Highways Bill

[Democratic Hawk]

Highways Bill

1. The federal fuel tax, the Federal Highway Trust Fund, and subsidies to mass transit programs are eliminated as of FY 2007.
2. The federal government shall no longer appropriate any funds for the construction and financing of highways.

Sponsor: Sen. Dave 'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

Actually Bono... Almost every highway in my neck of the woods is federally funded. Oh and my "knee-jerk reaction" came after thought on the issue itself. I don't really think cutting the funds to the "City of Potholes" as it's called within my state, is the best thing for the citizens of my district.

Why does everything you like have to be federally funded?

Why must you insist on slashing and burning just about everything within the remit of the federal government?

And I, for one, happen to think that often enough its better for certain things to operate more efficiently and effectively at the regional level; however, I'm far from decided as to whether highways is one of them

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

Well, Senator Hawk, from what I can tell, it's not going to be pretty if we cut the federal funding to the highways in my district. Now, I can't speak for you or the other Senators, but I can speak for myself, and my representation. Already, most of the major cities, including my hometown of Pittsburgh, here in this District, are fianancially distressed. Some of the cities can hardly afford thier own police and fire departments, and Mr. Bono wants to add another burden to the reigons? It doesn't make sense for me to support the bill.

The way I see it, if highways remains under the auspices of federal government we can endeavour to retain a commitment to universally improving standards. Left to the regions, such universality might diminish with standards varying region to region. Highways might be a priority for some regions but not necessarily others

I'm sure there are highways within my own district, which are sub-standard, so I'm minded to raise this issue with the Mideast and Southeast governors, were this Bill to pass, which seems doubtful

Nevertheless, since the rationale underlying this Bill stems from the notion that the regions, as opposed to the federal government, should construct and maintain highways, I'd pretty much welcome their thoughts as to the intent of the Bill before us

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

The way I see it, if highways remains under the auspices of federal government we can endeavour to retain a commitment to universally improving standards. Left to the regions, such universality might diminish with standards varying region to region. Highways might be a priority for some regions but not necessarily others

So, if the voters of one region want to fund highways less, why shouldn't they be able to do so? In this system it's the same thing, the federal money is distributed on what the regional needs supposedly are. If a region thinks highwyas aren't very important they aren't going to recieve funding without asking for it. In the end, it just leaves us with expensive, inneficient roads.

When it comes to highways, universal standards matter to me . I'm hesitant to support any legislation that might result in significant differentials from region to region to the point that in one region all might improve with the roads to another where all might continue to deteriorate further

And following on from your previous response:

I don't remember ever propising to this chamber slashing and burning "everything", like defense, for instance.

Defense? I should jolly well hope not . Though I do recall you highlighting the defense budget for cutbacks back in those halcyon days of our campaign for the then District 4 Senate seat. Still, I'm not surprised since such a proposal would, mercifully, have gained little to no traction

As a staunch believer in Atlasian Exceptionalism , I'm always going to oppose anything that I remotely consider taking us down the path of the 'Somalisation' of Atlasia

You've never made any secret of your disdain for government, federal especially

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

I don't see what the problem is, you are just denying the people of one region the right to have their roads as they want. But that is neither here nor there, if you want standards, you can just legislate them, that doesn't mean you have to fund them federally.

Are you seriously suggesting that if the people of a particular region don't want their regional governments to spend a dime on constructing or maintaining highways in that region, then so be it?

Nevertheless, if this Bill does come to anything, which given the sentiments expressed thus far by my esteemed colleagues I very much doubt, too right I'll be legislating standards

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

I don't see what the problem is, you are just denying the people of one region the right to have their roads as they want. But that is neither here nor there, if you want standards, you can just legislate them, that doesn't mean you have to fund them federally.

Are you seriously suggesting that if the people of a particular region don't want their regional governments to spend a dime on constructing or maintaining highways in that region, then so be it?

Nevertheless, if this Bill does come to anything, which given the sentiments expressed thus far by my esteemed colleagues I very much doubt, too right I'll be legislating standards

'Hawk'

Why would that happen?
And yes, this does matter, because it shows that most scnarios devised to refute stuff like this are inplausibly farfetched and ridiculous. No people would do that, they are just a cartoon created to make a dumb point. I hate that.

Yes, it is far-fetched, a nightmare scenario, in fact, the worst possible scenario, in fact! Even I don't think it would ever even remotely transpire. Still, we agree on that if nothing else

Nevertheless, my concerns that highways might be prioritised by some regions but not others, stand. However, once its devolved to the regions, which I hope it isn't; on reflection, I don't think federal government should set standards but as a Southeast citizen, I'd be doing my level best to ensure that the region does. Given regional variations in financial strength, you are likely to see huge disparities between them

Highways should remain federally funded, with a national programme of improving our road infrastructure

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

Can I just point out that the Regional government (no, it's worse than that. Regional politics, period) in the Mideast has effectively collapsed?

I've got to admit that that had crossed my mind too; however, in my objections to this Bill, I decided not to raise it because I had no wish to be disparaging towards the regions but the fact remains, in some regions, government is not operating as effectively as it ought to be

If things don't improve I can see more federalism on the agenda, not less, and I'd hate to see that happen. Things are just fine as they are, as long as its working

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

Can I just point out that the Regional government (no, it's worse than that. Regional politics, period) in the Mideast has effectively collapsed?

I've got to admit that that had crossed my mind too; however, in my objections to this Bill, I decided not to raise it because I had no wish to be disparaging towards the regions but the fact remains, in some regions, government is not operating as effectively as it ought to be

If things don't improve I can see more federalism on the agenda, not less, and I'd hate to see that happen. Things are just fine as they are, as long as its working

'Hawk'

Well, y'know Senator Hawk, they say if it ain't broke, don't fix it...

Except  IT IS BROKE. I made a post two pages before about the problems it has. I have pointed this out multiple times, and you still insist on ignoring it.  I can only conclude that your only objective is to further a left wing hack agenda without any regards for the facts.

I was actually referring to the fact that throughout much of Atlasia, regional government has, more or less, stalled. And I, for one, will not consider any devolution of highway construction, nor anything else, to the regions until such time as the situation improves - and this in addition to any other concerns I've raised

Nevertheless, I thank Governors Ernest and Naso for their input

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

Then back it up. You are just being boneheaded. I've presented you claims and backed them up. You present only denial. You are the personification of everything that is wrong with this senate--you are conservative in the worst possible sense of the word: you are a complete reactionary who is scared shitless of any sort of change that can alter your beloved status quo, and can only propose the same left wing hack solutions that are not solutions at all. You are anti-reason and let emotions base your political reasoning instead of facts, and talking to you is like talking to a fucking brickwall.

Let me make one thing perfectly clear, I will not tolerate such language by anybody towards a Senator, let alone from a member of the Cabinet, who should know better , on the floor of the Senate

You have made your case, the Senator disagrees. I'm sure you are more than capable of responding without showing yourself up

Let me also remind you that Senator Dr Cynic is an elected member of the Senate, you sir are a presidential apppointee, who is only in such high office by the virtue of the advise and consent of the Senate. I don't care what you think of that, just remember it

My advise to you is that, in future, you conduct yourself in a manner befitting the office you hold. Furthermore, you owe the Senator a public apology

'Hawk'

P.S. Don't even think about editing your post!

[Democratic Hawk]

I hereby open the final vote on this Bill. Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain

Highways Bill

1. The federal fuel tax, the Federal Highway Trust Fund, and subsidies to mass transit programs are eliminated as of FY 2007.
2. The federal government shall no longer appropriate any funds for the construction and financing of highways.

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

Nay

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

This Bill has enough votes to fail. Senators have 24 hours to change their votes

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

With 1 Aye, 7 Nays and 0 Abstentions this Bill has failed

'Hawk'