|
|
|
My wife is a wonderful woman, but sometimes when a critical need arises she likes to ignore it as if it didn’t exist. Invariably, fulfillment of that need becomes so urgent that looking away is no longer possible, and during the time she spent behaving as if there was no need, it became even more critical. Such is the case with our ‘crumbling infrastructure’ during this election season when most of the presidential candidates are collecting votes by promising no new taxes and shying away from funding for improvements to our systems of vehicular and pedestrian transport, water purification and distribution, etc. The issue of infrastructure spending during an election year further reveals the differences between an incumbent president running for a second term and candidates who have the luxury of clinging to political ideology and making promises they may or may not fulfill once they are in office.
President Obama refuses to retreat neither from his responsibility to make upgrades to a dangerously deteriorated infrastructure nor his method of raising the revenue that will be required to do so. Until the last two or three weeks none of the President’s challengers had much of anything to say about confronting our ‘crumbling infrastructure,’ and their dearth of attention to our infrastructure needs has been well documented. As recently as the first two weeks in January, headlines read: “GOPers Steer Clear of Transportation” and “Republicans Don’t Want To Talk About Transportation and Infrastructure.“ There is an explanation for this: Peter Nonis, the congressional relations director for AAA (American Automobile Association) explains, “Transportation is not on voters’ minds, even if they do want to hear about jobs...It’s highly unlikely that the GOP nominee will generally agree with the President that infrastructure investment should be a top federal government responsibility...It’s not as emotionally charged as say abortion or terrorism.” When it comes to taking on the subject of infrastructure investment, Conservative think tank Heritage Action’s Dan Holler admits, “There’s no campaign fodder, nothing sexy about it.” Translated, what they mean is ‘now that almost all of the GOP presidential candidates have based their appeal on vilifying President Obama, it would be inconsistent to admit that a portion of his agenda is credible and worth pursuing.’ They would do well to remember Ralph Waldo Emerson’s admonishment that “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.”
Only Mitt Romney has acknowledged, “We’re going to have to make an investment in our infrastructure...I don’t mind borrowing if something has a revenue stream that will pay back tomorrow.” Beyond that, Romney won’t get into the specifics of funding infrastructure improvements; like the rest of the GOP candidates, he doesn’t want to discuss spending, even where it’s obvious that there will be a need to do so. President Obama, on the other hand, has presented Congress with a ‘jobs plan’ that directly associates increases in employment with infrastructure maintenance and development. While the President’s plan calls for an infrastructure investment of $556 billion over a six-year period, it also proposes to cut costs by consolidating 55 existing highway programs into five and emphasizing the preservation of existing infrastructure. Rather than continuing the corrupt and lobbyist-driven Congressional practice of funding ‘pork barrel’ projects like the infamous ‘bridge to nowhere,
My wife is a wonderful woman, but sometimes when a critical need arises she likes to ignore it as if it didn’t exist. Invariably, fulfillment of that need becomes so urgent that looking away is no longer possible, and during the time she spent behaving as if there was no need, it became even more critical. Such is the case with our ‘crumbling infrastructure’ during this election season when most of the presidential candidates are collecting votes by promising no new taxes and shying away from funding for improvements to our systems of vehicular and pedestrian transport, water purification and distribution, etc. The issue of infrastructure spending during an election year further reveals the differences between an incumbent president running for a second term and candidates who have the luxury of clinging to political ideology and making promises they may or may not fulfill once they are in office.
President Obama refuses to retreat neither from his responsibility to make upgrades to a dangerously deteriorated infrastructure nor his method of raising the revenue that will be required to do so. Until the last two or three weeks none of the President’s challengers had much of anything to say about confronting our ‘crumbling infrastructure,’ and their dearth of attention to our infrastructure needs has been well documented. As recently as the first two weeks in January, headlines read: “GOPers Steer Clear of Transportation” and “Republicans Don’t Want To Talk About Transportation and Infrastructure.“ There is an explanation for this: Peter Nonis, the congressional relations director for AAA (American Automobile Association) explains, “Transportation is not on voters’ minds, even if they do want to hear about jobs...It’s highly unlikely that the GOP nominee will generally agree with the President that infrastructure investment should be a top federal government responsibility...It’s not as emotionally charged as say abortion or terrorism.” When it comes to taking on the subject of infrastructure investment, Conservative think tank Heritage Action’s Dan Holler admits, “There’s no campaign fodder, nothing sexy about it.” Translated, what they mean is ‘now that almost all of the GOP presidential candidates have based their appeal on vilifying President Obama, it would be inconsistent to admit that a portion of his agenda is credible and worth pursuing.’ They would do well to remember Ralph Waldo Emerson’s admonishment that “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.”
Only Mitt Romney has acknowledged, “We’re going to have to make an investment in our infrastructure...I don’t mind borrowing if something has a revenue stream that will pay back tomorrow.” Beyond that, Romney won’t get into the specifics of funding infrastructure improvements; like the rest of the GOP candidates, he doesn’t want to discuss spending, even where it’s obvious that there will be a need to do so. President Obama, on the other hand, has presented Congress with a ‘jobs plan’ that directly associates increases in employment with infrastructure maintenance and development. While the President’s plan calls for an infrastructure investment of $556 billion over a six-year period, it also proposes to cut costs by consolidating 55 existing highway programs into five and emphasizing the preservation of existing infrastructure. Rather than continuing the corrupt and lobbyist-driven Congressional practice of funding ‘pork barrel’ projects like the infamous ‘bridge to nowhere,
