The Trump Administration

What you get when you place people against government, IN your government.

Insanity.

Link:  Oh Dear God. They're Giving Rick Perry Nukes.

Betsy DeVos and the Plan to Break Public Schools

The Insanity of Not Funding Our Highways and Infrastructure

Right now, neither our own Missouri state legislature nor our national, Federal, Congressional legislature are funding the maintenance, repair and improvements of our infrastructure--our highways, etc. This just broke in the last week:

No expansion projects for the next five years, says MoDOT

No Missouri Department of Transportation expansion projects, such as new lanes, interchanges or bridges, are planned over the next five years. That represents a first in the department’s history, the result of a bleak funding outlook.

The belt-tightening comes as MoDOT braces for lean years after the death of a gasoline tax hike in the Legislature and rejection by voters of a sales tax increase that would have provided about $5.4 billion over 10 years for roads and bridges as well as ports, railways and public transit.

The Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission this month approved MoDOT’s Statewide Transportation Improvement Program report, which covers plans for fiscal years 2016 to 2020.

Steve Miller, chairman of the commission, said in a post on MoDOT’s website Monday that the plan is a “glimpse to a future that no Missourian should want.”

He also said the first contract awards of the new fiscal year, which began this month, were the lowest in memory and bad for Missouri contractors, who are now seeking work in our neighboring states with brighter prospects.

But wait. It gets better. worse.

Some contractors already are leaving the road business to focus on railroad work, or leaving the state entirely, said Len Toenjes, president of the Associated General Contractors of Missouri.

“Our folks are at their wits’ end with what’s happening, or not happening, in Jefferson City and are going to work elsewhere,” he said.

Without any growth in state revenue, Missouri will not be able to match available federal transportation funds by fiscal year 2017. Missouri can match $1 of state funds with $4 of federal funds.

Then it gets downright stupid:

MoDOT has reduced its workforce by 20 percent, disposed of more than 750 pieces of equipment and sold 124 facilities since 2011 for savings of more than $605 million, the department said.

MoDOT estimates that $885 million of federal reimbursements in fiscal year 2016 will drop to $491 million in fiscal year 2020 due to declining construction because of “insufficient state revenues.”

By 2018, the state could lose $400 million in federal funds, even though Missourians will still be paying federal gasoline taxes that won’t fund Missouri projects.

We're turning away money. We're turning away, then, Federal dollars because we don't keep up our end of the investment bargain. And at the same time, we're paying into the "Federal pot" but not able to take what we should back out of it.

To whom but Right Wing, "Conservative" Republicans does this make sense?

And this is just on the state level. For anyone following highway funding on the Federal level, in Washington, we know there, too, the Right Wing Republicans, just like our Missouri representatives, are blocking any increase in this funding. It's ridiculous. And this on top of the fact that gasoline costs are at their lowest in years. This should make their job of raising these funds, the gas tax, all the easier. But then, these are Republicans.

They haven't raised the gas tax in years--since 1992--we drive less, as a nation, than we used so that also shrinks the fund and we need more and more repair and updates to our highways and infrastructure. It's insane. It's certainly fiscally irresponsible.

Think about this, too.

If Congress, in Washington, were to pass a good, reasonable gas tax, as they ought, so we can get money to and in the Highway Fund and then were to pass a good, true, workable, comprehensive jobs/infrastructure bill---translated: DO THEIR JOBS---we could give more Americans jobs and get more Americans to work, improve our infrastructure and boost the economy, all three. Three total, huge wins. For anyone and anywhere else, this would be a no-brainer. But then we're dealing with Right Wingers. And Republicans. And people who don't want this president to be successful.

So screw you, America. You have to wait.

You have to wait until there's a Republican back in the White House.

If even then.

God forbid.

Links:  Mo Rage: No urgency on I-70 from anywhere

 Falling apart: America's neglected infrastructure - CBS News

Why Congress Can't Solve America's Infrastructure Crisis

The Race to Rebuild America's Infrastructure 

No urgency on I-70 from anywhere

The Pitch Magazine and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch report that "I-70 will remain toll-free for another year." It seems Jefferson City just hasn't gotten it together to decide how to fix this most-vital artery in the state. Our Senators in Washington don't seem to be especially fighting for any additional federal moneys and the statehouse can't decide if we can do a toll road without asking the state voters for the okay. In the meantime, what remains is a terribly dangerous, nearly murderous highway that needs expanding horribly.

It would add a great deal to the safety of the citizens of the state and to the safety of any out-of-staters that use it. It would also add to good commerce in the state, really, whether you're crossing it in your car for a meeting or you drive an 18-wheeler daily. The lack of attention this I-70 matter is getting is appalling. For any business people who drive it, especially as it courses through Columbia, as a worst-case scenario, you can usually always see a horrible car wreck of two or more cars because it slows down and meanders through what has become the center of that city.

The two lanes offered, in each direction, are far too narrow, especially with the heavy tractor-trailer traffic it gets. Bad as that all is, check this one out from the Pitch: "Even if tolls were approved, MoDOT estimates that it would be two years before construction could begin and six to eight years before the project would be finished." That's horrible.

We are years away from even starting the process and many years from completion. In the meantime, seriously, people are going to be killed because our Jefferson City government representatives have been unresponsive to the needs of the citizens. This is inexcusable. It's gone on far too long and there's still no end in sight to the foot-dragging. Somebody needs a good, swift kick in the pants.

Links: http://www.pitch.com/plog/archives/2012/04/24/i-70-will-remain-toll-free-for-another-year; http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/interstate-toll-proposal-hits-roadblock/article_fdeb11ac-d575-5d51-96c6-de82b4ce4757.html#ixzz1sq6HWLFn; http://moravings.blogspot.com/2011/12/face-it-i-70-will-be-toll-road-one-day.html

You almost can't believe the transportation bill the Republicans want to pass in Congress right now

This is one ugly, irresponsible, even ignorant piece of legislation. They're trying to cut funding for transportation projects, Amtrak, defer "much-needed bridge and tunnel maintenance" and a lot more. Read the article linked here, showing ten reasons this shouldn't pass--then email your legislator: http://www.cartalk.com/content/10-reasons-hate-transportation-bill. Here in Northwest Missouri, it's Sam Graves.

Face it, I-70 will be a toll road one day

Sure, let's face it now. Missouri hasn't got the big money--billions?--it will take to make I-70 the safer highway it needs to be. That and we're in the worst economy in 80 years, since the Great Depression. What other choice does the Department of Transportation have? Answer: none. It's only a matter of time. They'll have to get us all ready to accept it but, after that, it's fast-forward. Get over it. Link: http://www.landlinemag.com/Archives/2004/Dec04/news/states_tolls.htm

Quick, someone tell the Eastern mass transit pain-in-the-neck

Heads up, kids, there was a report on NPR today that pointed out two things about traffic and transportation in cities. First, "The study looked at the largest metropolitan cities in the U.S. and found that widening and building more roads actually creates more traffic." And then, the second that pretty much kills the idea of building mass transit: "Turner's study took into account public transportation, but a city's amount of public transportation didn't make a dent in congestion problems. 'As you increased a city's stock of light rail or bus cars, that there's no impact on the amount of driving,' Turner says. Although that may sound surprising, he says, it's a logically consistent with the study's data on driving. 'As you add roads to a city those roads get filled up. There are people waiting to use that capacity. The result on transit is almost exactly the opposite of that.' Ultimately, Turner's research has shown that the only way to deal with congestion is to follow the lead of countries such as London, Singapore and Stockholm, which have incorporated congestion pricing into their city infrastructures. Turner says Stockholm, specifically, has seen a 50 percent reduction in travel time at peak times because of tolls. So someone please notify that chucklehead back East (I don't want to give him any more attention here or anywhere else) and let him know we absolutely don't need or want his "assistance" any further, thanks very much.

Fortunately Transportation Secretary LaHood agrees

Driving Under the Influence of Facebook

By Jerry Edgerton

Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood may not be friending General Motors — and certainly not at 60 miles an hour. Just as LaHood’s annual conference on combating distracted driving was about to start, GM’s OnStar announced it was developing ways to let you update your Facebook page from your car with voice commands. Secretary LaHood’s response: “Let’s put safety before entertainment.” In television interviews he said he thought Facebook in the car was a bad idea.

I mean, come on.  I don't care if you are big on Facebook, no one really needs to update their status that bad, even and maybe especially if they've had a wreck.  Please.

Common sense, anyone?

Link to original story:  http://moneywatch.bnet.com/saving-money/blog/cars-money/driving-under-the-influence-of-facebook/1624/

Don't like it? In this White House, you just ignore it

White House Refused to Open Pollutants E-Mail
Wednesday 25 June 2008

by: Felicity Barringer, The New York Times

White House refused to open pollutants e-mail.

The White House in December refused to accept the Environmental Protection Agency's conclusion that greenhouse gases are pollutants that must be controlled, telling agency officials that an e-mail message containing the document would not be opened, senior E.P.A. officials said last week.

The document, which ended up in e-mail limbo, without official status, was the E.P.A.'s answer to a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that required it to determine whether greenhouse gases represent a danger to health or the environment, the officials said.

This week, more than six months later, the E.P.A. is set to respond to that order by releasing a watered-down version of the original proposal that offers no conclusion. Instead, the document reviews the legal and economic issues presented by declaring greenhouse gases a pollutant.

Over the past five days, the officials said, the White House successfully put pressure on the E.P.A. to eliminate large sections of the original analysis that supported regulation, including a finding that tough regulation of motor vehicle emissions could produce $500 billion to $2 trillion in economic benefits over the next 32 years. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter.

Both documents, as prepared by the E.P.A., "showed that the Clean Air Act can work for certain sectors of the economy, to reduce greenhouse gases," one of the senior E.P.A. officials said. "That's not what the administration wants to show. They want to show that the Clean Air Act can't work."

The Bush administration's climate-change policies have been evolving over the past two years. It now accepts the work of government scientists studying global warming, such as last week's review forecasting more drenching rains, parching droughts and intense hurricanes as global temperatures warm (www.climatescience.gov).

But no administration decisions have supported the regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act or other environmental laws.

Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman, refused to comment on discussions between the White House and the Environmental Protection Agency. Asked about changes in the original report, Mr. Fratto said, "It's the E.P.A. that determines what analysis it wants to make available" in its documents.

The new document, a road map laying out the issues involved in regulation, is to be signed by Stephen L. Johnson, the agency's administrator, and published as early as Wednesday.

The derailment of the original E.P.A. report was first made known in March by Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The refusal to open the e-mail has not been made public.

In early December, the E.P.A.'s draft finding that greenhouse gases endanger the environment used Energy Department data from 2007 to conclude that it would be cost effective to require the nation's motor vehicle fleet to average 37.7 miles per gallon in 2018, according to government officials familiar with the document.

About 10 days after the finding was left unopened by officials at the Office of Management and Budget, Congress passed and President Bush signed a new energy bill mandating an increase in average fuel-economy standards to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. The day the law was signed, the E.P.A. administrator rejected the unanimous recommendation of his staff and denied California a waiver needed to regulate vehicle emissions of greenhouse gases in the state, saying the new law's approach was preferable and climate change required global, not regional, solutions.

California's regulations would have imposed tougher standards.

The Transportation Department made its own fuel-economy proposals public almost two months ago; they were based on the assumption that gasoline would range from $2.26 per gallon in 2016 to $2.51 per gallon in 2030, and set a maximum average standard of 35 miles per gallon in 2020.

The White House, which did not oppose the Transportation Department proposals, has become more outspoken on the need for a comprehensive approach to greenhouse gases, specifically rejecting possible controls deriving from older environmental laws.

In a speech in April, Mr. Bush called for an end to the growth of greenhouse gases by 2025 - a timetable slower than many scientists say is required. His chairman of the Council of Environmental Quality, James Connaughton, said a "train wreck" would result if regulations to control greenhouse gases were authorized piecemeal under laws like the Clean Air Act and the Endangered Species Act.

White House pressure to ignore or edit the E.P.A.'s climate-change findings led to the resignation of one agency official earlier this month: Jason Burnett, the associate deputy administrator. Mr. Burnett, a political appointee with broad authority over climate-change regulations, said in an interview that he had resigned because "no more constructive work could be done" on the agency's response to the Supreme Court.

He added, "The next administration will have to face what this one did not."

The House Select Committee for Energy Independence and Global Warming, led by Representative Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, has been seeking the discarded E.P.A. finding on the dangers of climate change.

After reading it last week, Mr. Markey's office sent a letter to Mr. Bush saying, "E.P.A. Administrator Stephen Johnson determined that man-made global warming is unequivocal, the evidence is compelling and robust, and the administration must act to prevent harm rather than wait for harm to occur."

Simultaneously, Mr. Waxman's committee is weighing its response to the White House's refusal to turn over subpoenaed documents relating to the E.P.A.'s handling of recent climate-change and air-pollution decisions. The White House, which has turned over other material to the committee, last week asserted a claim of executive privilege over the remaining documents.

In an interview on Sunday, Mr. Fratto, the White House spokesman, said the committee chairmen did not understand the legal precedent underlying executive privilege. "There is a long legal history supporting the principle that the president should have the candid advice of his advisers," Mr. Fratto said.