Sunday, August 05, 2007
Thursday, August 02, 2007
The Minnesota bridge collapse is terrible
.. but there's something more terrible still than dozens of automobiles under water and concrete and rebar, still holding their drivers and passengers.
And that is, that it's going to happen again. And again. And soon.
The Bush tax cuts for the wealthy -- while the country is at war -- has forced the underfunding of the maintenance of America's infrastructure. Just as the Army Corps of Engineers couldn't spend the money in New Orleans to fix the problems with the levees that they knew existed long before Katrina ever came ashore, the DOT likely knew there were problems with that bridge, but the money wasn't there to fix it. Now how do I know this?
Well, because The Onion has a rather prescient --and now cruel -- parody of it, from two years ago.
Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (yes, he's a Republican) recently vetoed a nickel-a-gallon increase in the gasoline tax in his state. The funds were earmarked for road maintenance. It wouldn't have saved the 35W bridge or all those people who were killed or injured yesterday, but I bet he's feeling a little sick to his stomach anyway, and not just for the Minnesotans whose lives were lost.
Truthfully this isn't all Pawlenty's or even Dubya's fault, though the worst is yet to come. This mantra of more and more tax cuts goes all the way back to Reagan, and thus the neglect reaches back to the '80's. PBS recently detailed America's crumbling infrastructure, but "nobody could have predicted" anything like this, could they? Rational thought says you don't sacrifice a city, you don't sit by while people suffer, you don't worry about bridges collapsing in the USA -- all in the name of tax breaks. Doesn't it?
Forget about a terrorist attack; how bad do you think it will it be the next time an underground steam pipe first installed in 1924 explodes, or a bridge collapses, or a hurricane or an earthquake hits?
How slow, will we learn, is the FEMA response this time?
How many more people are going to have to die for this tax-cuts-at-all-cost mindset to change?
And that is, that it's going to happen again. And again. And soon.
The Bush tax cuts for the wealthy -- while the country is at war -- has forced the underfunding of the maintenance of America's infrastructure. Just as the Army Corps of Engineers couldn't spend the money in New Orleans to fix the problems with the levees that they knew existed long before Katrina ever came ashore, the DOT likely knew there were problems with that bridge, but the money wasn't there to fix it. Now how do I know this?
Well, because The Onion has a rather prescient --and now cruel -- parody of it, from two years ago.
Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (yes, he's a Republican) recently vetoed a nickel-a-gallon increase in the gasoline tax in his state. The funds were earmarked for road maintenance. It wouldn't have saved the 35W bridge or all those people who were killed or injured yesterday, but I bet he's feeling a little sick to his stomach anyway, and not just for the Minnesotans whose lives were lost.
Truthfully this isn't all Pawlenty's or even Dubya's fault, though the worst is yet to come. This mantra of more and more tax cuts goes all the way back to Reagan, and thus the neglect reaches back to the '80's. PBS recently detailed America's crumbling infrastructure, but "nobody could have predicted" anything like this, could they? Rational thought says you don't sacrifice a city, you don't sit by while people suffer, you don't worry about bridges collapsing in the USA -- all in the name of tax breaks. Doesn't it?
Forget about a terrorist attack; how bad do you think it will it be the next time an underground steam pipe first installed in 1924 explodes, or a bridge collapses, or a hurricane or an earthquake hits?
How slow, will we learn, is the FEMA response this time?
How many more people are going to have to die for this tax-cuts-at-all-cost mindset to change?
TIME lists the reasons Bush won't can Gonzo
And I hate to admit how right they are (again my bold emphasis):
Alberto Gonzales as human shield for all the other criminals in the Bush administration. Wonder how he likes being that?
But that's not the real question I care about. Nor do I give a damn for the political hay to be made by the Democrats in the Senate and the House and the ones who are running for president in 2008.
The real mystery to me here is: how high a price could a person command for that depth of fealty? How many plum consulting positions, how many corporate board appointments, how much for a tell-all memoir that wasn't, really?
How many millions of dollars is loyalty like that worth?
1. Gonzales is all that stands between the White House and special prosecutors. As dicey as things are for Bush right now, his advisers know that they could get much worse. In private, Democrats say that if Gonzales did step down, his replacement would be required to agree to an independent investigation of Gonzales' tenure in order to be confirmed by the Senate...
2 ... Over the past six months, more than half a dozen top political appointees have left the department amid scandal. The unprecedented coziness that once existed between the Justice Department and the White House now remains solely in the person of Gonzales.
3. If Gonzales goes, the White House fears that other losses will follow. Top Bush advisers argue that Democrats are after scalps and would not stop at Gonzales. Congressional judiciary committees have already subpoenaed Harriet Miers and Karl Rove in the firings of U.S. Attorneys last year. Republicans are loath to hand Democrats some high-profile casualties to use in the 2008 campaign. Stonewalling, they believe, is their best way to avoid another election focused on corruption issues.
4. Nobody at the White House wants the legal bills and headaches that come with being a target of investigations. In backing Gonzales, Bush is influenced by advisers whose future depends on the survival of their political bodyguard. Gonzales remains the last line of defense protecting Bush, Rove and other top White House officials from the personal consequences of litigation. A high-profile probe would hobble the White House politically, and could mean sky-high legal bills and turmoil for Bush's closest aides.
Alberto Gonzales as human shield for all the other criminals in the Bush administration. Wonder how he likes being that?
But that's not the real question I care about. Nor do I give a damn for the political hay to be made by the Democrats in the Senate and the House and the ones who are running for president in 2008.
The real mystery to me here is: how high a price could a person command for that depth of fealty? How many plum consulting positions, how many corporate board appointments, how much for a tell-all memoir that wasn't, really?
How many millions of dollars is loyalty like that worth?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)