charter to monitor unemployment through it's particular policies.
Both rationals have been, for the most part, good for the economy in the long haul. It takes strong, politically courageous men (to date) like Paul Volker back in the late '70s/early 80s and current chairman Ben Bernake to steer the massive rudder that is the Fed to do the appropriate job.
Your contention the elimination of the Federal Reserve Board (or any other central bank, for that matter) is not born out by historical fact. Please present factual history for your contention; otherwise, at least with me, you have no credibility and demonstrate your ignorance of economic history (there is a "cure"--it's called education, be it traditional or self taught.)
Thanks for posting..I too voice my opinion like you...Good job
:)
Grandma can shout to the rafters that she will stay in her home till he dies and is not worried about falling or dieing alone. Her voice is being taken away.