Bridge To Pork!

October 29, 2007

Can you point on the ‘take to task; part. I read the whole thing twice and it was standard anti Investment, let the bridges fall, right wing anti fiscal conservatism rhetoric.

Thanks

Flash

Master of None

October 29, 2007

You must have missed this part.

“Rather than fund roads and bridges, your priorities included $16million for MN bike paths and $120 million for your district’s transportation projects and $600 million to encourage kids to walk or bike. Another $3 billion was for earmarked for bicycle and pedestrian projects.”

Terry

October 29, 2007

Oberstar’s constituent service is great.
He was instrumental in helping one of my siblings with an immigration matter. For that reason alone he will always get the votes of my mostly republican family in MN.

Mitch

October 29, 2007

Yep. Good constituent service is the blocking ‘n tackling of local politics.

As much as I rip on my state Senator, Ellen Anderson, she is at least pretty impeccable at the customer service stuff. As opposed to Alice “The Phantom” Hausman.

Bruce Vento earned himself a ton of indulgence with his CS efforts as well.

flash

October 29, 2007

No, I didn’t miss that, nor did I miss the beginning of that paragraph that stated “Voters still remember the 2005 Transportation Bill,”, so 2005, pre Bridge collapse. Or was Oberstar suppose to predict the disaster. I know the standards are much higher for Dems, but isn’t that a bit much!

Reality is, the MNGOP Governor,and RNC President hold the purse strings with the final say, and they have dropped the ball . . . again!

Flash

billhedrick

October 29, 2007

Reality is, the MNGOP Governor,and RNC President hold the purse strings with the final say, and they have dropped the ball . . . again!

OK. I’m stupid I know, but isn’t the problem with the national funds? How does the minority party drop the ball in Congress?

flash

October 29, 2007

“How does the minority party drop the ball in Congress?”

You all have had no problem blaming the Minority party when you had control of both houses, and the Oval office. So it doesn’t seem like a reach when the RNC still has filibuster power AND the Oval office.

Flash

Chuck

October 29, 2007

Terry, yes he does take care of his district. Sometimes he used his power for good (like your example), sometimes for evil….like forcing the 4 lane extension of 53 north of Virginia when the DOT says they don’t want that. That there are more pressing issues with Minn transportation.

peevish

October 29, 2007

Bill,

First, the ‘minority’ party was ANYTHING but, nationally, for 8 years. It held the house of Reps from 1994-2006, and majority in the senate in 2001, and then from 2003-2007.

Past that, this is pretty simplistic in it’s analysis (to say that the ‘minority’ party doesn’t hold control. First, the President vetoed spending bills he didn’t like, second, so did Pawlenty.

Finally, while minority leader, Pawlenty pushed through cuts to taxes, not increases in infrastructure funding. This isn’t the case of Republicans advocating for keeping up infrastructure, in fact, it’s the EXACT OPPOSITE case, the Dems, both nationally and at the state house, pushed for more funding for infrastructure, not just road capacity in lieu of mass transit, but actual funding for infrastructure – so it’s just not the case that the Republicans tried but were blocked, they didn’t propose anything at all. This isn’t a case that Republicans tried and failed, they never tried, and the limited attempts to deal with this issue were met (in past) with Republican opposition. It’s sheer fantasy to say that because they were the minority, they couldn’t get it done, they never tried, and they were the Majority (at the federal level) for far long enough to deal with this, but didn’t.

Mitch,

If you want to piont a finger at Oberstar, recognize that you have that same finger pointing at you on so many other issues. You turn a blind-eye to the excesses of Haliburton, of products being made in China rather than here, of Walmart’s anti-union tactics.. so I’m not exactly sure where it is that your complaints rank in the ladder of something to be heeded, but I AM sure that they are far beyond MANY people who’ve been complaining much longer and louder about farm problems, and given your past history of not caring about corporate profiteering, pardon me for thinking you are merely looking to deflect criticism. You don’t seem to have any real issue with corporate pork in Iraq, changes to tax structures that vastly benefit Oil companies at the time when Oil is at it’s highest point ever, profits are at their highest point ever. Where is your outrage about these issues?

Mitch

October 29, 2007

If you want to piont a finger at Oberstar, recognize that you have that same finger pointing at you on so many other issues. You turn a blind-eye to the excesses of Haliburton, of products being made in China rather than here, of Walmart’s anti-union tactics

While you, in turn, refuse to acknowledge the ghastly effects of the Armenian genocide! You’ve turned a blind eye to the depredations of the Ku Klux Klan upon Black Americans, and the effects that it has on black male society to this day! In two years of leaving comments on this blog, you have yet to acknowledge that the Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward were the greatest examples of cultural terrorism since the Holocaust or the Ukranian famine! Ditto the destruction wrought by French colonialism, the aftereffects of the “mini ice age” of the late middle ages, the lingering aftereffects of the Bubonic Plague on European foreign policy, the role of the Philippine Insurrection on our Pacific policy and the way it affects us and the world today, the lingering aftereffects of Ottoman ethnic realpolitik throughout the Moslem world, and Camille Paglia’s critiques of identity feminism.

What’s the matter, PB? Why no mention of any of these issues? Every time you point a finger at me, you have four fingers (presuming your thumb is as flexible as your rhetoric) pointing back at yourself over each of these issues, to say nothing of Belgium’s shameful history in the Congo, the legally-stifling fallout of the Icelandic Cod war, the ongoing intellectual drain caused by the Great Schism.

Hell, I’ve seen you mention not one word about FDR’s relocations of the Japanese-Americans, the New Deal’s stifling of the economy until the war began, or William Randolph Hearst’s near-criminal role in fomenting the Spanish American War. For that matter, why the ongoing silence about the Galveston raids?

J’accuse!

What are you hiding? Are you afraid of being criticized? Or is it something deeper?

Master of None

October 29, 2007

“So it doesn’t seem like a reach when the RNC still has filibuster power AND the Oval office.”

So how has filibuster power and the occupation of the Oval office prevented the release of the $250 million for rebuilding the bridge?

“On August 6 President Bush signed your bill to authorize $250 million in emergency transportation aid and $5 million in transit funding assistance to MN for the collapse of the 35W Bridge. MN needs the remaining $195 million promised immediately. Three months later MN is still waiting for the federal funding while behind the scenes state Democrats continue to play politics with state DOT funding.”

No filibuster risk, no veto risk, yet no money?

flash

October 29, 2007

The article this whole post is about doesn’t address that, only old 2005 stuff. Wouldn’t you think if there was a beef, she would have spelt it out! Just more smoke and mirrors.

Flash

Master of None

October 29, 2007

Jeffers

“Projects are, literally or figuratively, collapsing around us while Minnesotans wait for the promised federal funding. So while we are busy here trying to get our state legislators to make roads and bridges priorities please do your job and send our federal bridge money.”

Did you miss that part too?

peevish

October 29, 2007

Mitch,

NO ONE, certainly not me, asked you to account for every possible situation, off-topic or on, no one.

You COULD have started this whole topci with something like “Look Corporate Pork is wrong, but how do we stop it? Ya’ know, like have a real discussion, and such..

Instead, you completely ignored any culpability, and just complained. Now, childish and crappy satire aside – because first, my response was on topic, and second, the strawman you created suggesting I expected you to account for all sorts of irrelevancies (which of course, as usual, I didn’t – I merely asked you to be self-honest, self-aware- – all that aside – your blog, this post, and nearly always, is about attacking, not discussion, not reasonable chats about solutions. Even here, rather than saying, “Ok, so what would you do about it?” Or “You’re right, both parties are corrupt”, no no, instead you invent BS to cover for a lack of accountability.

Now outside the fact that I’ve satarized you better on my worst days – such as commenting that I needed to go consult the 17 on-line dictionaries I can get around on.. what the hell does this do for either of us.

I frequently acknowledge points I’ve either erred on, apologize for mistakes, acknowledge that you don’t have ill intent. Your response, a continuing littany of insults, boorishness, and flippancy, even when I’m trying to be nice. I ask you, honestly, is that what you want to convey to your readers? That comprimise is to be met with scorn? That requests for equal acknowledgement that you (your party) had control – is to be met with ridicule? If so, what’s the point in writing anything at all, you’ve all made up your minds, let’s not talk, let’s just start shooting.

I replied to your 2nd amendment post, but apparently, because it wasn’t within 3 hours, I was to be mocked as what? Afraid? Since when did you reply to mine within 3 hours normally, oh, you didn’t, so yet again, it’s do as I say, not as I do.

The bottom line, Mitch, once again is, I ask you to have a civil discussion, to acknowledge blame on both sides as a starting point, and you comment back with childish nonsense accusing me of off topic expectations that you account for every possible point. That expectation was never put on you, the point is you don’t account FOR ANY POINTS when they don’t reflect well on your arguments. If you believe rational discussion comes from one-sided, biased and hostile rants – well then clearly what you’ll get is a blog full of one-sided, insulting, childish crap barely worth posting on an internet flame-board. That’s something said in the past to you, and while occassionally you TALK about wanting to change it, it seems you don’t have any real interest in doing so.

Mitch

October 29, 2007

strawman you created

You talked about Halliburton in a post about highway funding.

The post had nothing to do with corporate pork. However, this blog has opposed corporate welfare – probably *more* frequently than it has opposed subsidy of poverty.

Of course, you’d have to turn off a few of your preconceptions before coming to the blog to have gotten that.

peevish

October 29, 2007

And ya know Mitch, complaining about others when you won’t fix your own problems that are essentially the same, that’s hypocrisy – that thing you deny is applicable about you. You want others to do what you refuse to, or even worse, say is perfectly fine.

The reason this comes up so much is that you nearly always write from a jaundiced, one-sided standpoint. You act ‘holier than thou’ so often it’s laughable. Tom Delay gets money from K-Street – no problem – or at least, no complaint by Berg. Republicans try to use K Street to create one-party politics ‘de facto’ – no worries – but Oberstar works for Big Agra- SOUND THE TRUMPETS, MAN THE RAMPARTS! It just identifies you as nothing more or less than a pure partisan schill. The conversation isn’t honest – it’s manufactured, cultivated, farmed garbage.

Well, it deserves to be pointed out as such. On the other hand, if you actually wanted a discussion, well then.. that might be productive.. but nah, too hard, and too much likelihood that liberals might be shown to be, oh, decent, and willing to work toward a real solution. Noo, no, can’t have that, MUST show them as evil, and vile, so we can hate them.

peevish

October 29, 2007

Actually Mitch, it WAS about corporate PORK – as the title says.

But you’d have had to have turned off your preconceptions to realize you used Pork in your title.

peevish

October 29, 2007

Here’s the other thing Mitch, sometimes issues are larger than just one point. Sometimes, we have to realize that corporate influence is pervasive, probably perfidious. Sometimes to have a rational discussion, rather than focus on tiny minutae, we have to realize we’re seeing something that is evidence of a larger pattern, a larger problem.

For example, I told you in 2004 that we faced a real debt crisis, that folks were emptying their 401k’s, or other retirement sources, that the ‘recovery’ you and Bush touted, was really funded by Home Equity loans that should the interest rates rise, couldn’t be supported.

No, no, you said – even though the jobs created paid less than those lost (during this ‘recovery’), no, the tax cuts were working.

Well, we’re seeing now the impacts of unfettered globalization, of unplanned, unled exposure to a flooding of the marketplace of cheap labor. Corporate desire for cheap labor is costing us dearly. Instead of paying attention to it, we give out huge subsidies to Corporate Agri-business, and carp about how inheritance taxes are killing the family farm, when the truth is, the family farm is long dead, and not due to the Inheritance Tax.

Point being, look a bit higher than just THIS issue Mitch.. sometimes issues have more legs than just the point at hand.

But still, I suppose I should have known – with a title of “Bridge to Pork” it wasn’t about Pork, much as I should have known that when you use the words “when called on, Dr. Blake ” meant when called out of class.

See, Mitch, the thing is, you can be equally unclear as anyone else. But I don’t do you the disservice of routinely mocking you for it – and I’m not now – not really – it happens, written words are poor communicators of intent, of feeling, of tone. So lighten up just a bit – and understand REALLY, I’m just trying to have a legitimate conversation, so that someday, SOMEDAY, rather than having your kids and my kids starring daggers at each other, or worse, they’ll have a country they can get a reasonable job, at a reasonable wage in, and have a real chance of dealing with problems that are actually different from the ones we are grappling with. No, really. I am.

flash

October 29, 2007

“”Jeffers

“Projects are, literally or figuratively, collapsing around us while Minnesotans wait for the promised federal funding. So while we are busy here trying to get our state legislators to make roads and bridges priorities please do your job and send our federal bridge money.”

Did you miss that part too? “”

Too implies I missed something to begin with, and I havent; missed anything at all.

I am ust trying to get the facts straight.

So is there legislation out that that isn;t moving. have the GOP Reps proposed legislation that is sitting stagnant due to their minority power. Have the Democratic Reps not bothered to even lift a finger.

The letter is filled with generalizations and accusations and the only specifics go back over 2 years, so what specific piece of legislation is not being moved on fast enough and I’ll due my constituent duty and make phone calls. But at this point, I don;t know what I would say.

Flash

Master of None

October 29, 2007

So is there legislation out that that isn;t moving.

You’re really not that dense flash, you just play that way on the internets.

http://www.startribune.com/10204/story/1491855.html

peevish

October 29, 2007

Flash, generalizations and accusations is what Schlock in the Dark specializes in, I thought you knew?

Ignoring history older than 2 years is always done when it’s convenient to the point being argued, but we’ll talk about 1980 whenever it suits us on something else.

That said, honestly Flash, yes, there is something. Oberstar needs to be told that he’s not saving any farms.. for that matter so does Walz, so does Ellison, with this kind of garbage.

They FURTHER need to be told that they need to put forward a budget that pays for infrastructure, and as far as I’m concerned they can tax Big Oil to pay for it, since our consumption of oil is pretty directly tied to the road network being used to burn that fuel. And NO I don’t think the money exists elsewhere, that’s just BS invented to avoid responsibility again. We’re 1 Trillion more in debt due to Iraq than we would have been, if the money is elsewhere, why is Iraq “off the books?”

Tell them to send Bush a budget that has funding included, that IS fiscally responsible. If he vetoes it, send it back, same as the Iraq timetable bill. It’s not as if the Republicans have any legs to stand on about wasting time – they wasted 8 years (and more) of power, doing little to nothing – so tell the Preznit that he gets this, or nothing. Then, it will be on HIS shoulders for ‘not funding the troops’ for ‘not funding infrastructure’ or for that matter the government, in favor of protecting special interests.

So, go tell them that, if you want a suggestion on something to say, and then tell them to grow a damned pair – because they appear to have been emasculated as an entire party.

Troy

October 29, 2007

That was an excellent peevish impersonation, Mitch! *applauds*

billhedrick

October 29, 2007

peevish, Hi dumb person again! How does the historical Rep control of the congress explain the fact that the current Democrat control of congress hasn’t gotten us the promised funding for the bridge repair? Short post please since I am stupid.

Chad The Elder

October 29, 2007

By my count Peev has knocked out 29 paragraphs in this comment thread so far. Good luck on that “short post please” request Bill.

billhedrick

October 29, 2007

I seem to remember the phrase “brevity is the soul of wit” so Peev, being the witty person we know and love should be capable of concision.

flash

October 29, 2007

MoN:

You not serious, right. This is the squabble:

“bogged down in a broader budget fight between Congressional Democrats and the White House.””

So it is as much the White Houses fault but the whole blame should fall on Oberstar Who says:

“”This is unbelievable political posturing; it has no relationship to reality at all.””

and

“”The Bush administration has said it supports the I-35W bridge money, and has assured state officials that emergency reconstruction funds will be made available with or without action by Congress.””

So all you all have done is made it perfectly clear that tragedy in Minnesota is nothing more than a political Pawn for the Right to manipulate.

Thanks Mitch, appreciate the confirmation!

Flash

flash

October 29, 2007

To be clear, the second quote is a quote from the article NOT a quote from Oberstar.

Master of None

October 29, 2007

flash,

No, what should happen, is that the funding for the bridge replacement should be removed from the general appropriations bill so that it doesn’t get “bogged down in a broader budget fight between Congressional Democrats and the White House.” Nobody is saying that the bridge money should be driving the general appropriations bill. Do you get it? De-politicize the bridge money. Simple enough for you?

That’s what Bachman’s legislation does, or what Oberstar could do if he wanted to de-politicize this issue.

We had a bi-partisan coalition of all MN congressional members get the original emergency measure passed. Why can’t we get the same thing to happen to get the actual money appropriated?

So all you all have done is made it perfectly clear that tragedy in Minnesota is nothing more than a political Pawn for the Right to manipulate.

How in the hell can you jump to that irrational conclusion? Oh wait, you’re a left wing hack who pretends to be moderate when convenient.

flash

October 29, 2007

“”So all you all have done is made it perfectly clear that tragedy in Minnesota is nothing more than a political Pawn for the Right to manipulate.

How in the hell can you jump to that irrational conclusion? Oh wait, you’re a left wing hack who pretends to be moderate when convenient. “”

There is no imminent threat to construction or the timetable, that is why you guys are so far off in lala land that it is difficult to have a rational debate on this (or most any) issue.

Flash

Master of None

October 29, 2007

flash,

There is no imminent threat to construction or the timetable,

So Oberstar’s got plenty of time to politicize this issue. Is that really what you’re saying?

That state has cash-flow problems that are impacting other projects. What is Oberstar’s reason for not supporting the Bachman legislation? Your quote of his says nothing.

that is why you guys are so far off in lala land that it is difficult to have a rational debate on this (or most any) issue.

flash, your first comment on this thread didn’t sound much like a call to debate I read the whole thing twice and it was standard anti Investment, let the bridges fall, right wing anti fiscal conservatism rhetoric. Why bother.

Master of None

October 29, 2007

We had a bi-partisan coalition of all MN congressional members get the original emergency measure passed. Why can’t we get the same thing to happen to get the actual money appropriated?

flash, can you just answer that question?

Master of None

October 29, 2007

From Betty McCollum’s website

H.R. 3311, which authorizes $250 million in emergency federal funding for reconstruction of the I-35W bridge, passed the House 421-0 tonight (8/3/2007) in an amazing show of bipartisan support for the Twin Cities community and the people of Minnesota.

Where’s the money? Where’s the bipartisan support?

Master of None

October 29, 2007

More of flash

So is there legislation out that that isn;t moving. (Yes) have the GOP Reps proposed legislation that is sitting stagnant due to their minority power. (Yes>Have the Democratic Reps not bothered to even lift a finger.(Yes)

H.R. 3869 Authored by Michele Bachmann (R-MN)
Co-sponsor James Ramstad (R-MN)
Co-sponsor John Kline (R-MN)

Text of bill
“There are hereby appropriated, out of any funds in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the Secretary of Transportation $195,000,000, to remain available until expended, for emergency repairs and reconstruction of the bridge that collapsed on August 1, 2007, on Interstate Route I-35W in Minneapolis, Minnesota.”

Described by Oberstar as”
“unbelievable political posturing; it has no relationship to reality at all.”

No DFL co-sponsors, no chance of getting a hearing in Oberstar’s committee. No chance for a vote.

flash

October 30, 2007

“”Why can’t we get the same thing to happen to get the actual money appropriated?””

Let mne say this REAL slowly . . . BECAUSE . . IT . . . ISN’T . . NECESSARY.

This is a stunt being perpetrated by a Party who is used to politicizing tragedy. Oberstar was right” ““unbelievable political posturing; it has no relationship to reality at all.””

I don;t know what’s worse, the republicans abuse of the collapse for political gain, or the blindness by the supporters like you who think that it is OK.

Bottom line is, the President himself said:

“”The Bush administration has said it supports the I-35W bridge money, and has assured state officials that emergency reconstruction funds will be made available with or without action by Congress.””

Republicans, ‘we make up controversy where non exists’

Flash

Master of None

October 30, 2007

the republicans abuse of the collapse for political gain,

What political gain? What abuse? The emergency authorization bill was written by Oberstar and co-sponsored by every member of the MN delegation. It passed the house 421-0. But it was signed under the spotlight of national media, and in the shadow of a collapsed bridge.

Now that the media attention has died down, and the bridge is beginning to be repaired, when the actual money needs to be available, why isn’t there the same BIPARTISAN, NON-POLITICAL support for Bachmann’s appropriation?

YOU say it’s not necessary, but that doesn’t make it so (sound familiar?). Projects are being delayed because of this delay in funding. That’s a plain simple fact.

Why do you continue to support the politicizing of the bridge repair funding, and not call for the exact same bipartisan action and cooperation shown earlier.

Betty McCollum’s words:

“Madam Speaker, I strongly support Chairman Oberstar’s efforts with H.R. 3311 and I urge all my colleagues to vote to reconnect our community and rebuild the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis. It’s a first step toward investing in the infrastructure needs of America.”

Need to be repeated:

“Madam Speaker, I strongly support Congresswoman Bachmann’s efforts with H.R. 3869 and I urge all my colleagues to vote to reconnect our community and rebuild the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis. It’s the second step toward investing in the infrastructure needs of America.”

Master of None

October 30, 2007

House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher, DFL-Minneapolis, seems to think we need the money right now.

“I was surprised to receive a $195 million request from the Minnesota Department of Transportation to fund the I-35W bridge replacement,” said Kelliher.

“We have known all along that the state would most likely need to be reimbursed by federal dollars. It’s alarming that just as the bridge rebuilding process is beginning, cash flow issues and the deferral of projects are again plaguing MnDOT,” she wrote.”

Comments

36 responses to “Bridge To Pork!”

Leave a Reply