Here comes a massive $260 billion highway bill

[krazen1211]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/31/us-usa-congress-infrastructure-idUSTRE80U03Z20120131

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-02-15/congress-heads-into-transportation-debate-without-obama-proposal.html

The Senate is proposing a two-year bill with $109 billion in funding. The $260 billion House bill is for five years. That compares with current legislation that allocated about $286 billion over six years and has operated on a series of extensions at about the same spending level since 2009.



As expected, there's a massive increase in government spending on top of the prior $286 billion that was already a massive increase in spending.

Why do people complain about spending cuts, again?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Have you seen Interstate 91 these days?

This couldn't have come soon enough.

[krazen1211]

http://www.lib.niu.edu/1992/im920105.html

On December 18, 1991 the President signed the new 6-year $151 billion surface transportation reauthorization legislation. The bill provides for increased transferability of funds and a move toward reducing congestion and improving air quality in urban areas. It will create many needed jobs in construction and related industries and should help inspire economic improvement in Illinois.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/highway/stories/hwy060998.htm

 President Clinton lauded Congress as he signed the nation's new $203 billion highway bill, then said he hoped the bipartisanship could continue on other matters such as school and tobacco legislation.





I find it amazing how this nation has historically operated under much smaller levels of spending.

[Bacon King]

I find it amazing how this nation has historically operated under much smaller levels of spending.

Lrn2inflation

$151 billion in 1991 = $252 billion today
$203 billion in 1998 = $278 billion today
$260 billion today = $260 billion today

[Хahar 🤔]

I find it amazing how this nation has historically operated under much smaller levels of spending.

And you can't get twelve ounces of Pepsi for a nickel, either! What's up with that?

[Fuzzybigfoot]

This highway bill can't nearly be as massive as Krazen's addiction to !

[krazen1211]

I find it amazing how this nation has historically operated under much smaller levels of spending.

Lrn2inflation

$151 billion in 1991 = $252 billion today
$203 billion in 1998 = $278 billion today
$260 billion today = $260 billion today

Learn to divide?

The first 2 bills were 6 year bills. The 3rd is a 5 year bill, which in itself is less than half of the eye popping $556 billion initial request...

[Lief 🗽]

Unfortunately $260 billion is way, way too little. But even this smallest of steps is a step in the right direction.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

How and why is it that the Tea Party House ended up asking for a longer-term, hence one imagines bigger program?

[Dave from Michigan]

We should raise the gas tax. Over time though to lessen the blow. not sure by how much though. maybe increase it to 40 or 50 cents over 10 years.

[King]

Roads? Where we're going we won't need roads.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

260 billion is a small fraction of the amount the ASCE recommended but this is a good start.

[Reginald]

It's certainly nice to see this. Though I do wonder if this is going to come into play:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[krazen1211]

260 billion is a small fraction of the amount the ASCE recommended but this is a good start.

What a load of dung. In 1998, the $203 billion allocated by President Clinton was described as 'lavish' and 'pouring money on highways' after he increased spending by 40% from the prior highway bill.

Amazing how that quantity has gone from 'lavish' to 'small fraction'!

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

260 billion is a small fraction of the amount the ASCE recommended but this is a good start.

What a load of dung. In 1998, the $203 billion allocated by President Clinton was described as 'lavish' and 'pouring money on highways' after he increased spending by 40% from the prior highway bill.

Amazing how that quantity has gone from 'lavish' to 'small fraction'!

http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/

[Joe Republic]

Thankfully, Republican Sens. Roy Blunt and Mitch McConnell have been working to improve the bill, by introducing an amendment to permit all employers to deny health insurance coverage for employees' birth control and any other morally objectionable procedures.  This issue is of course vitally important to fixing our nation's transport infrastructure.

[dead0man]

We should raise the gas tax. Over time though to lessen the blow. not sure by how much though. maybe increase it to 40 or 50 cents over 10 years.

Come on man, why should the people that use it pay for it, that's silly!



(and just so we're clear, that's sarcasm.  I agree with you, gas taxes should be raised if we need more money for roads.)

[memphis]

I have no problems with maintenance/repairs to highways that already exist, but, at least in my part of the country, we have a habit of building highways to nowhere, that only serve to hollow out the city, and force us to spend even more money on building new infrastructure further and further out. TN-385 is beyond foolish.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Thankfully, Republican Sens. Roy Blunt and Mitch McConnell have been working to improve the bill, by introducing an amendment to permit all employers to deny health insurance coverage for employees' birth control and any other morally objectionable procedures.  This issue is of course vitally important to fixing our nation's transport infrastructure.