Election Disadvantage
Download 1.8 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Generic Transportation Links
- Transportation infrastructure relies on a gas tax hike --- sparks massive public opposition
- Despite support for transportation spending, voters refuse to pay for it.
- The economic climate makes transportation spending an unattractive option.
LinksTransportation 1NCMassive public opposition to funding transportation infrastructureCouncil on Foreign Relations, June 2012 (Road to Nowhere: Federal Transportation Infrastructure Policy, p. 5) WHAT THE PUBLIC WANTS Though Americans share Obama’s enthusiasm for making infrastructure improvement a priority, nationwide opinion polls suggest they oppose typical options for funding it. A 2011 Rockefeller Foundation poll found that nearly 80 percent of voters agree that “in order for the United States to remain the world’s top economic superpower we need to modernize our transportation infrastructure and keep it up to date.”15 Two out of three voters believed improving the country’s transportation infrastructure is “highly important.” Yet similar margins do not want to have to pay for it: 71 percent oppose increasing the gas tax, 64 percent oppose new tolls on existing roads and bridges, and 58 percent oppose paying more for each mile driven. Generic Transportation LinksVoters don’t want to spend money on transportation infrastructure --- this evidence assumes poor economic conditions.Bernstein, 11/01/2010 (Andrea – Director of the public radio Transportation Nation project, Wariness about spending on transportation and infrastructure accompanies voters to the polls, Transportation Nation, p. http://transportationnation.org/2010/11/01/wariness-about-spending-on-transportation-and-infrastructure-acompanies-voters-to-the-polls/) It’s been a rough election season out there. Unless you’ve crawled into a cave for the last three months, you know the airwaves have been flooded with ads calling candidates everything from thieves to hooligans to rogues and everything in between. But the sour voter mood isn’t just about advertisements — it’s about reduced circumstances, drastic cuts in local government services, higher taxes and fees, fewer jobs, and dramatically higher health care costs — despite health care reform and an $800 billion stimulus bill. Or as one Florida election volunteer Marcia told me in a largely African American neighborhood in Tampa last week: “People are disappointed,” she said. “They thought they were going to have this magic wand that I’m going to save my home because we have Obama as President. And I’m going to have a job because we have Obama as President.” But then, people lost their jobs, and they lost their homes. “Where’s the change?” retired Hoovers vacuum worker Alice Prestier asked me in Canton, Ohio. Or, more bitterly, as one Colorado contractor told me in Loveland, Colorado: “I don’t need to spend $2,000 to support every illegal f*****g Mexican in this country. Nor do I need to keep busting my ass for this government. You know, my son can’t ride the bus to school anymore. He’s got to walk two miles to school, explain that to me! You know, why does education have to go, but yet we can support illegals, we can piss money away on stuff that doesn’t’ matter, a health care plan that will never work?” All of which has created a wary public, seemingly unwilling to spend on big transit projects like the ARC tunnel, high speed rail, or even roads. Even though the President has bracketed this campaign season with a call for $50 billion in additional spending on roads, rails, and airports and the distribution, last week, of some $2.5 billion in high speed rail grants, kitchen-table cut backs have spilled over into an attitude about government spending. Where once voters seemed to have faith that large infrastructure projects would create jobs, both in the long and short terms, they now worry that worthy as projects may be, there simply isn’t enough money to spend on things like new transit tunnels, high speed rail systems, or even roads. Transportation infrastructure relies on a gas tax hike --- sparks massive public oppositionEkins, 1/6/2012 (Emily – Director of Polling for Reason Foundation, 77 Percent of Americans Oppose Gas Tax Increase, 58 Percent Favor Tolls Instead, Reason Foundation, p. http://reason.com/poll/2012/01/06/77-percent-of-american-oppose-gas-tax-in) As the number of people using roads and highways steadily increases, cars have also become more fuel-efficient, thus reducing the amount of gas purchased per person. This is good news for consumers; however, transportation spending is largely funded from gasoline taxes, and those receipts are decreasing. The recent Reason-Rupe poll asked Americans how they would prefer to fund transit going forward. Gas Tax Policymakers have considered increasing the federal gas tax, currently 18.4 cents per gallon in efforts to close the spending-funding gap. Yet 77 percent of Americans oppose raising the federal gas tax. Part of the aversion may be a concern that the government will not spend the tax dollars effectively—65 percent of Americans think the government generally spends transportation funding ineffectively. Generic Transportation Links Despite support for transportation infrastructure, the public thinks spending is inefficient and unaccountableBradley, Ridge and Walker, July 2011 (Bill – former Pennsylvania Governor, Tom – former Secretary of Homeland Security, and David – former U.S. Comptroller General from 1998 to 2008, Road to Recovery: Transforming America’s Transportation, Carnegie Report, p. http://carnegieendowment.org/2011/07/11/road-to-recovery-transforming-america-s-transportation/3e1h#4) Unaccountable spending is undermining America’s long-term strategic priorities, and the nation’s infrastructure is crumbling. Failure to reform the transportation system risks deepening the United States’ dependence on oil, eroding economic competitiveness, and increasing climate disruption. Waiting to make real improvements only drives up future costs, whereas responsible policies can improve transportation and reduce the national deficit today. The Leadership Initiative for Transportation Solvency is dedicated to developing a nonpartisan solution to fund a better transportation system in the United States. Former U.S. senator Bill Bradley, former Pennsylvania governor and secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge, and former U.S. comptroller general and current president of the Comeback America Initiative David Walker led an intensive analysis to find politically realistic measures to fund and fix the U.S. transportation program. In recent years, the U.S. surface transportation system added more than $100 billion annually to the national deficit, including deferred maintenance. The United States is one of only a handful of countries in the world where revenues raised to support the federal transportation system do not cover costs. Revenues represent just 62 percent of federal surface transportation expenditures, while all other members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the group of developed economies, more than cover 100 percent of their transportation expenditures through user taxes—and sometimes several times over.1 Also, the practice of deferred maintenance unnecessarily contributes to this burden by increasing the cost of system upkeep to as much as $800,000 per lane mile over the life of the road.2 There are tangible economic benefits from the transportation system apparent in the ability of households and firms to access markets. But the benefits are waning. The rate of economic return from investment in highway infrastructure in the United States has been approaching the long-term interest rate (cost of capital) since the 1990s. Once the rate of economic return meets the long-term interest rate, it becomes equally beneficial to keep invested capital in the private sector,3 a clear signal that those investments could be without merit. At that point, the system no longer delivers the benefits necessary to justify public funding. While a 2011 national public opinion poll found that 79 percent of the public agrees that “in order for the United States to remain the world’s top economic superpower we need to modernize our transportation infrastructure and keep it up to date,” in the same poll 64 percent of the public felt that federal spending on transportation infrastructure is “inefficient and unwise.”4 Generic Transportation Links Despite support for transportation spending, voters refuse to pay for it.Weinberg, 2/17/2011 (Ali – writer for NBC, Poll: Support for infrastructure spending, but not paying for it, First Read on NBC News, p. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/02/17/6075671-poll-support-for-infrastructure-spending-but-not-paying-for-it?lite) Democrats, Republicans, and independents would all support new government spending on U.S. transportation infrastructure, but are not interested in footing the bill themselves, according to a new poll. The survey, conducted by Democratic polling firm Hart Research and Republican firm Public Opinion Strategies, was released days after President Obama submitted his 2012 budget request, which includes $53 billion over six years towards high-speed rail projects and $30 billion a year to fund a national infrastructure bank. The survey found wide bipartisan support for legislators to seek common ground on infrastructure improvements: 71% of all respondents -- including 74% of Democrats, 71% of Republicans and 69% of independents -- said they wanted elected officials to work together on the issue. Support was also strong among respondents who identified themselves as part of the Tea Party, an affiliation that connotes a strong anti-government spending attitude, with 66% supporting infrastructure investment. “The bipartisan, or even tripartisan, nature of the issue comes through loud and clear," said Jay Campbell of Hart Research, who, along with Public Opinion Strategies, conducted the poll for state-centric think tank the Rockefeller Institute. This support also extended into specific policy proposals that would control how transportation dollars are spent. In the poll, 90% supported the idea of holding all levels of government accountable for making sure infrastructure projects stay on time and budget, as well as allowing local regions to have a greater say in how transportation funds are used in their area. Even some spending increases, like more competitive grants for transportation projects and money for developing public transportation systems and bike paths, were met with high approval numbers. “There is a tolerance for more spending in this area as long as there's a demonstration that it's going to be spent wisely,” said Republican pollster Bill McInturff of Public Opinion Strategies. But support plummeted to 40% when respondents were asked if they would support replacing the per-gallon gasoline tax, which has stayed at the same level since 1993, with a fee based on the number of miles driven. While a gas-tax hike would be a quick way to increase revenue, its unpopularity among voters means it’s unlikely to become a reality in Congress, Campbell said. “This is really the rock and a hard place for lawmakers,” he said. “Voters say our infrastructure is lacking, they say it should be modernized, they say it should be improved, but they resist paying for it.” The economic climate makes transportation spending an unattractive option.Slone, September 2009 (Sean – Transportation Policy Analyst at the Council of State Governments, Increasing Public Awareness of Infrastructure Costs & Finance, p. http://www.csg.org/knowledgecenter/docs/TIA_infrastructure_cost.pdf) Some observers in recent years have said the condition of the nation’s infrastructure is such that a major effort is needed along the lines of building the interstate highway system or putting a man on the moon. But America today is in a far different place than when Roosevelt captured the imagination of the American people with a map of linked highways or when John F. Kennedy kicked the space race into high gear. The nation’s competing priorities—including health care reform and others—seem to dim the prospects for the major transportation overhaul many say is needed. Hammond said the goals should be a bit less ambitious during what is a potentially transformative moment for the nation’s infrastructure. “That’s not where transportation is right now,” she said. “If there’s a transformation point, it’s how to optimize the use of the system, use every inch of pavement that you have in the best way that you can for freight and people movement and then how do you encourage, incentivize and provide options for people not to have to drive alone everyday to work through central Puget Sound.” But that’s just not a sexy issue, she said. In what may be a difficult year to accomplish significant transportation spending at the state level, it may be necessary for proponents to simply ride out the recession until the political and economic climate is more favorable toward additional infrastructure investment.
Directory: files files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2 files -> Integer programming and game theory files -> 4 Integer Programming files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective files -> Pop Warner History files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations Download 1.8 Mb. Share with your friends:
|