The Other Bush Legacy: Our Crumbling Infrastructure, Booming Oil Company Profits
With the collapse of the Interstate 35W Bridge in Minneapolis there is renewed anxiety and focus on the condition of the nation's infrastructure, especially its highways and bridges. Concerns continue to be voiced about the condition of the electric grid, and recent sewer explosions and subway tunnel flooding in New York speak for themselves. The list could go on for pages. Or for that matter, just ask the good people of New Orleans. Maintaining plant and equipment is an executive responsibility, and the nation's infrastructure is our plant and equipment. If an executive's competence is to be judged in this context, then here too is failure on a massive scale.
But wait, it becomes more ominous yet. Gas taxes are the single largest funding source for the nation's highways. Americans pay an average of 47 cents a gallon for fuel taxes. In Canada it comes to $1 a gallon, $1.90 in Japan and $ 4.50 in Britain, all according to the International Energy Administration.
In the wake of the deadly 35W collapse the House Transportation Committee called for a fuel tax hike. More specifically, Congressman James Oberstar (D.Minn) indicated he would introduce legislation to fund bridge repairs and increase their inspections. According to Oberstar, a 5-cent increase in the gas tax would pay for a three year program that would generate some $8.5 billion a year. I repeat, we are talking about a five cent increase on the gas tax, in order to tackle an urgently needed and clearly dangerous infrastructure problem. A problem that should have long since been the focus of remedial government action.
President Bush's immediate and intemperate reaction to Oberstar's proposal was to dismiss it out of hand, admonishingly lecturing Oberstar and his Congressional colleagues, "Before we raise taxes, which could effect economic growth, I would urge the Congress to examine how they set priorities."
It begs the question, what are the president's priorities? Well consider this. In 2001 when the president took office the average price of conventional retail gasoline was $1.45 a gallon according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. By mid July 2007, the price was $3.05 per gallon, a difference of $1.60 a gallon or over 100% , or more to the point , by a factor of 32 times the five cent increment in gas tax proposed by Representative Oberstar to deal with a critically important issue. Here is a problem, tax foe or friend, that needs fixing. And yet President Bush is determined to continue on this course of obstruction if government taxes are the remedy. In contrast, over the past six years, he has done virtually nothing to arrest the egregious excesses of an oil industry empowered to tax each and everyone of us with runaway cartel manipulated prices.
The jump in gasoline prices is the direct result of the tripling of oil prices since Bush's inauguration in January 2001. Only two days ago William Ramsay, Deputy Director of the International Energy Agency urged Opec to increase production. He said oil prices in the region of $70 a barrel were too high and a threat to the world economy. So too did Britain's Prime Minister Gordon Brown exclaim his impatience with Opec manipulation while still Chancellor of the Exchequer, accusing Opec of doubling the price of oil within a twelve month period by withholding production from the marketplace. He went so far as to call the Saudi Ambassador to voice his displeasure. By contrast within the last six years our White House has done nothing meaningful to signal our displeasure if not disgust with our Saudi friends who are in effect the putative leaders of OPEC.
This in spite of the fact that we are the de facto guarantor of Saudi independence as clearly evidenced by the massive US fleet sailing the Arabian Gulf to protect Saudi shipping lanes, and if need be, Saudi Arabia itself. The US Arabian fleet is now at its greatest level of strength ever, and at a cost of about $100 million a day. That comes to some $35 billion a year to American taxpayers.
In this madhouse relationship, the President's initiatives are not limited to the shores of Arabia but extend to our shores as well. Congress has passed resolutions to nullify the sovereign immunity that Opec state companies enjoy in our courts, that will make them subject to laws of the land much as any other commercial enterprise. Yet President Bush, in support of the Saudis and in turn Opec, has made it be known that he would veto such a measure.
All this, and the administration's myriad tax breaks for big oil, its near giveaway of oil leases, its appointments to both the Interior and Energy Departments of oil flacks and oil hires, its support and protection of 'K' Street lobbyists, have all created a dramatic disequilibrium. Representative Oberstar is lectured by the President for asking for a five cent gas tax that would fund a program to rebuild our bridges. Yet where is the presidential hectoring when Exxon-Mobil cashes in $40 billions in annual profits lifted from a phony oil market which in and of itself has become a massive tax on the public weal.
The handling of this issue alone borders on the catastrophic. I don't know what they taught Mr. Bush at Harvard Business. But such levels of intransigence, tunnel vision and partisanship would have found a swift exit from the corner office in the real world.
Comments for this post are now closed
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I thank you so much for this information, I have never understood how OPEC worked or whom had the most control over it. Great article.
As far as Bush, this man doesn't care about anything but filling more pockets with money. How could we expect otherwise from a spoiled rich kid that whines and has a tantrum, when he doesn't get his way.
I don't remember the woman's name, but she ran against Bush for Governor of Texas, recently deceased, she said it brilliantly. The only good thing to come out of this Administration, is the ammount of books being written and the ammount of money made from books being written about this Administration.
It was Ann "Ma" Richards, she is well remembered for saying: “Poor George [Bush], he can't help it. He was born with a silver foot in his mouth.”
Ann Richards was the Governor of Texas heavily favored to win re election over candidate George W Bush. Unfortunately for her, Bush sent her packing with her wide mouth SHUT, as President Bush did with the Gorey one and Lurch. Tah taaaaaa........
Everyone seems to ignore the fact that Bush passed a bill for 289 billion dollars over ten years for the highways and bridges (the largest amount ever). When the money gets to the states and they use it elsewhere is not Bush's fault. I do not support Bush but he did do the right thing two years ago as far as the highways, just a lot of the media like to ignore the facts when it doesn't look bad on W.
Is that the largest amount ever even *after* you adjust for inflation?
According to the engineers I referenced in my earlier post, the US should be spending *1.6 trillion* over the next *5 years* alone in order to make the necessary repairs, etc.
By the way, I'm not a Clinton lover.
Economically, he really wasn't all that progressive. In my mind he was a DLC democrat who was much more conservative in some ways than he should and could have been. So I don't doubt he didn't spend as much as he should've on infrastructure.
But I would point out this is a symptom of how terrified of taxes everyone had/has become since the Reagan administration successfully began the campaign to make people disassociate taxes from the many positive things they provide.
And of course, making people think "government" was some sort of 4 letter word.
So it's clear that while it may not just be republican presidents that have neglected infrastructure, it *has* been tax-averse presidents who hold some *conservative* beliefs .
At the very least it's been presidents struggling to fund programs in the wake of the anti-tax mania that was the 80's.
PS---Our roads/bridges began this serious decay not long after Reagan cut the top marginal tax rate from 70 to 28%. Coincidence?
Our White House Coward again shows his yellow streak as he cries about removing immunity for criminal behavior by his patrician family and the royal Saudi families.
Aramco is American Corporate Fascism.
If you compare highway infastructure of Canada to that of the United States, you are on extremely thin ice.
The so-called "TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY" is a pathetic, two-lane highway, no way comparable to the I90-I94 (or I80 or I10/I20/I40) system. Most Canadians who drive from Toronto/Montreal/Halifax to Calgary/Edmonton/Vancouver would take the extra miles and travel thru the U.S. because they would be able to travel uninpeded by trafic lights in insignificant little towns, pay less in motel and meal cost, and having the pleasure of driving on smooth roads, rather than having their dentures (or teeth) replaced by driving on the third-world style roads of Canada.
If you are bashing President Bush for any percieved crumbling of the infrastructure, keep in mind that before Bush, there was eight years of neglect by Clinton.
Also, keep in mind that in spite of your cry-wolf nonsense, U.S. infrastructure is still far superior to anywhere else in the world.
Yukon man has a clear view. President Bush holds the line against new taxes so Raymond Learsy writes the oil rate increases over last year have been the president's fault. Of course, OPEC sets the prices,the entire world is affected, but that doesn't matter, it's still Bush's fault 'cause he's an oil man's best buddy. Yeah, right! And the Yukon man points up a major factor about the States' infrastructure being far superior to other countries. And the reason why? Additional EARMARKS that congressmen and women bounce to their home state (for jobs=votes)on top of the normal infrastructure scheduling for repair.
Even staunch conservative Tony Blankley (writes for Washington Times, maybe you've heard of him) last week on The McLaughlin Group said (paraphrasing) that earmarks are a tiny, tiny part of this issue.
Casey Dinges, managing director of the American Society of Civil Engineers, agreed, pointing out that considering we are *under-spending* on infrastructure by almost 200 billion dollars a year (McLaughlin himself brought that up), some (relatively) small percentage of earmarks is hardly the core issue.
He also had some damning information on the situation, including the fact that as many as $74,000 bridges were rated as "structurally deficient" out of the 150,000 that could use some level of repair.
Also, according to Dinges "The U.S. economy loses $65 billion a year in productivity because of traffic congestion; if you look at road conditions, $54 billion a year in car repairs. That's $275 per motorist.
And when I think back to the last transportation bill, when ASCE proposed just a six-cent increase in the gas tax, that would have cost the average motorist just $30 a year, and we could have started making some serious headway in this issue.
I should point out that Mr. Oberstar will be introducing a bill -- The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee; he's from northern Minnesota -- will be introducing a bill with no earmarks that will focus on over 6,000 bridges in the national highway system..."
mclaughlin.com/bb/bb.asp?pagenumber=0&topicid=2131
Yukon Jack, “U.S. infrastructure is still far superior to anywhere else in the world.”
Have you ever driven on German roads, Swiss roads, or some of the European roads built by Romans, 2,000 years ago, and still in use? Did you know that some Roman aqueducts are still in use? Is there any road in the U.S. that would survive 2,000 years?
Eight years of neglect under Clinton. They just can't help themselves. It's like hitting their knees with a hammer. How much you bet Yukon Jack ain't never been out of Monatana.
Yes, TexasDemo, I HAVE DRIVEN on European roads as recently as one month ago. And I have driven on all the East-West and North-South Interstate highways. I think I can safely say (and with a little bit of sober and logical thinking) that the longevity of the Roman built roads would have been far shorter than the proverbial and oft-quoted 2,000 years, if those roads had been travelled on by thousands of eighteen-wheelers and cars - as the American roads - instead of one or two
ox-pulled carts per week.
Will the Interstate system last 2,000 years? Let us ask
TexasDemo in 2,000 years.
Where have you been in the worl other than the next town down the highway?
apduncan1, your witty response to my post takes my breath away.
You obviously judge everyone by your own standards.
It is clear to me that the purpose of the Iraq war was to stop Iraq from increasing oil output from 3 million barrels a day to 12 million barrels a day (Saudis produce 9 million barrels a day) as soon as the sanctions were lifted.
Iraq was ready to amp up oil production and had signed contracts with French and German companies.
We attacked and oil production never went up. In fact, it is down from 3 million to 2 million barrels a day.
The war has been a great success for the oil companies and the Saudis. For them, it's a win!
However you want to slice it, Iraq was about oil.
Iraq is also about the security off Israel and the security interests of the U.S.
Iraq was also ready to invite European engineering, procurement and construction companies to bid in its reconstruction once the UN sanctions were lifted (see: no WMDs).
You know what happened next.
Now that Malawi is playing footsie with Iran (another Shia majority country) the US is saber rattling again ...
Right. The French had a big piece of the action and next thing you know, "Freedom Fries."
The war was a great way to artificially inflate gas prices. Did any of the editorial cartoonists think to draw bush in front of a $3-a-gallon gas pump and a "Mission Accomplished" banner?
Should have. Pretty funny.
I agree with everything except the last paragraph. King George W is a catastrophe for most of us, but not for the people that really matter to him. To the oil companies, OPEC, the very wealthy, and the war profiteers, he is anything but incompetent. They're getting just what they wanted.
Mr. Learrsy, finally refreshing to hear someone equate irresponsible profiteering and price fixing to taxation without representation. And, you don't even get a nod as to a public purpose for it.
It's clear that the consumer must take the lead and conserve. There is no other way to rest the yoke of power from the hands of the profiteer. Hint: Oil is for bicycle chains.
and they are getting it because the chimp/cheney regime is screwing the Iraqis and the American people big time . . . and congress still can't get their act together to stop them . . . meanwhile back in the US of A . . . the tax breaks for the wealthy who are earning even more now . . . work widening the gulf between the haves and the have nots . . . and the traditional middle class is going the way of the dodo . . .
God this isn't even rich vs poor. Very little has been done to help the wealthy actually when you look at dollar devaluation, on a global scale the wealthiest have gotten the most hurt but are too stupid to realize it and think they should still be Republican supporters. This is some sick twisted selfishness at a level that is just shocking. This isnt about helping the top 10%. This is all about helping a very few rarefied individuals. Creating a Bush family dynasty that they want to compete with the Kennedys. I mean they aren't even discrete about it, create some hidden corporations,etc, at least. No these guys are front and center with their oil holdings, Carlyle group. The conflict of interest is astounding. Oh and I am sure there are those hidden companies with stock in Aramco somewhere. Why would Bush want money raised on a 5 cent tax to be given to American companies to hire workers to do work in america. they want waste and disposable depreciating replaceable assets somewhere no one can see it. Use-buy-use-PAY!!! It's so obvious and they laugh... and they laugh most at the top ten percent they are screwing who support them because they think being rich means you have to support Republicans, live carrying a Louis Vuitton bag.
MOTHERS FOR ANSWERS
EMINENT GREASED
Read these posts and weep.
Until this utterly apparent knowledge is ubiquitous to the bottom 30 percent enablers, those who can least afford it will be getting reamed at the pump-- if they choose.
And by the fuel oil trucks--if they want to not freeze to death year in, year out.
The one thing all these posts have in common is a pretty fair idea of the machinations of this government. Why rudimentary comprehensions are considered some sort of abstruse insight is really the crux of the problem.
Just the fact that profiteering in commodities during wartime at this level is going unpunished - no repsonsibility, no accountability-- is historically remarkable, isn’t it? Not to mention dishonorably shameful beyond belief.
What needs to be done is make those who drive up to those pumps in squanderous machinery reflect on who is doing and getting what. And what happens when the whole world becomes the competition for what we had imperiously presumed was ours by some unexplained sort o f right.
Slapping a yellow troop support magnetic ribbon on mechanical overkill is not being a patriot.
It is defining America’s future as Road Kill.
The Eminent Greased will bring us nothing but imminent grief.
gala
hotmail.comotmail.com
In "All the King's Men" the oil profits were used for social services. That's the real reason they fear socialization instead of privitization.
Roads and hospitals were built in Louisiana using oil company profits by a populist. This was very threatening but resulted in roads, hospitals and bridges being built for the first time.
Loading comments…
Posted August 31, 2007 | 06:44 AM (EST)