Paul amendment attacks bicycle infrastructure

[bikinchris]

Well, I have been both thanked and blasted for posting this before, but here goes:

The Paul amendment wants to strip ALL bicycle related funding from the budget. I wrote the following:


Canned message below.
In a time when our kids' PE is failing to reduce children's weight and the related health issues that will cost billions in health costs in the future AND a platform is burning in the Gulf of Mexico, we need to have MORE, not less spending in bicycle and walking infrastructure. While we are at it, we need all of our school kids to learn walking safety, learn swimming and learn how to use a bicycle as transportation. PLEASE resist the Paul amendment.

Now you regularly scheduled message:


You can do the same here:

League of American Bicyclists - Stop Senator Paul's attack on Transportation Alternatives

[Seramount]

as if I needed another reason to despise this sad little excuse of a man.

[Aaron O]

I will refrain from expressing my opinions about Mr. Paul and the pseudo intellectual he was named after in the interests of harmony, but I would like to see more about the actual amendment...like a link to the language.

[bikinchris]

Sorry, the link didn't go through:

http://capwiz.com/lab/issues/alert/?alertid=62784381&PROCESS=Take+Action

This lists the summary of the effort and I will look for actual wording and post it when I can.

[Chance]

100 % behind alternate transportation but only when handled at local level, not federal. Would only like to see federales getting involved in some kind of cross-country bike trail along interstates, or other major routes. I’d support that in a heartbeat although expect most Americans would think it’d be a complete waste of money.

It’s great when a community wants to invest their own taxes on sidewalks or trails, but investing from a general federal fund produces too much waste in my opinion. It’s too hard to say no to bad ideas when they come for “free”, which is the way federal funding is perceived by too many on the receiving end.

And for what it’s worth, all the kids in my entire family rode bikes or walked to schools, or anywhere else we wanted to go, and we didn’t have a single sidewalk or trail in town. Not saying it wouldn’t be a problem today due to higher traffic, but the real reason kids don’t walk or ride to school today in my area is because parents are afraid for their safety. And it’s not all from cars.

Trails and sidewalks are a great idea, but in my opinion we need to fund them locally for the most part.

[Aaron O]

Sorry, the link didn't go through:

http://capwiz.com/lab/issues/alert/?alertid=62784381&PROCESS=Take+Action

This lists the summary of the effort and I will look for actual wording and post it when I can.

Thanks - and done.

[Aaron O]

100 % behind alternate transportation but only when handled at local level, not federal. Would only like to see federales getting involved in some kind of cross-country bike trail along interstates, or other major routes. I’d support that in a heartbeat although expect most Americans would think it’d be a complete waste of money.

It’s great when a community wants to invest their own taxes on sidewalks or trails, but investing from a general federal fund produces too much waste in my opinion. It’s too hard to say no to bad ideas when they come for “free”, which is the way federal funding is perceived by too many on the receiving end.

And for what it’s worth, all the kids in my entire family rode bikes or walked to schools, or anywhere else we wanted to go, and we didn’t have a single sidewalk or trail in town. Not saying it wouldn’t be a problem today due to higher traffic, but the real reason kids don’t walk or ride to school today in my area is because parents are afraid for their safety. And it’s not all from cars.

Trails and sidewalks are a great idea, but in my opinion we need to fund them locally for the most part.

I prefer federal funding for a few reasons:

I believe the supply chains are, on the whole, less expensive.

I believe the procurement process is less corrupt at the federal level.

Saying "do it from local accounts" to me means that some areas (affluent areas with property taxes) can afford these programs while lower income areas saddled with debt connected to unregulated pensions can't. I'd like cycling infrastructure too...and there's a direct link between alternative transportation and the increased viability of cities, which are the very ones that can't afford these programs, but most benefit from them.

Somehow areas like the mid-west are quite happy receiving highway dollars, which they use disproportionately given lower rates of use, while fighting subsidies that benefit me and mine. When it's my subsidy, there's an ideological opposition - when it's their subsidy, it's an entitlement. Interestingly enough, the same people complaining about federal spending are typically the ones receiving the highest subsidies because of their political over representation.

[Chance]

......cut.........

Somehow areas like the mid-west are quite happy receiving highway dollars, which they use disproportionately given lower rates of use, while fighting subsidies that benefit me and mine. When it's my subsidy, there's an ideological opposition - when it's their subsidy, it's an entitlement. Interestingly enough, the same people complaining about federal spending are typically the ones receiving the highest subsidies because of their political over representation.

Agree that what you describe is a very real problem, but there is a very simple solution in my opinion. Stop subsidizing in both directions and we can all stop pointing fingers and bickering about who is getting the upper hand on each and every deal. That would go a long way towards getting along better than we do at present.

Most Americans don’t want to subsidize a bike trail for me to ride when I feel like it any more than subsidize Detroit’s idiotic failures. Personally can’t blame them. If my taxes went to pay for someone else’s bike trail, I’d be pissed if I didn’t get one at all, or one that wasn’t as nice. So the easiest solution is for me and my community to pay for our own improvements and for everyone else to pay for their own too. And while it’s true the poor couldn’t afford nice bike trails they can’t afford a lot of others things too that the rich can; so if that’s the criteria why limit subsidies to bike trails? Why not a dozen other things they need far more than bike trails?

Regarding highways, was under the impression that Interstate roads were partly funded by the Federal Government, but local/state roads mostly by local/state funds and taxes. Not sure where that line is drawn, so hopefully someone can elaborate on how “automotive” trails are funded at various levels – city, county, state, and Interstate.

Just seems simplest to limit the federal government to federal issues and things that we all share; like national parks. Would support having them fund trails or other improvements in national parks, but not in some remote local community most of us will never visit.

[Climb01742]

Ah, if only we could choose what our tax dollars subsidize. Me? Can I opt out of 50% of the Pentagon's budget?;)

[Rueda Tropical]

The US was socially re-engineered into the inefficient, expensive and unsustainable car/petroleum centric exurban sprawl that it is today. That took lots of lobbying dollars and tax payer dollars on the federal and local level. Everything from a system of highways to dismantling public transportation and changing the way Americans lived and worked underwent massive change. What is now considered the "American way of life" would have been totally alien to Americans a few generations ago.

Time for another transformation that will better serve our future social and economic needs. Businesses, Societies, individuals have to constantly re-invent themselves or they become non-competitive and die.

I'd say just like with the last transformation the Feds have a big role to play in developing the infrastructure of the future. Paul doesn't agree and would prefer to get government out of the business of infrastructure, education, health, currency and financial industry oversight... and just about everything else except maybe defense. Paul dreams of a return to the golden age of the robber barons, dangerous sweatshops where workers eked out a subsistence wage and regular bank panics. The good old days.

[regularguy412]

Governmental support of alternate forms of transportation has been shot down before. We only have Pres. Bush #41 to thank for effectively killing the ISTEA funding back in the early 1990's. Strangely, Pres. Reagan signed it into law and Pres. Bush eviscerated it.

Here in our little community, we had actually begun to get some things done: e.g. purchased and put up bike path signage along about a 10-mile stretch on one area of town. We even had plans to expand that to a total of about 40 miles with some green-way constructed that would not allow motor vehicle traffic. Sadly today, the only vestige of that push left is the signage. There 'was' some green-way completed, now, over 20 years later, but was done without any of that original funding.

<sigh>

Mike in AR :fight:

[93legendti]

Here's $70 million:

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/06/19/republicans-blast-70-million-irs-bonus-plan

[93legendti]

Here are billions Obama used as a slush fund to bribe bundlers:

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/18/president-obamas-taxpayer-backed-green-energy-failures/
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/030112-602843-stimulus-recipient-abound-lays-off-workers-.htm


Chu: Expect more green energy bankruptcies
http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/10/chu-expect-more-green-energy-bankruptcies/

Here's $700,000:
http://www.news.com.au/technology/us-state-department-spent-690000-to-8217buy8217-facebook-8216likes8217/story-e6frfro0-1226673672755

Here's over $20 million/year:
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-taxpayer-vacation-cost/2013/01/04/id/470102

$100,000 for a dog groomer and more:

http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/26/taxpayers-spent-1-4-billion-on-obama-family-last-year-perks-questioned-in-new-book/?print=1

[oldpotatoe]

Here are billions Obama used as a slush fund to bribe bundlers:

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/18/president-obamas-taxpayer-backed-green-energy-failures/
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/030112-602843-stimulus-recipient-abound-lays-off-workers-.htm


Chu: Expect more green energy bankruptcies
http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/10/chu-expect-more-green-energy-bankruptcies/

Here's $700,000:
http://www.news.com.au/technology/us-state-department-spent-690000-to-8217buy8217-facebook-8216likes8217/story-e6frfro0-1226673672755

Here's over $20 million/year:
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-taxpayer-vacation-cost/2013/01/04/id/470102

Thought this thread was about Paul Ryan...guess not.

[93legendti]

Here's about $400 million:

http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_22594279/homeland-security-aims-buy-1-6-billion-rounds


We have a bike lane on the busiest road in Oakland County. There are sidewalks on both sides, but some genius thought a bike lane right on 55mph Northwestern Highway was appropriate. I have never seen anyone brave enough to use it. I do a double take every time I am on the road and see the bike lane. You couldn't pay me to use it.

http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,4616,7-151-9620_11057-286079--RSS,00.html

[sjbraun]

Here are billions Obama used as a slush fund to bribe bundlers:

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/18/president-obamas-taxpayer-backed-green-energy-failures/
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/030112-602843-stimulus-recipient-abound-lays-off-workers-.htm


Chu: Expect more green energy bankruptcies
http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/10/chu-expect-more-green-energy-bankruptcies/

Here's $700,000:
http://www.news.com.au/technology/us-state-department-spent-690000-to-8217buy8217-facebook-8216likes8217/story-e6frfro0-1226673672755

Here's over $20 million/year:
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-taxpayer-vacation-cost/2013/01/04/id/470102

$100,000 for a dog groomer and more:

http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/26/taxpayers-spent-1-4-billion-on-obama-family-last-year-perks-questioned-in-new-book/?print=1

The reads like a broken record plays, the same refrain over and over again.
I bet every dollar the Bush administration shoveled into Halliburton's gaping maw was used wisely and for the good of us all.

[Chance]

The US was socially re-engineered into the inefficient, expensive and unsustainable car/petroleum centric exurban sprawl that it is today. That took lots of lobbying dollars and tax payer dollars on the federal and local level. Everything from a system of highways to dismantling public transportation and changing the way Americans lived and worked underwent massive change. What is now considered the "American way of life" would have been totally alien to Americans a few generations ago.

.....cut......

Didn’t the US become (or at least remained) one of the wealthiest, most powerful nations during the last 100 years, the same timeframe that automobiles flourished? Obviously there are many downsides to automotive transportation, but your claims don’t seem supported by historical facts. We may be able to ride our bikes a few miles to work, but our overall economy can’t be supported that way.:confused:

Seems you are bringing a different subject into the discussion since most bike trails are used primarily for recreation, not commerce.

[Chance]

Governmental support of alternate forms of transportation has been shot down before. We only have Pres. Bush #41 to thank for effectively killing the ISTEA funding back in the early 1990's. Strangely, Pres. Reagan signed it into law and Pres. Bush eviscerated it.

Here in our little community, we had actually begun to get some things done: e.g. purchased and put up bike path signage along about a 10-mile stretch on one area of town. We even had plans to expand that to a total of about 40 miles with some green-way constructed that would not allow motor vehicle traffic. Sadly today, the only vestige of that push left is the signage. There 'was' some green-way completed, now, over 20 years later, but was done without any of that original funding.

<sigh>

Mike in AR :fight:

You hit the nail on the head as it relates to the real issue from my perspective. If your own community can't do better on improvements that will benefit your community, why then should other communities pay for it? To be fair, then your community would have to pay for part of theirs too, but that's not going to happen if you can't even get funding for your own.

It's time we stop blaming the Federal government (that can only shuffle money around) and look at why communities are unwilling to fund these projects.

[BumbleBeeDave]

. .. is coming down hard on this one.

Come on, you guys . . . you're not newbies. You should know we don't go down political sinkholes here unless you can keep it non-partisan and on-subject. LegendTi in particular ran it straight off the tracks.

BBD