DoT bill hits a traffic jam

WE SAY More money should be sent on maintaining our roads.

Laughably, when President Obama first reacted to criticisms that he was just as bad as Bush – or worse – at managing a budget, he called together his Cabinet to find room in a $3.5 trillion budget and cut $100 million (a .003 percent cut).  But last week he gave the strongest signal yet that he is working to curb deficits.

The president made his first formal veto threat, opposing the spending on new fighter jets and engines that Defense Secretary and IU alumnus Robert Gates said were unnecessary. The savings add up to just less than $1 billion.

But he didn’t stop there. He ordered the delay of a transportation spending bill, which sought to increase a $286 billion spending plan to $500 billion. The money was designed to go to everything from fixing potholes to increasing funding for public transportation.

The maintenance of our roads is entirely necessary. Although we wouldn’t go as far as some to sensationalize the aging of our roads by claiming there’s a war on potholes or traffic or some such nonsense, we do think that it should be expected that we spend more money on repairing and maintaining our roads now, when they’re becoming old.

As for increasing funding for public transportation while it continues to dip into the red, well, it’s not going to win over any budgeteer. No doubt public transport is useful – Bloomington’s streets would be overly congested in the school year if not for Campus Bus and Bloomington Transit. But Obama’s decision to postpone the bill (which obviously spends more money without taking revenue) comes, again, from his wish to tackle the deficit.

This has led those congressmen who are particularly invested in this bill to come up with ad-hominem ways to generate revenue, to at least make this bill revenue-neutral. Among them is Rep. Peter A. DeFazio, D-Ore., who proposed a new tax on oil speculators.

It’s sad that the word “speculator” has been thrown about by politicians as a means of chastising individuals who have partaken in all manners of activity – including, admittedly, risky investments, but also including buying up GM bonds, simply playing the stock market, etc. It’s become a politically loaded epithet with no more meaning than “socialist.”

However, there are some good ideas for generating revenue, including a gas tax.
Also, though the issue of funding public transport might be touchy, we still need to dutifully ask ourselves: What is it about public transport that makes it sink money every year?

The argument for subsidizing it often goes that too few people will ride if we raise ticket prices to a sustainable level and that those people who leave will instead take their cars and drive to work, creating more congestion and pollution. Maybe. But there are creative solutions, including, in tandem, road charges, for driving certain roads during certain times. London did it with remarkable results.

There are ways to reduce congestion and greenhouse gases without subsidizing public transport so heavily. But in any case, more money is certainly needed to maintain our ailing roads.