More Transit Funding For Anti-Government Protests!

This really is truly hysterical.

Protesters who attended Saturday’s Tea Party rally in Washington found a new reason to be upset: Apparently they are unhappy with the level of service provided by the subway system.

Rep. Kevin Brady asked for an explanation of why the government-run subway system didn’t, in his view, adequately prepare for this past weekend’s rally to protest government spending and government services.

Seriously.

I hate to be a bother, but, why take the government-run subway system if you don't like government spending?

Some seriously great lines in this, such as:

Brady wrote. “These participants, whose tax dollars were used to create and maintain this public transit system, were frustrated and disappointed that our nation’s capital did not make a great effort to simply provide a basic level of transit for them.”

Steve Benen put it best: "Replace 'transit' with 'health care'."

There's also this:

Brady says in his letter to Metro that overcrowding forced an 80-year-old woman and elderly veterans in wheelchairs to pay for cabs. He concludes that it “appears that Metro added no additional capacity to its regular weekend schedule.”

Isn't this the free enterprise system at work? If people use their own money to pay for cabs, shouldn't we celebrate that kind of entrepreneurial spirit where everyone is a Dagny Taggart and John Galt boldly determining their own fate through the market?

Of course, when these whiny protesters don't get what they want from government, they appeal to government to take care of the problem. And the federal government has not provided a dedicated source of revenue for Metro, forcing cutbacks. Do you think Kevin Brady will sponsor a bill now to provide funding for Metro so the trains can run on time? In other words, is his answer to expand government?

No. He's a selfish crank who wants to complain about things when he and his pals want to use them, but demonize them otherwise.

...as predicted, Kevin Brady previously voted against funding for Metro.

There's Bankrupt And Then There's Bankrupt

It was practically the same scene at the White House today, the same anxious tableau behind a President making the claim that the bankruptcy of an American auto giant actually signals a new beginning and a road to profitability and respectability.

General Motors filed for bankruptcy on Monday morning, submitting its reorganization papers to a federal clerk in Lower Manhattan in a move that President Obama said marked “the end of an old General Motors and the beginning of a new General Motors.”The bankruptcy of a once-proud auto giant that helped to define the nation’s car culture and played a part in creating the American middle class immediately rippled across the country, part of a process that the president said would take “a painful toll on many Americans” but lead ultimately to a strong company ready to compete in the 21st century.

Then comes the fine print. General Motors apparently had $82.3 billion in assets and $172.8 billion in debts. $172.8 billion! I don't know how you rack up that much debt without it carrying over through years if not decades.

We're still talking about the closing of over a dozen plants and factories, which will ripple through the supplier market. 21,000 union workers will lose their jobs. 40% of the dealers will close. The retiree health care fund will now be partially composed of stock that right now is trading for pennies.

The government will drop another $30 billion into the car company on top of the $20 billion already dropped, winding up owning 60-70% of the company, and while officials predict a recoup of that investment within five years, I don't think anyone would stake their life on that. With a collapse in wages and wealth, and no more home equity ATM, new car sales just won't rebound without serious prodding from government (like a cash for clunkers deal).

This has been coming for a long time, of course. Michael Moore, who owes a lot of his prominence to GM, in a weird way, with his first major film Roger & Me about the shuttering of a plant in Flint, warned about this 20 years ago.

It is with sad irony that the company which invented "planned obsolescence" -- the decision to build cars that would fall apart after a few years so that the customer would then have to buy a new one -- has now made itself obsolete. It refused to build automobiles that the public wanted, cars that got great gas mileage, were as safe as they could be, and were exceedingly comfortable to drive. Oh -- and that wouldn't start falling apart after two years. GM stubbornly fought environmental and safety regulations. Its executives arrogantly ignored the "inferior" Japanese and German cars, cars which would become the gold standard for automobile buyers. And it was hell-bent on punishing its unionized workforce, lopping off thousands of workers for no good reason other than to "improve" the short-term bottom line of the corporation. Beginning in the 1980s, when GM was posting record profits, it moved countless jobs to Mexico and elsewhere, thus destroying the lives of tens of thousands of hard-working Americans. The glaring stupidity of this policy was that, when they eliminated the income of so many middle class families, who did they think was going to be able to afford to buy their cars? History will record this blunder in the same way it now writes about the French building the Maginot Line or how the Romans cluelessly poisoned their own water system with lethal lead in its pipes [...]

Let's be clear about this: The only way to save GM is to kill GM. Saving our precious industrial infrastructure, though, is another matter and must be a top priority. If we allow the shutting down and tearing down of our auto plants, we will sorely wish we still had them when we realize that those factories could have built the alternative energy systems we now desperately need. And when we realize that the best way to transport ourselves is on light rail and bullet trains and cleaner buses, how will we do this if we've allowed our industrial capacity and its skilled workforce to disappear?

Moore has some very smart suggestions, including one I've made for a while - converting the auto production lines to create clean mass transit vehicles and high speed rail cars, fighting climate change while funding a real economic recovery that is tangible and creates infrastructure. Other factories could be retooled to produce wind turbines and solar panels. He wants a massive increase in the gas tax to pay for it, but we could do just as well using the $30 billion we're about to dump into GM and profiting from the economic growth of added production and jobs.

To the extent that there's any hope from this bankruptcy, it's that we can at least start to move away from the obsessive car culture that has poisoned our planet and cannot sustain itself. Any increase in economic activity will be accompanied by a spike in oil prices - heck, we're already seeing a spike because of less bad economic news. We need to start adjusting away from the oil-based economy, and the collapse of two major car companies can provide at least an impetus.

SUPERTRAINS!

The President made some remarks about high speed rail today, and released a strategic plan for the development of high speed rail in America. Here, the President makes the case for rail:

But if we want to move from recovery to prosperity, then we have to do a little bit more. We also have to build a new foundation for our future growth. Today, our aging system of highways and byways, air routes and rail lines is hindering that growth. Our highways are clogged with traffic, costing us $80 billion a year in lost productivity and wasted fuel. Our airports are choked with increased loads. Some of you flew down here and you know what that was about. We're at the mercy of fluctuating gas prices all too often; we pump too many greenhouse gases into the air.

What we need, then, is a smart transportation system equal to the needs of the 21st century. A system that reduces travel times and increases mobility. A system that reduces congestion and boosts productivity. A system that reduces destructive emissions and creates jobs.

What we're talking about is a vision for high-speed rail in America. Imagine boarding a train in the center of a city. No racing to an airport and across a terminal, no delays, no sitting on the tarmac, no lost luggage, no taking off your shoes. (Laughter.) Imagine whisking through towns at speeds over 100 miles an hour, walking only a few steps to public transportation, and ending up just blocks from your destination. Imagine what a great project that would be to rebuild America.

Now, all of you know this is not some fanciful, pie-in-the-sky vision of the future. It is now. It is happening right now. It's been happening for decades. The problem is it's been happening elsewhere, not here.

The President clearly pushed for including HSR in the stimulus because he understands how important it is to bring some forward-looking infrastructure to America, a tangible show of what positive developments we can make with our tax dollars, a way to lower emissions, increase productivity, and improve quality of life.

It looks like there are two elements to the plan - improving existing infrastructure to increase speed on current rail lines, and building out new HSR lines throughout the country. And the President has committed $8 billion in the stimulus and an additional $1 billion per year to jump-start those efforts. If enough money can cover start-up costs, state governments and private investors would be more inclined to participate in the program, as their payoffs would potentially come quicker. Here's the map of the 10 major corridors that will be eligible for funding, along with the already-existent Northeast corridor:



I like that a key element of this in the strategic plan supports interconnected, livable communities. In a high-density area, a workable HSR system can bring new livable development in areas where it has not been, with new communities springing up around the rail line. This could happen anywhere along the 600 mile corridors seen as best for HSR.

Interconnected livable communities. Rail transport has generally been associated with “smart growth” because
it can foster higher-density development than has typically been associated with highways and airports. Rail is uniquely capable of providing both high-speed intercity transportation and its own efficient local access and egress system. For example, in the Boston region, Amtrak’s Acela serves two downtown stations connected to public transit – South Station and Back Bay – as well as a suburban station at Route 128. Yet just a few miles down the line to the west, Acela achieves speeds up to 130 miles per hour, and then 150 miles per hour.

Matthew Yglesias seems to think that upgrading the Northeast corridor would be the most promising use of the federal dollars, though as someone who's from that corridor, I can't see how upgrading what is already decent service can further these expansive goals more than bringing new corridors into play. Yes, these other lines will take time, but there is much that is already shovel-ready, at least in California, which is something that gets discounted a bit. Surveying and environmental studies employ people too, even without shovels.

We have spent a pitiful amount on rail over the last century, while Europe and Asia have built up their rail lines to the benefit of travelers, residents, businesses, and overall productivity. This is a green, clean solution to traffic and transportation that would really revolutionalize the way we get from point A to point B in America. I agree with President Obama's closing words:

"Make no little plans." That's what Daniel Burnham said in Chicago. I believe that about America: Make no little plans. So let's get to work. Thank you, everybody.

Surgical Strike

I think we can safely say that GM is going into bankruptcy.

The Treasury Department is directing General Motors to lay the groundwork for a bankruptcy filing by a June 1 deadline, despite G.M.’s public contention that it could still reorganize outside court, people with knowledge of the plans said during the weekend.

Members of President Obama’s automotive task force spent last week in meetings and on conference calls with G.M. officials and its advisers in Detroit and Washington. Those talks are expected to continue this week.

The goal is to prepare for a fast “surgical” bankruptcy, the people who had been briefed on the plans said. G.M., which has been granted $13.4 billion in federal aid, insists that a quick restructuring is necessary so its image and sales are not damaged permanently.

The idea, essentially, is to create the GM version of a "bad bank" and a "good bank," with the decent brands quickly spun out of bankruptcy (within two weeks) and into a new organization. The bonholders won't budget, surmising that they would get a better deal in bankruptcy court, so we're looking at a done deal. And it'll be pricey.

The rest of G.M. may require as much as $70 billion in government financing, and possibly more to resolve the health care obligations and the liquidation of the factories, according to legal experts and federal officials.

To say nothing of how many jobs this would cost.

Once again I will ask why we cannot put auto assembly lines to work making high speed rail cars and mass transit vehicles under grants through the current Recovery Act.

California's Most Important Traffic Jam

Perhaps the most important part of Barack Obama's Southern California trip, in my view, was not hearing the perspectives of a nervous public, or checking out battery technology in Pomona, or using the bully pulpit to speak to the nation on the Tonight Show. It's that he got stuck in traffic.

He got caught in traffic on the 110. He bantered with Jay Leno. And he sought to reassure people worried about the sagging economy and the spiraling national debt.

President Obama ended a two-day swing through Southern California on Thursday, a trip that exposed him to both celebrity and everyday struggles. Like many people navigating the freeways at midday, he was briefly tied up in traffic, his motorcade wheezing along at 10 mph as he made his way from west of downtown Los Angeles to Burbank. But he also got to trade quips on "The Tonight Show" with Leno, mixing a sober assessment of the AIG bonus scandal with details about his life inside the White House.

Traffic has actually improved in the LA area over the last six months, at least in peak hours with less workers traveling. But it remains incredibly difficult to move for large chunks of the daytime, which decreases productivity and causes harmful and unnecessary carbon emissions. Los Angeles' transit infrastructure has been abysmal for so long that few remember how it was built, along streetcar lines. Increased revenue from Measure R can spark a transit revival, with a subway to the sea, a Green Line to LAX, and increased light rail and bus service throughout the region, but that will take years if not decades, especially without federal aid. And this goes back to the need for smart growth solutions to reduce the need for highway travel for work.

Clearly, the status quo is unsustainable. Just ask the guy in the motorcade stuck on the 110 last Thursday.

Building Livable Communities

Ray LaHood, the Secretary of Transportation, has a post up at the Department of Transportation's blog, one of the ugliest-looking blogs I've ever seen, what I imagine a blog from 1982 would look like if they had blogs or the public Internet back then... but I digress, because the content is excellent:

Today, I was proud to address my former colleagues in the House of Representatives and co-present a DOT-HUD partnership to help American families gain better access to affordable housing, more transportation options, and lower transportation costs.

As I told House members, “One of my highest priorities is to help promote more livable communities through sustainable surface transportation programs.” That means roads, rails, and transit. It means safer passage for pedestrians, for bicyclists.

After housing costs, transportation takes the biggest bite out of the typical household budget. That's why a partnership between HUD and DOT can be so effective; we have the ability to ease the largest financial burden on many American families. We're talking about 60% of the average working American family's expenses. HUD Secretary Donovan and I can cut these costs by focusing our departments' efforts on creating affordable, sustainable communities.

While so many of the decisions about smart growth and livable communities are typically made at the local, the federal government can absolutely play a role in encouraging better development decisions, either through the bully pulpit or grants in aid. Housing, transportation and energy are all intimately linked. A community with residential and commercial spaces close together, which provides durable transit options between home and work, whether through bike lanes or light rail or whatever, allows for reducing carbon emissions through auto transit. It means a more vibrant neighborhood and a higher quality of life. Communities that cater just to businesses get abandoned at night. Bedroom communities are sleepy during the day. It doesn't make any sense. Not to mention that reducing housing and transportation costs in tandem frees up money for economic activity for small businesses that cater to the area.

Desmoinesdem has a ton more on this initiative, which I find very exciting. Land use and urban planning is the most important aspect of government that gets overlooked. The implications of a smart growth policy are boundless. Also, check out the Complete Streets project, which has legislation pending in Congress (S. 584 and H.R. 1443) that would ensure a fuller range of infrastructure investment on travel including "driving, bicycling, walking, or taking public transportation."

SUPERTRAIN FTW

This is a boom time for one sector of the economy - public transportation. With gas prices stabilizing, I don't think there was an expectation that ridership would continue to increase. Furthermore, transit is used 60% of the time for work, and with so much job loss, you would expect ridership to go down. But it's expensive to maintain a car, and often cheaper just to take the bus.

Despite job losses and falling gasoline prices, record numbers of Americans rode subways, buses and commuter rail last year, boosting public transportation ridership to its highest level in 52 years, according to a survey to be released today by the American Public Transportation Association.

Advocates say the ridership figures show growing support for public transportation. They hope to use that support to push for federal funding beyond the $8.4 billion in stimulus money set aside for transit. More investment in transit not only helps the economy, advocacy groups say, but also helps the environment and fosters energy independence.

"Now, more than ever, the value of public transportation is evident, and the public has clearly demonstrated that they want and need more public transit services," said APTA President William W. Millar.

The looming problem is that tight state and municipal budgets may not be able to keep up with demand. Even successful transit operations aren't exactly money generators. Which is why federal money for operational costs, not just the $8.4 billion set aside for new capital spending, is needed.

In addition, this should convince everyone that high speed rail would be a massive success. Ridership is growing on transit even in the downturn, and by the time any HSR lines are built we should be out of the woods. It's a good time to start funding this now, when labor and material costs are relatively low. And of course, the savings in energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions would be tremendous. If Republicans are worrying about the Europeanization of America, maybe they're talking about the imclusion of actually decent rail services. They eschew convenience.

The Coming SUPERTRAIN Domination

High speed rail got a big boost in the final stimulus bill.

And while many initiatives were scaled back as Congress and the White House sought to cut the overall cost, there were some surprise increases, including a quadrupling of money for high-speed rail projects to $8 billion.

The White House pushed for the added money in the final rapid-fire negotiations, seeing it as a tangible way to create jobs and benefit different parts of the country. It also added a futuristic element to legislation that has been criticized as lacking forward vision.

That could be just the author trying to wrap its head around it. In fact, high speed rail will dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions, create thousands of jobs and offer a tangible benefit to the American public, finally bringing our transit infrastructure in line with Europe and Asia. While the California HSR blog is perturbed that this boost appeared to come from funding for existing mass transit and intercity rail systems, which is distressing, hopefully the normal budget process can fill in the gaps on public transit. You would never see high speed rail get this kind of money from a regular appropriation. This will restart some projects that needed to be chilled because of a lack of private investment.

Nevertheless, the wingnut brigade is going apeshit over an off-handed comment attributed to Harry Reid:

The madness continues on the right-wing’s crusade against a mythical high-speed rail to Las Vegas project that Harry Reid is alleged to have snuck into the stimulus bill. “Tell me how spending $8 billion,” asked House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) on the floor, “in this bill to have a high-speed rail line between Los Angeles and Las Vegas is going to help the construction worker in my district.”

For one thing, if we stuck by the standard that members of congress should only agree to fund infrastructure projects located in their own districts, then obviously we’d have no infrastructure at all. This is a debate that I thought we settled in the days of Henry Clay. But beyond that there is no such provision in the bill.

There are millions of people who would gladly use that Vegas line - I've been in that traffic - and it's a reasonable project, but it is not currently on the list of federally designated HSR corridors.



Hilariously, one of the big areas for HSR in that map is Ohio, despite the fact that Ohio's John Boehner is a ringleader in slamming the made-up LA-to-Vegas line. High speed rail can be an economic engine for the Midwest, spurring growth and productivity, but these Republicans don't even know a good thing when it hits them in the face.

The Two Paradoxes

Here are two very simple items in the news that show the pressing need for a very large and properly targeted stimulus to the economy, through government spending, right now. Bookmark them, write them down, tell your friends and lawmakers.

One, mass transit ridership is surging, due to a number of factors (people not being able to afford auto transportation, more energy consciousness). But because state budgets are strapped for cash, those bus and rail lines are seeing their prices rise and their routes cut:

St. Louis may be girding itself for some of the most extreme transit cuts in the nation, but it is hardly alone. Transit systems across the country are raising fares and cutting service even when demand is up with record numbers of riders last year, many of whom fled $4-a-gallon gas prices and stop-and-go traffic for seats on buses and trains.

Their problem is that fare-box revenue accounts for only a fifth to a half of the operating revenue of most transit systems — and the sputtering economy has eroded the state and local tax collections that the systems depend on to keep running. “We’ve termed it the ‘transit paradox,’ ” said Clarence W. Marsella, general manager of Denver’s system, which is raising fares and cutting service to make up for the steep drop in local sales tax.

The billions of dollars that Congress plans to spend on mass transit as part of the stimulus bill will also do little to help these systems with their current problems. That is because the new federal money — $12 billion was included in the version passed last week by the House, while the Senate originally proposed less — is devoted to big capital projects, like buying train cars and buses and building or repairing tracks and stations. Money that some lawmakers had proposed to help transit systems pay operating costs, and avoid layoffs and service cuts, was not included in the latest version.

And here's another paradox, known familiarly as the paradox of thrift, where people are saving more and spending less, which is actually hurting the economy and threatening jobs.

On Friday, the government reported Americans' savings rate, rose to 2.9 percent in the last three months of 2008. That's up sharply from 1.2 percent in the third quarter and less than 1 percent a year ago.

Like a teeter-totter, when the savings rate rises, spending falls. The latter accounts for about 70 percent of economic activity. When consumers refuse to spend, companies cut back, layoffs rise, people pinch pennies even more and the recession deepens.

The downward spiral has hammered the retail and manufacturing industries. For years, stores enjoyed boom times as shoppers splurged on TVs, fancy kitchen decor and clothes. Suddenly, frugality is in style.

Here's the important point: we should WANT these things to happen. Increasing the savings rate and mass transit ridership makes this a more stable economy and a more livable planet. But at the moment, the two paradoxes cannot be carried off. And once you recognize this, you understand that the only way to allow increased savings and transit ridership is through job-creating stimulus. Investment won't save bus lines; nobody wants to invest. Wages aren't increasing, especially in this downturn when it's lucky if you have a job tomorrow. So only eliminating excess job capacity in the market will allow people to keep saving while increasing consumer spending. And only investment in OPERATING COSTS on transit and rail lines will allow transit to flourish now and in the future with the capital spending. Otherwise, we lose these two very positive trends for decades.

We don't have to hurt the economy as a consequence of riding buses and trains and saving our hard-earned money. In this extraordinary time, stimulus is the only remedy.

Change From The Bottom Up On Transit

The passage of the Nadler amendment restoring $3 billion in transit funds into the stimulus is a big deal, and not because of the amount. There are still more funds for corporate tax cuts in the bill than transit, which is pathetic. But in this case, the online community (led by Chris Bowers at Open Left and leaders on this issue in the Congress like Peter DeFazio used a public/private strategy to get this passed. In public DeFazio went on Rachel Maddow's show and others to decry the pittance given to transit in the bill. In private Congresscritters and constituents whipped members of the Rules Committee to get the amendment placed on the calendar for the full House. It was a true citizen lobbying effort, and it had nothing to do with "Obama's list" or any other such thing. It was engaged citizens, mature enough to navigate the corridors of power, identifying and working toward a progressive goal. We also see progressive House members willing to buck their leadership on battles they can win, and drive successful policy.

Thing is, spending on infrastructure like rail and transit cannot end with the stimulus package. Indeed, mass transit projects require long-term funding and not random moments like an economic crisis to get a quick infusion of funds. The latest report by the American Society of Civil Engineers is out, showing historic neglect to our nation's infrastructure, and massive funding needed to fix it:

Because decades of underfunding and inattention have endangered our nation's infrastructure, $2.2 trillion in repairs and upgrades is needed over the next five years to meet adequate conditions. That's the conclusion of ASCE's new 2009 Report Card for America's Infrastructure, released today, which assigns an overall grade of D to the nation as well as individual grades in 15 infrastructure categories. Since ASCE's last assessment in 2005, there has been little change in the condition of America's roads, bridges, drinking water systems, and other public works. With the nation's infrastructure receiving renewed attention from the White House, Congress, and the public as a vital part of an economic stimulus package, the Report Card offers informed guidance from professional engineers on where funds would best be spent.

I would modify that to say "decades of conservatives telling you that 'your money' shouldn't be spent on waste," not "decades of underfunding and inattention," but I like to be specific. The report card is here, and the assessment is stark.

If we're going to both provide a long-term boost to the economy and create a more sustainable and clean energy infrastructure, we're going to need more than $3 billion dollar amendments. We need to create a National Infrastructure Bank to ensure attention is paid to this crucial sector over time. And we need to use the transportation fund and rework the formula, so that more than 20 cents on the dollar from the fund goes to transit. There are a host of things we can do, and I think the progressive movement is learning how to do it.

Progressive Backbone of the Stimulus

The Progressive Caucus lists the very good provisions as part of the stimulus package, and they are hard to argue with:

• Unemployment benefits (UI) extension. Cost = at least $12.7 billion

• Anti-hunger provisions

* SNAP - 20% temporary increase in maximum food stamp level above the FY2009 level for two years. Cost = approximately $24 billion and increase in funds for state food stamp administrative costs Cost= $250 million;

* WIC - increase funding to make up for shortfall not covered in the current Continuing Resolution. Cost = $450 million and increases for management information system and related infrastructure improvements. Cost = $50 million;

* School meals - provide a 15% increase in funding for breakfast and school lunch programs. Cost = $1 billion;

• Medicaid payments to states (FMAP). Cost = at least $15 billion

• LIHEAP assistance to provide low-income Americans relief from higher energy costs. Cost = at least $5 billion

• Job creation via down payment on rebuilding America's infrastructure and schools, starting with massive investment in commercialization of green technologies and related job training that promote environmental protection and energy independence. Cost = at least $100 billion

** In general:
• No funds for Iraq or Afghanistan wars and no funds for defense procurement.
• Prevailing wage to be paid for jobs created and upholding of Davis-Bacon Act

Add it up and that comes to $157.5 billion in progressive priorities as described by the caucus, in the plan. You can add another $3 billion in transit funding that just passed as an amendment via voice vote. I would of course like to see more, but that's a pretty decent foundation, and of course it doesn't count the middle-class and lower-class tax cuts.

Wingnuts can cherry pick the bill to death (Republicans are now FOR people getting STDs? And don't they realize that treating STDs cost money and that all preventive medicine saves in the long run?) but I would guess these priorities are staying. We're not even a quarter of the way through the process, but I'm less agitated than I could be.

And it goes without saying that these idiots who ran the economy into the ground for years and created this crisis should not be listened to by anyone.

"The Republican answer to everything is tax cuts, we've tried it for eight years it hasn't worked for the economy, that's what they always say...Their answer is always tax cuts no matter what the question is and it simply hasn't worked. We've had eight years of deregulation, privatization and tax cuts for the rich and look where it's gotten us. It's not a surprise that this economy's in such bad shape because of those policies, we don't want to do more of them." - Sherrod Brown

If Democrats still exist on cable news, they would do well to say that over and over and over again. Bipartisanship is a phantom. Republicans won't vote for this package at all, because they have no political reason to do so. Also they are congenitally wired to do the very opposite of this prescription. It isn't worth reaching out anymore.

Frazzled

An accident on the main east-west freeway serving Los Angeles turned the Westside into a parking lot today. It took me about an hour and a half for what is normally a half-hour commute. What a mess. Tell me again about how funding for mass transit just isn't practical. There actually is funding through Measure R for increased transit services and proposed light rail into Santa Monica, which should roll in right around the time I retire.

Heard on the radio that Eric Holder was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee, and on a 17 to 2 vote with 6 Republicans voting in favor. So much for bloodying the nose of the Obama Administration, Mr. Rove. That wasn't gaining any traction, as the economy is paramount on everyone's mind.

More as I collect myself.

...Here's the story. A head-on collision from a wrong-way driver kills two. I'm not even sure how you would be able to go the wrong way on the Eastbound 10 unless you turned around while on the freeway. Sounds like a terrible accident. This is also a brief for how brittle our infrastructure systems are, closing that freeway paralyzed the Westside this morning.

Rethinking the Stimulus

Bernie Horn takes a look at the stimulus bill and declares it clean.

In fairness to all, the negotiations took place behind closed doors, leaving us little solid information on which to base opinions. And over the years, we’ve had good reason to be wary of backroom deals in Congress.

But there's good news. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is a remarkably “clean” bill. Only between 1½ and 3 percent is being wasted on tax cuts for business. Put another way, the bill is about 98 percent pure—money dedicated to good, progressive causes.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis, released Monday, says the business tax cuts will cause “a net revenue loss of $13 billion over the 2009-2019 period.” See the discussion on pages 11-12 of this document.

As you probably know, the Senate Finance Committee intends to make larger business tax cuts than the House bill has. The analysis of the Finance Committee’s markup, evaluated by the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, is on page 3 of this document. The Senate version includes both the bonus depreciation and 5-year carryback provisions, but the Joint Committee estimates these will cost a total of $22.5 billion instead of the House’s $20 billion. The Senate does not include the $7 billion tax increase and adds a bit more than $2 billion more in tax breaks for a total of $24.9 billion in business tax benefits.

The CBO tells us that the whole bill costs $816 billion. So if the Senate version is adopted, only 3 percent of the spending is for business tax breaks. If the House version is adopted, it’s only 1½ percent. Either way, this is a bill that is between 97 and 98.5 percent targeted toward good causes.

This was written before the Senate added an alternative minimum tax (AMT) patch to the package, which will cost another $70 billion and target the middle to upper-middle class, and is not all that stimulative. The AMT patch is always an annual exercise in humiliation, as a patch is passed without any offsets, and that would likely be the case this year as well. But it tips the balance of tax cuts and spending on the package.

In addition, this bill is one of the rare chances to both create jobs and provide something lasting for the future, and even if you agree with Horn that only 15-20 billion is "wasted" (and I'm not totally convinced), it's wasted at the expense of an investment and a transformation.

Even though most House Democrats say they will back the plan, many reject the administration's argument, saying that infrastructure projects could easily be expedited, that the economy will need additional infusions for years to come and that the real reason for shunning infrastructure was to make room for tax cuts. Obama, with a public mandate to do something big, is missing a rare opportunity to rebuild the country, they say.

"Every penny of the $825 billion is borrowed against the future of our kids and grandkids, and so the question is: What benefit are we providing them? What are we doing for the country? It's the difference between real investment that will serve the nation for 30, 50 years and tax cuts, and that's a very poor tradeoff," said Rep. Peter A. DeFazio (D-Ore.). "I go to my district and people say, 'Yeah, I can use 10 extra bucks a week, but I would rather see more substantial investment.' We've gone through a couple bubbles that were borrowing and consumer-driven. We want a recovery that's solid and based in investment and productivity, and that points us at building things that will serve us decades to come."

Even some Republicans echo the call for more infrastructure spending, saying they would be more willing to support the bill if it showed more tangible and focused benefits, instead of being scattered across an array of existing programs. Rep. John L. Mica (Fla.), the ranking Republican on the transportation committee, called the proposed infrastructure spending "almost minuscule" and expressed regret that the administration had not crafted its plan around an ambitious goal such as building high-speed rail in 11 corridors around the country, which Mica said would cost $165 billion.

"They keep comparing this to Eisenhower, but he proposed a $500 billion highway system, and they're going to put $30 billion" in roads and bridges, he said. "How farcical can you be? Give me a break."

The fact that transit concerns don't have the money to currently meet increased ridership puts the lie to the idea that they couldn't use money quickly. And surveyors, urban planners, environmental impact studies, they create jobs too.

There is good news here. First, respected economists are coming around to supporting the plan.

"I think it's a reasonably well-designed package," said Mark Zandi, the chief economist for forecaster Moody's Economy.com and a former adviser to the presidential campaign of Republican Arizona Sen. John McCain.

The key to the plan's success won't be its design, but its implementation, he cautioned, particularly the public works spending on roads, schools, ports and military bases.

"It runs the risk of turning into pork projects that are done more for political than economic reasons, but if it is well managed and run, it could" do much good, said Zandi, who's been a frequent expert witness before Congress as lawmakers drafted competing plans.

House Republicans have lampooned some modest spending provisions in the package that have little to do with stimulating the economy, but those measures account for only a small portion of the money.

Second, the aid for state governments is huge. Here in California, the state controller is delaying tax refunds indefinitely because the state is out of money. If the infusion of cash stops the states, which by and large must balance their budgets, from cutting spending in the midst of a recession, that's a big plus. Also, much of the spending targets the working poor and unemployed. Anti-poverty advocate Deepak Bhargava said that the bill is the "best piece of legislation for helping poor people he had ever seen."

Now, Republicans are just chipping away and collecting scalps, and they've been moderately successful, but in a really haphazard fashion. Yesterday, out of nowhere, conservatives started complaining about the lack of housing aid in the bill, which is rich for them. And check out what nutball Michelle Bachmann tried to pass as an amendment (it didn't make it through the Rules Committee) - requiring a state spending cap for any state that receives funds from this legislation, the kind that almost destroyed Colorado a few years back (Republicans are the party of state's rights). I'm not seeing a lot of strategy, just a general lurching from one outrage to the next.

Sadly, it's working. I guess the provision to refurbish the National Mall has been excised. From a raw policy standpoint, it's not a dealbreaker, but it shows a troubling trend where GOP hissy fits bear fruit. Democrats are plowing forward on this bill, but what happens with the next one? Who has the ear of the President? Democrats who want to cement legitimate progress? Or Republican know-nothings who appeal to elites to create firestorms? And the idea that this will buy Obama votes down the road for other liberal initatives borders on the insane.

If Horn is right and the bill is relatively pure, that's fine. But the politics have been anything but pure. Conservatives through their wailing have set up themselves to be proven right in the event of failure, because the argument was never made about progressive economic philosophy versus conservative failure. Instead we got a mix and let conservatives define the terms of the debate. Now Obama is beholden to whether or not the stimulus works. He always was, of course, but by pre-compromising the bill and offering what is still too imbalanced a package, he has made it more difficult to succeed than he needed to.

There is a silver lining. Instead of just whining on the Internets, Chris Bowers led an effort to get an amendment from Jerrold Nadler onto the calendar that would increase transit funding by $3 billion. It was hard-fought but now the full House will vote on it, and I urge you to call the Congressional switchboard at 202-225-3121 and ask your representative to vote "Yes" on the Nadler amendment to H.R. 1. In the face of Republican crankiness, we have the ability and the duty to be a louder and crankier voting bloc.

The Rise Of Bad Post-Partisan Obama

It was a good week, with a lot of progress packed into it, and hopefully that will be the pattern of this next Administration. However, there's enough data to map out an alternate scenario, one where President Obama tries to keep his personal approval ratings high by placating Republicans and stiffing Democrats.

First we have the pre-compromised stimulus package, which is about to get more compromised thanks to a GOP hissy fit.

House Democrats are likely to jettison family planning funds for the low-income from an $825 billion economic stimulus bill, officials said late Monday, following a personal appeal from President Barack Obama at a time the administration is courting Republican critics of the legislation.

Several officials said a final decision was expected on Tuesday, coinciding with Obama's scheduled visit to the Capitol for separate meetings with House and Senate Republicans.

The provision has emerged as a point of contention among Republicans, who criticize it as an example of wasteful spending that would neither create jobs nor otherwise improve the economy.

The report is that Obama personally called Henry Waxman, who has jurisdiction over the provision, and told him to ditch it. So now we're listening to Republicans who have no imagination and don't understand the economy. Family planning is a demand-based service that requires staffing. That means jobs. Jobs that now won't be created or will be eliminated by the states because it makes Republicans feel icky.

Then there's the mortgage provisions which Democrats would like to put in the stimulus bill that would allow homeowners to get their principle reduced by a bankruptcy judge, but which Obama wants out of it because big business and their Republican puppets might get mad at him. And once again, the President is prevailing.

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., the chief Senate sponsor of the bill, said Obama persuaded him in a White House meeting Friday to remove the bankruptcy proposal from an economic recovery package -- to ensure it doesn't jeopardize the stimulus bill. But Obama pledged his support for the bankruptcy solution, Durbin said.

Obama said he would work with Durbin to attach the proposal to other ''must pass'' legislation -- with the hope that supporters of the overall bill would not vote against it because of the bankruptcy provisions.

Right, and then that "must pass" bill, like the stimulus, runs into trouble because of the cram-down provision, so it's removed, and on, and on, and on... Chris Bowers notes that future passage of cram-down is not going to be easy, considering that 11 Democrats voted against it the last time it came up. So hundreds of billions of dollars for financial interests, but no sensible reform which would actually clarify their balance sheets and keep people from going homeless. All in the name of bipartisanship.

And then there are lingering concerns, like the ineffective corporate tax breaks still embedded in the bill.

At least $23.8 billion in corporate tax breaks have been included in the $825 billion economic recovery package in order to win backing from key business groups and their Congressional allies, even though the team that put the legislation together believes the breaks have little value in stimulating the economy and creating jobs.

Top beneficiaries include banks, telecommunication companies, railroads and oil, hotels, casinos, and both commercial and residential real estate firms.

"Everyone knows these provisions are not going to do much, but some members of Congress need to be able to say 'the bill has a business tax cut.' So we put them in," said an Obama transition team architect, adding that the corporate breaks were carefully written to be temporary so that the drain on the treasury will be brief. According to another source: "This is just one of those things that you do to get a bill passed. It may not be pretty. We are talking about billions, but in reality it's only a tiny fraction of the whole bill."

That's a bit of honesty there. They're including ineffective giveaways to industry for no reason but to seem bipartisan. By the way that bipartisan support won't be coming, leaving a bunch of tax breaks in there for no reason. And there is a cost. By contrast, mass transit and rail spending really IS a tiny fraction of the whole bill, in fact pathetically tiny, at a time when ridership is up but funds are down.

The dramatic spike in gas prices that began in 2005 sent Americans flocking to trains, buses and subways, a trend that appears to have held up even as gas prices have dipped. But 2009 could be a year of crisis for the agencies that run them -- a time of more riders but much less money.

Some new funding could come as part of House Democrats' proposed $825-billion stimulus package, which, in its current form, sets aside $9 billion for public transportation. But all of that money would be used for new capital projects, not operating costs. And it is operating budgets -- the money agencies need to run the systems they have now -- that are getting hammered.

If service cuts or increased fares become widespread, transit operators around the country fear they will drive away the new converts they picked up when gas prices were high.

Operating existing transit and rail lines keep jobs intact and reduce carbon emissions, as well as regularize mass transit as a factor in people's lives.

The stimulus isn't a horrible bill, and there's a lot to like in there, particularly in the energy and health care provisions. But it's certainly Chamber of Commerce-friendly at a time when their member organizations are laying off tens of thousands. Obama has maintained this sugar plum fairy vision of bipartisanship, yet his bill manifestly does NOT value "what works" over ideology. Quite the opposite. It makes room for ideology, conservative ideology, and pre-empts provisions that would work much better in bringing back the economy. Despite a mandate for major new social and economic programs from the public, Obama is still playing small ball. He's responding to Republican hissy fits and teaching them that all they have to do to wring a concession is scream for a day or so and let their media allies whip up a frenzy. He's offering half-measures when they won't do the job.

If this bill is a blueprint for the next four years, it's going to be a missed opportunity. Also painful.

UPDATE: Good thing all that nastiness was taken out and those nice corporate tax breaks put in. It's really seemed to bring everyone together.

President Barack Obama is coming to the Capitol this afternoon to curry favor with congressional Republicans. But it appears GOP leaders have already made up their minds to oppose his $825 billion stimulus plan.

House Republican Leader John A. Boehner and his No. 2, Whip Eric Cantor, told their rank-and-file members Tuesday morning during a closed-door meeting to oppose the bill when it comes to the floor Wednesday, according to an aide familiar with the discussion. Boehner told members that he's voting against the stimulus, and Cantor told the assembled Republicans that there wasn't any reason for them to support the measure, according to another person in the room. Cantor and his whip team are going to urge GOP members to oppose it.

Ahh, post-partisanship.

The Rise Of Big Rail

Elena Schor reports that mass transit got lowballed in the Senate markup of the stimulus as well.

The House's stimulus bill, which is slated for a final vote on Wednesday, included only $10 billion for rail and other public transportation projects, compared with $30 billion for roads. (According to House transportation committee chairman Jim Oberstar (D-MN), the decision was made to leave enough room for tax cuts.)

But what about the Senate, where the second- and third-tanked leaders are blue-state mass-transit boosters Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY)? As it turns out, the upper chamber of Congress is doing even worse.

The Senate Appropriations Committee's draft stimulus includes just $9.5 billion for mass transit projects -- "very frustrating," in the words of Adam Terando, who's done great work on this issue.

This is really frustrating. While I don't think progress on mass transit and rail ends with the stimulus, clearly the outer edges of those tax cuts could be scaled back to accommodate for spending which would simultaneously create jobs, improve quality of life and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As Atrios rightly notes, these spending priorities often come down to who yells more in the halls of Congress, and passenger rail doesn't have an effective set of town criers, otherwise known as lobbyists. That may change:

The newly minted OneRail coalition markets itself as a first time assembly of disparate groups representing commuter rail lines, freight rail lines, public transportation and the environment.

The goal, according to Anne Canby, a spokeswoman for the group, is to “make sure people are aware of the benefits of rail.”

Trains “are not always part of the public dialogue,” Canby, a former Delaware transportation secretary, said.

The group has yet to settle on specific policy goals other than the shared belief that more federal dollars should be spent on things like inner city rail lines that encourage people to get out of their cars or to pay for construction to ease freight choke points around cities.

Several trade and issue advocacy groups are part of OneRail, including the Natural Resources Defense Council, Amtrak, the American Short Line & Regional Railroad Association, the Association of American Railroads, and the Surface Transportation Policy Partnership.

Notice the inclusion of the NRDC. We've seen blue-green alliances in California pushing through the Clean Trucks Program at the Port of Los Angeles. This kind of alliance has the potential to be very powerful, and I'm glad to see both sides stepping out of their issue silos to work together. It may be too late for the stimulus, but there will be other fights down the road.

Robert Cruickshank has more on the stimulus package fight in the House.

Roads, Rails And Subways, Please

Rep. Peter DeFazio thinks that Barack Obama's getting some bad advice:

There’s a pretty good consensus among members of the House that it should be more. But the dictate from on high in the negotiations with Obama’s advisers — I don’t think the President is there — I think he’s ill-advised by Larry Summers. Larry Summers hates infrastructure, and some of these other economists — who were very much part of creating the problem. Now they’re gonna solve the problem. And they don’t like infrastructure.

They want to have a consumer-driven recovery. We need an investment- and productivity-driven recovery for this country, a long-term recovery.

It's kind of curious that Obama's public statements and YouTube addresses always speak very highly of infrastructure improvements, but there are substantially less funding toward that in the stimulus that you'd expect if you simply read the public PR instead of the actual bill. Although, there has been a general de-emphasis recently, as energy, health care and education spending take prominence.

The reason you want lots of infrastructure spending in the stimulus is because it can both be spent quickly and leave something behind afterwards. That's true of the health care and energy spending as well, but that's not what infrastructure spending appears to be competing with. It's competing with business tax breaks that do not provide nearly the kind of "bang for your buck" that can multiply the effect of fiscal spending. These Chamber-of-Commerce-friendly provisions being put in the Senate package, for example, are appalling.

The Senate bill includes a pro-business tax provision called bonus depreciation, which would allow companies accelerated write-offs of existing equipment and inventory if they make new purchases.

The Senate version also incorporates a complicated but important provision that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups are pushing. This measure, which isn't in the House bill, would allow some companies to reduce taxes if they buy down their debt between late 2008 and 2011. The idea is to encourage companies to lower their debts, a process called de-leveraging, and thus get in better shape for an eventual economic recovery.

"We're very encouraged," said Bruce Josten, the vice president of government affairs for the Chamber of Commerce. "The specific purpose . . . is to create an incentive on a very short-term basis to have an orderly process to de-leverage that debt and strengthen their balance sheets."

The other issue here is that Americans interface with their infrastructure to a far greater degree than any other proposed spending (unless you sit on the Internets all day like me, in which case the broadband spending would apply). Therefore they know intuitively that it's crumbling, and they are desperate to see it fixed, and are even WILLING TO PAY FOR IT. Keep in mind that this passage was written by Frank Luntz.

Consider this: A near unanimous 94% of Americans are concerned about our nation's infrastructure. And this concern cuts across all regions of the country and across urban, suburban and rural communities.

Fully 84% of the public wants more money spent by the federal government -- and 83% wants more spent by state governments -- to improve America's infrastructure. And here's the kicker: 81% of Americans are personally prepared to pay 1% more in taxes for the cause. It's not uncommon for people to say they'd pay more to get more, but when you ask them to respond to a specific amount, support evaporates. (That 74% of normally stingy Republicans are on board for the tax increase is, to me, the most significant finding in the survey.)

This isn't "soft" support for infrastructure either. It stretches from Maine to Montana, from California to Connecticut. Democrats (87%) and Republicans (74%) are prepared to, in Barack Obama's words, put skin in the game, which tells you just how wide and deep the support is.

And Americans understand that infrastructure is not just roads, bridges and rails. In fact, they rated fixing energy facilities as their highest priority. Roads and highways scored second, and clean-water treatment facilities third.

You can see a road or a bridge or a new rail line or a better water treatment plant. You will use it every single day. And so the closest thing to a "bailout for Main Street," to employ that overused phrase, is an investment in immediate and long-term infrastructure spending. That can't all be accomplished by the stimulus, nor should it be - we should work for a long-term funding source through something like a National Infrastructure Bank, and we should try to alter the percentage of mass transit and rail spending in the transportation bill (right now it's 80-20 for roads). But clearly, with all the less targeted and less useful corporate tax breaks in there, infrastructure could be prioritized more.

In my mind, the two things progressives should be fighting for in the recovery bill is increased infrastructure spending at the expense of those corporate tax giveaways, particularly the benefit for lowering debt (which has no short-term benefit to the economy at all), and getting the mortgage cram-down provision into the bill, so bankruptcy judges can lower the amount that people upside down in their homes owe. Let's see how much leverage progressives have.

Crowd-Out

We know the tax cuts in the Obama plan, particularly the corporate tax cuts, are there to grab Republican support. The side effect is that they crowd out needed spending in the transportation sector. Elena Schor has the story from the mouth of Jim Oberstar, Chair of the House transporation panel.

We set forth this $85-billion initiative from our committee. It's been reduced in the final going. We expect that it'll come out somewhere around $63 billion, but $30 billion for highways.

The reason for the reduction in overall funding -- we took money out of Amtrak and out of aviation; we took money out of the Corps of Engineers, reduced the water infrastructure program, the drinking water and the wastewater treatment facilities and sewer lines, reduced that from $14 billion to roughly $9 billion -- was the tax cut initiative that had to be paid for in some way by keeping the entire package in the range of $850 billion.

But I'll say that our portion is the one that really creates the jobs. Our portion of it is the one that's going to put people to work because unlike anything else, these jobs can't be outsourced to Bangalore, India.

This is extremely depressing. Four years from now, 75 votes for the stimulus package will be a distant memory, but we may still have mass transit far behind that of Europe. I ask you which is more important.

Fortunately, some Senators are willing to fight for including more mass transit and rail funding.

First, at a Senate progressive media summit today, Senator Charles Schumer said that he was unhappy about the amount of stimulus money set aside for mass transit and rail. He indicated that several other Senators from highly urbanized states were also unhappy about this portion of the stimulus, and that when the legislation reached the Senate, they would be jointly pushing for an increase in money set aside for mass transit and rail. The current amount for mass transit and rail in the stimulus bill is only $10 billion.

Amy Klobuchar wants to increase the funding for broadband in the stimulus, and that the money would go to public/private partnerships instead of the telecoms who might hoard it. So that's also hopeful.

In one respect, letting Congress have their stamp on the bill by forcing the Obama Administration's hand on these various issues is good in that it reasserts Congressional authority (the fact that the markups have not yet been public is disturbing, however). However, let's be clear that Congress has priorities of their own that may not be in the national interest but in the interest of serving their districts, and this habit of bailing out every sector can have very negative consequences.

Boeing and Lockheed Martin have been “pouring money into a publicity campaign” and stepping up congressional lobbying efforts to maintain funding for the Air Force’s F-22 Raptor.

Their efforts appear to be paying off. 200 members of the House and 44 members of the Senate have signed letters to President Obama urging him to extend the $62 billion F-22 Raptor program. Currently, the Air Force has funds to purchase 183 of the stealth aircraft, “but the letter says, ‘We are convinced that this number is insufficient to meet potential threats.’” The members write further that the jobs at stake make the program, as Matthew Yglesias recently paraphrased, “too big to fail”:

The F-22 program annually provides over $12 billion of economic activity to the national economy. … If this certification is not provided, layoffs will begin as this critical supplier base shuts down. … Over 25,000 Americans work for the 1,000+ suppliers in 44 states that manufacture the F-22. Moreover, it is estimated that another 70,000 additional Americans indirectly owe their jobs to this program.

We don't need the F-22 program, and furthermore, we have to disassociate the desire to renew American manufacturing with the building of weapons of war. There are far more constructive and cost-effective pursuits that the US can be funding. But the F-22 makes lots of Congressional districts very happy, so despite Rahm Emanuel's signal that there will be deep spending cuts in the coming years, in practice that's a much harder sell on Capitol Hill.

Crowding out positive public spending is bad enough, but delaying the needed re-organization of the American economy for parochial reasons is terrible.

Bigger, Faster, Stronger, Cleaner: Post-Sprawl, Post-Downturn Economics

Five top Democratic governors have called for a larger stimulus package than is presently being called for in Washington, precisely to fill in the gaps created by a loss of tax revenue in the states.

To help offset state budget cuts, a group of Democratic governors urged the federal government Friday to pass a $1 trillion economic stimulus package, significantly larger than the one under discussion in Congress.

The package would help states compensate for cuts to education spending that could cause long-term economic decline, as well as bolster infrastructure projects and benefits programs for the poor, the governors from New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Ohio and Wisconsin said in a news conference [...]

The governors recommended that the stimulus plan include $350 billion for infrastructure, including transportation, wastewater and broadband projects; $250 billion for anti-poverty programs such as Medicaid, unemployment insurance, food stamps and child care; $250 billion in flexible education spending to maintain funding for programs from pre-kindergarten to higher education; and middle-class tax cuts.

The money, disbursed over two years, would offset cuts needed to balance state budgets and would serve as a "bridge" until 2011, by which time the governors hope the economy will have recovered, said Massachusetts Gov. Deval L. Patrick.

Predictably, the Republican Governor's Association called it a "bailout" of the general funds of the various states.

Well, yes. The states, by and large, did not have the ability to get out from under the financial meltdown, and the consequent economic downturn that resulted shouldn't disproportionately affect the least of their citizens. Furthermore, given that the road to recovery is massive fiscal stimulus, having states cutting back on spending at this time, be it infrastructure, education or healthcare, is completely counterproductive and will do nothing but prolong the agony.

In the future, it will take more than backfilling state budget cuts in a downturn, but a more structured system, like a "Federal Infrastructure Finance Corporation," to ensure that state assets aren't sold off to private interests during a downturn. The days of creative borrowing and the crossing of fingers are over. We need new structures to manage economic volatility and avoid fiscal traps, PARTICULARLY in California, where the tax system too closely mirrors the boom and bust cycle.

In the near term, I imagine something like this will pass. Barack Obama today put out a call for "strategic investments" to create jobs and improve the long-term economic outlook simultaneously. The question locally is whether California's plans will actually accomplish that. CalPIRG is criticizing the state's wish list, saying that it relies too much on increasing highway and road capacity and not enough on cleaner energy investments:

The California Public Interest Research Group reports that the state plans to spend 31% of road money on creating new capacity instead of addressing long-deferred maintenance and repair projects. By contrast, the group said, Massachusetts would commit 100% of its road funds to repairs.

"We can't afford to waste precious resources on new highways at the expense of ready-to-go projects to repair and maintain existing roads and bridges and expand public transportation," said spokeswoman Erin Steva.

The group also faulted the California Department of Transportation's list, saying that only 37% of the funds would flow to public transportation. The group called for a higher percentage, citing the record ridership on California's mass transit systems, which have been hit by severe cutbacks in recent years. The proposed percentage is less than what is being planned in Tennessee, Wisconsin and Massachusetts, CALPIRG said.

It is elemental that the stimulus spending cannot prop up an unsustainable growth model based on sprawl. Experts up and down the state understand this, and one of the best examples is in this Merced Sun-Star editorial, which nicely explains the tension between speed and smarts:

The problem for the planners is that the stimulus must be geared toward putting people to work as fast as possible. That, many believe, argues for the traditional sort of public works, such as highways.

In many cases, plans are already in place to replace crumbling roads, highways and bridges. By contrast, plans for urban transit systems and intercity high-speed rail are less firm, meaning it may take more time to actually start turning dirt and generating paychecks [...]

We're confident that a solution exists that puts people to work right away and also lays the groundwork for a new approach to the nation's transportation needs.

It won't be easy, but it has to happen. We can't continue to simply build more transportation infrastructure on a model that's now more than a half-century old.

A new model for transportation is part of the change we need.

Read the whole thing. One good idea calls for phased stimulus spending, giving enough for critical highway and road repairs at the start, with the bulk coming later for transit and rail projects.

Boyz In The LaHood

So the second Republican has been tapped for President-elect Obama's cabinet - former Illinois Congressman Ray LaHood as Transportation Secretary. In past Administrations, the Transportation Secretary hasn't been that powerful a job and has been a dumping ground for the inevitable token member from the opposite party. Heck, even Bush had Democrat Norman Mineta installed there. However, with the focus on infrastructure improvements being central to Obama's economic recovery platform, and with a lot of that going to rail and transit, DOT might be more important this time around. And it's being handed to a Republican. Of course, there's an open question about how involved LaHood would be on those infrastructure issues, rather than the normal work of DOT, a lot of which involves air travel.

The reception has been mixed. Streetsblog is not impressed.

We've been calling around to Congressional staffers, advocates and insiders to get a better sense of what Obama's appointment of Ray LaHood as transportation secretary means for those pushing for sustainable transport, smart growth, livable streets. While no one is giving up hope on the Obama administration a month before the inauguration, the general consensus is pretty clear. As one insider summed it up: "It's a real read-it-and-weep moment."

The selection of a downstate Illinois Republican with close ties to highway lobby stalwart Caterpillar Inc. is being taken by many as a clear sign that progressive transportation policy is, for now, nowhere near the top of the Obama's agenda.

"Obama still hasn't made the transportation - land use - climate connection," Petra Todorovich, director of Regional Plan Association’s America 2050 program said. "It's clear he's thinking about these things in separate categories." For Todorovich and other advocates, the LaHood pick was the second shoe to drop this week. The first piece of bad news arrived on Monday when Obama trotted out his "green dream team," his appointments to key environmental, energy and climate posts, and the transportation secretary was nowhere to be found.

Friends of the Earth is a little more hopeful:

“Congressman LaHood’s challenge is great. He must ensure U.S. transportation policy supports, rather than undercuts, the Obama administration’s goals on energy and climate change. This means he must work closely with Obama’s nominees for the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency, and with Obama’s new energy and climate czar, Carol Browner.

“While his overall record on energy and environment issues is poor, LaHood has in recent years broken with many in his party to support crucial investments in passenger rail and public transportation, and he is a member of the Congressional Bike Caucus. These are reasons to hope that he may be open to the visionary transportation policy that is needed to move our country forward.

“Friends of the Earth looks forward to working with Congressman LaHood to bring about such a policy.”

I think it's clear that Obama doesn't connect green policy and transportation policy, but it's probably because his green thinking outweighs the thinking on transportation. I don't think LaHood will have much of a power center. He is moderate for a Republican, and he has promoted expanded rail and transit funding in recent years, so I don't think he'll be an obstacle to that either. At some point, however, Streetsblog is right: to truly remake our energy future we need to provide options to alter the way we live - with smart growth, proper land use and livable streets. The era of suburban sprawl cannot continue because our efforts on reining in greenhouse gas emissions will collapse. DOT actually could play a valuable role in setting that policy, but Obama doesn't want to go there. His urban background, however, suggests he understands the importance of it, both for the economy, the environment and quality of life. So we'll see.

...just to round out the cabinet, there's former Dallas mayor Ron Kirk as US Trade Representative. I think it was clear with Xavier Becerra's remarks when he turned down the job that Obama didn't really think trade was a first- or second-order priority, and he didn't connect trade to our larger economic problems, so this may be another area where the pick doesn't entirely matter since that policy will be attacked from a different angle.

Ride The Ride

When gas prices shot up over $4 a gallon this summer, people turned to mass transit out of necessity. The conventional wisdom was that the plummeting of prices over the last few months would lead to a return to the same old habits. That may be in the future, but the latest numbers show that no, people actually LIKED riding the train or the bus or the subway, and they've kept at it.

Americans rode subways, buses and commuter railroads in record numbers in the third quarter of this year, even as gas prices dropped and unemployment rose. The 6.5 percent jump in transit ridership over the same period last year marks the largest quarterly increase in public transportation ridership in 25 years, according to a survey to be released today by the American Public Transportation Association.

Ridership growth began hitting record levels last year and continued through the first and second quarters of this year, spurred in large part by gasoline prices that topped $4 a gallon in July, the industry group said. But the third-quarter increase is notable, it said, because gas prices began falling and unemployment rose, trends that tend to drive ridership down.

Part of this is the increased urbanization of America, as more and more people move into metro areas. Part of it is the increased recognition of carbon footprints and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But a big part of it is that riding mass transit can improve quality of life. I took the bus quite a bit this summer, and I read more, I walked more to the bus station, and I generally felt a bit more productive. My workplace has changed and is a little further off the bus line, but I took it just last Friday.

The combination of increased demand for transit and the need for government to be the spender of last resort creates a unique moment, if done right, to really make major investments that would change the lifestyle of Americans in positive ways. So many suburbs are built on streetcar lines that have long since been dismantled, it would be easy, in theory, to resuscitate them. And we can build the light rail and high-speed rail corridors that have made Europe much easier to get around than this country. Perversely, however, state and local governments are shedding so much revenue right now that they may face cutting back on transportation services. It is essential that the Obama Administration makes a particular focus on backstopping state transit systems with budget problems. It's a tangible benefit to communities to bolster the transportation sector. And people want it.