With New York’s aging Tappan Zee Bridge looming behind him, President Barack Obama challenged congressional Republicans to spend more money on the nation’s crumbling roads, see-through bridges and outdated ports or face losing businesses to other countries.
“We’ve got ports that aren’t ready for the next generation of cargo ships,” Obama said against a backdrop of cranes that are being used to replace the 58-year-old Tappan Zee. “We’ve got more than 100,000 bridges that are old enough to qualify for Medicare.”
Obama used the major Hudson River crossing point north of New York City and its $3.9 billion replacement project to illustrate a fast-track system he initiated that he said cut the permitting time from five years to 1 1/2 years.
He blamed Republicans for not authorizing more money for construction and repairs and warned that without congressional action the Highway Trust Fund, used to pay for transportation projects, will run dry. He accused Republicans of voting against additional spending even as they gladly show up at ribbon cutting ceremonies for projects they refused to finance.
“They are more interested in saying ‘no’ because they are worried that maybe they’d have to be at a bill signing with me,” Obama said.
Republicans contended Obama was hypocritical for claiming credit for the expedited process while his administration has yet to decide the fate of a proposed Canada-to-Texas oil pipeline. The GOP is using that up-in-the-air project to bash Democrats ahead of the November elections.
“It’s a real challenge to listen to the president talk about reforming the permitting system when he’s been sitting on the permit for the country’s largest shovel-ready infrastructure program, the Keystone XL pipeline, for five years,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.
Obama noted that over the last 50 years the United States’ spending on transportation as a share of the economy has shrunk by 50 percent while European countries are spending twice as much.
“We shouldn’t watch the top-rated airports and seaports, or the fastest rail lines or fastest Internet networks get built somewhere else,” he said. “They need to be built right here in New York, right here in the United States.”
Obama was introduced by New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who is high on Democrats’ list of potential candidates to succeed Obama in 2016. Cuomo credited Obama for the advanced work on the bridge replacement, which is being financed largely by bonds paid for through higher tolls.
“This is a bridge that symbolizes what was and what can be,” Cuomo said.
Obama, who was traveling with first lady Michelle Obama, also was to headline a pair of high-dollar fundraisers benefiting Democratic candidates in the November elections. On Thursday, the president and first lady planned to attend the dedication ceremony for the National September 11 Memorial & Museum at the World Trade Center.
Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx kicked off the public works push Monday, warning that the Highway Trust Fund, which relies on gasoline taxes, could run dry in August. Those taxes haven’t gone up in 20 years.
Vice President Joe Biden was in Cleveland Wednesday with a similar message, noting that the World Economic Forum ranked the United States 18th in the quality of the nation’s roads.
“Folks, we cannot stand still,” Biden said. “If we do, we will lose our economic prominence in the world.”
Half of the administration $302 billion transportation plan would be in addition to the programs paid for with fuel taxes. That extra spending would come from revenue raised by closing what the administration says are corporate tax loopholes and by making other changes in business taxes, a long shot in a politically divided Congress.
(AP)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
5 Responses
Why shluld that expense be paid by the Federal rather than the local governments? Why should New Yorkers pay for roads in Texas, and Texans pay for roads in New York?
And if the government is trying to help states that are too poor to pay for infrastructure – one should note that New York and New Jersey are among the most affluent states. Why should the people in less affluent states paying for the infrastructure in the rich states.
Every time he has nothing to talk about he starts complaining about roads and bridges
Re Commenter no. 2: Are you talking about Commenter no. 1 or the US president.
Re Comment no. 1: Your question was asked and answered more than 60 years ago, during the Eisenhower administration, when Congress established the Eisenhower Interstate and Defense Highway System, basically, all those roads we call the “Interstates”. (I believe the name “Eisenhower” was added after the president of that name left office.) Your question has been revisited regularly for the last 60 years, and Congress and the presidents of the last 60 years have disagreed with you every time.
Exactly which states are supporting which other states is not absolutely clear (to me, anyway), though I believe New York and New Jersey, through residents’ payments of federal excise taxes on gasoline and tires, are net contributors to the highway fund, and states like Texas and North Dakota are net spenders of those funds.
nfgo3
As usual your uber leftist opinion has been noted. Now please go back into your cave.
Re comment no. 4: Did you mean to say that my comments are usually noted (and, by implication, noteworthy), or that my opinion is, as usual, uber leftist?
And what about my comment constitutes “opinion”? My comment is factual (maybe wrong, but purporting to be factual).
And, if my facts are right, do you mean to say that would make all the states that are net spenders of the highway trust fund leftist? Because I am pretty sure that a lot of red states, starting with Texas, are net spenders of the highway trust fund. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.