Is America Falling Apart?

[red states rule]

Sicne the bridge collapse in MN, the liberal media has been ranting how Amercia is falling apart

Of course, the only solution is to raise taxes and have more government spending to solve the problem

The NY Times is adding to the left wing chants


A Bridge Collapses


Published: August 5, 2007
The nation’s physical foundations seem to be crumbling beneath us. Last week, a 40-year-old interstate highway bridge collapsed in Minneapolis, plunging rush-hour traffic into the Mississippi River 60 feet below. Two weeks earlier, an 83-year-old steam pipe under the streets of Manhattan exploded in a volcano-like blast, showering asbestos-laden debris. And two years before that, substandard levees gave way in New Orleans, opening the way for the floodwaters of Hurricane Katrina.

These are some of the most dramatic signs of the nation’s failure to maintain and enhance its aging physical structures at a time when demands on roads, transit systems, sewage treatment plants and other vital facilities are rising. In the event of a catastrophic failure, many lives can be lost. But even the slower deterioration undermines our quality of life and retards economic growth. Traffic jams waste gasoline, pollute the air and exhaust drivers’ patience. Disabled trains and subways strand commuters. Gridlocked airports disrupt travel plans. And power failures plunge millions into darkness.

At a time of ballooning deficits, and in the midst of a hugely expensive war, most politicians will be tempted by the quick and inexpensive fix. But that is exactly how the country got into this problem.

How large a challenge the country is facing can be seen in a report by the American Society of Civil Engineers, grading the nation’s infrastructure. The latest report, issued in 2005, assigned a cumulative grade of D, down from D+ four years earlier. Near-failing grades of D- applied to drinking water, sewage treatment and navigable waterways. The highest grade, C+, went for landfills and the recycling of solid waste.

In between were unsafe dams, whose number was rising faster than they could be repaired; overstressed power lines, whose maintenance budgets had decreased for a decade; public parks and beaches that were falling into disrepair; and deteriorating schools that seemed unlikely to accommodate rising enrollments or allow smaller classes.

Bridges actually scored relatively well, earning a straight C, mostly because the percentage of the nation’s 590,000 bridges that were rated structurally deficient or functionally obsolete had dropped slightly, to 27 percent. The deficiency rating does not mean a bridge is in danger of collapse, but it does reflect the need for repairs, close monitoring and perhaps weight restrictions.

No one yet knows what caused the Minneapolis bridge, one of those deemed structurally deficient, to fall apart. Theories include undetected cracks or metal fatigue, vibrations from a resurfacing project on the roadway, or possibly soil erosion around the underwater supports.

The design of the structure was almost certainly an element. The 1,900-foot span lacked much redundancy for its critical supports, which could allow a single failure of a crucial structural part to bring down the whole edifice. The notion that critical parts ought to have backup systems seems so basic to current engineering practice that it is shocking to learn that some 756 bridges of similar design around the country also lack redundancy. They will need to be inspected and monitored with great care.

Unfortunately, the adequacy of current inspections is also in question. It is disturbing that the pipe that burst in Manhattan had just been inspected and declared sound by a utility crew, that the levees in New Orleans had been regularly inspected by the Army Corps of Engineers, and that the Minneapolis bridge had been inspected annually.

In these and other failures it will be important to establish whether the inspectors failed to do a diligent job or whether the real problem is that inspections are inherently limited in what they can detect. Perhaps inspectors need to be given much better sensing equipment to detect hidden flaws.

The larger problem of crumbling roads, bridges and levees and crashing electrical grids can almost always be traced to a lack of investment. When budgets are tight, elected officials find it convenient to cut back on maintenance and leave some future administration to deal with the consequences. When Congress appropriates money for public works, the legislators typically prefer shiny new projects that will enhance their reputations, not mere maintenance on a bridge named after someone else. The federal government has particularly lagged in paying for infrastructure projects, leaving state and local governments to assume the dominant role.

Congress is now scrambling to provide extra money to help Minnesota replace its stricken bridge and is planning hearings on broader infrastructure needs. One sensible bill that ought to be quickly passed would set up a commission to assess the state of the nation’s infrastructure, set priorities, and recommend financing approaches. Another bill is proposing a new national bank to leverage both public and private investment for repair and new construction projects. Each time there is one of these tragedies, politicians briefly declaim the need for a major and sustained investment in the nation’s aging infrastructure. But that enthusiasm quickly flags. The collapse of Minneapolis’s Bridge No. 9340 is a reminder that such long-postponed investments can no longer be neglected

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/opinion/05sun1.html

[PostmodernProphet]

Of course, the only solution is to raise taxes and have more government spending to solve the problem

well, obviously it's going to take government spending to fix roads....whether it be federal money on the interstate system, or state or local money on other roads.....

as far as raising taxes is concerned, it may be an interesting study to compare the folks who bitch that the war in Iraq has kept us from infrastructure repairs with those folks who submit earmarks....

this particular article is a real hoot, though....the 'solution' is the nationalization of the banking system?......

[red states rule]

well, obviously it's going to take government spending to fix roads....whether it be federal money on the interstate system, or state or local money on other roads.....

as far as raising taxes is concerned, it may be an interesting study to compare the folks who bitch that the war in Iraq has kept us from infrastructure repairs with those folks who submit earmarks....

this particular article is a real hoot, though....the 'solution' is the nationalization of the banking system?......

the truth is, the government has tons of money. when you add up the amonut of moeny collected in gas taxes, tolls, and othe ruser fees - the roads should be paved in 24K gold

[PostmodernProphet]

the roads should be paved in 24K gold

danged liberal!

[red states rule]

danged liberal!

Ok - how about platinum?

[PostmodernProphet]

in the words of Marie Antoinette...."Let them eat cement"......

[red states rule]

in the words of Marie Antoinette...."Let them eat cement"......

meanwhile, libs keep whining and pushing for higher taxes

the liberal media prints the talking points and the libs repeat the crap word for word

[actsnoblemartin]

We dont need higher taxes, we need government, both sides of the aisle to stop spending like drunken sailors.

Then we could afford whatever we need.



Sicne the bridge collapse in MN, the liberal media has been ranting how Amercia is falling apart

Of course, the only solution is to raise taxes and have more government spending to solve the problem

The NY Times is adding to the left wing chants


A Bridge Collapses


Published: August 5, 2007
The nation’s physical foundations seem to be crumbling beneath us. Last week, a 40-year-old interstate highway bridge collapsed in Minneapolis, plunging rush-hour traffic into the Mississippi River 60 feet below. Two weeks earlier, an 83-year-old steam pipe under the streets of Manhattan exploded in a volcano-like blast, showering asbestos-laden debris. And two years before that, substandard levees gave way in New Orleans, opening the way for the floodwaters of Hurricane Katrina.

These are some of the most dramatic signs of the nation’s failure to maintain and enhance its aging physical structures at a time when demands on roads, transit systems, sewage treatment plants and other vital facilities are rising. In the event of a catastrophic failure, many lives can be lost. But even the slower deterioration undermines our quality of life and retards economic growth. Traffic jams waste gasoline, pollute the air and exhaust drivers’ patience. Disabled trains and subways strand commuters. Gridlocked airports disrupt travel plans. And power failures plunge millions into darkness.

At a time of ballooning deficits, and in the midst of a hugely expensive war, most politicians will be tempted by the quick and inexpensive fix. But that is exactly how the country got into this problem.

How large a challenge the country is facing can be seen in a report by the American Society of Civil Engineers, grading the nation’s infrastructure. The latest report, issued in 2005, assigned a cumulative grade of D, down from D+ four years earlier. Near-failing grades of D- applied to drinking water, sewage treatment and navigable waterways. The highest grade, C+, went for landfills and the recycling of solid waste.

In between were unsafe dams, whose number was rising faster than they could be repaired; overstressed power lines, whose maintenance budgets had decreased for a decade; public parks and beaches that were falling into disrepair; and deteriorating schools that seemed unlikely to accommodate rising enrollments or allow smaller classes.

Bridges actually scored relatively well, earning a straight C, mostly because the percentage of the nation’s 590,000 bridges that were rated structurally deficient or functionally obsolete had dropped slightly, to 27 percent. The deficiency rating does not mean a bridge is in danger of collapse, but it does reflect the need for repairs, close monitoring and perhaps weight restrictions.

No one yet knows what caused the Minneapolis bridge, one of those deemed structurally deficient, to fall apart. Theories include undetected cracks or metal fatigue, vibrations from a resurfacing project on the roadway, or possibly soil erosion around the underwater supports.

The design of the structure was almost certainly an element. The 1,900-foot span lacked much redundancy for its critical supports, which could allow a single failure of a crucial structural part to bring down the whole edifice. The notion that critical parts ought to have backup systems seems so basic to current engineering practice that it is shocking to learn that some 756 bridges of similar design around the country also lack redundancy. They will need to be inspected and monitored with great care.

Unfortunately, the adequacy of current inspections is also in question. It is disturbing that the pipe that burst in Manhattan had just been inspected and declared sound by a utility crew, that the levees in New Orleans had been regularly inspected by the Army Corps of Engineers, and that the Minneapolis bridge had been inspected annually.

In these and other failures it will be important to establish whether the inspectors failed to do a diligent job or whether the real problem is that inspections are inherently limited in what they can detect. Perhaps inspectors need to be given much better sensing equipment to detect hidden flaws.

The larger problem of crumbling roads, bridges and levees and crashing electrical grids can almost always be traced to a lack of investment. When budgets are tight, elected officials find it convenient to cut back on maintenance and leave some future administration to deal with the consequences. When Congress appropriates money for public works, the legislators typically prefer shiny new projects that will enhance their reputations, not mere maintenance on a bridge named after someone else. The federal government has particularly lagged in paying for infrastructure projects, leaving state and local governments to assume the dominant role.

Congress is now scrambling to provide extra money to help Minnesota replace its stricken bridge and is planning hearings on broader infrastructure needs. One sensible bill that ought to be quickly passed would set up a commission to assess the state of the nation’s infrastructure, set priorities, and recommend financing approaches. Another bill is proposing a new national bank to leverage both public and private investment for repair and new construction projects. Each time there is one of these tragedies, politicians briefly declaim the need for a major and sustained investment in the nation’s aging infrastructure. But that enthusiasm quickly flags. The collapse of Minneapolis’s Bridge No. 9340 is a reminder that such long-postponed investments can no longer be neglected

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/opinion/05sun1.html

[avatar4321]

If the United States is falling apart anywhere, its morally.

[red states rule]

We dont need higher taxes, we need government, both sides of the aisle to stop spending like drunken sailors.

Then we could afford whatever we need.

"Welcome to Fantasy Island"

[red states rule]

If the United States is falling apart anywhere, its morally.

:clap:

Liberalism is working in at least one area

[avatar4321]

:clap:

Liberalism is working in at least one area

Conservatives can be just as bad. More so even at times. Im not going to give anyone an excuse for immorality simply because he has a conservative philosophy.

[red states rule]

Conservatives can be just as bad. More so even at times. Im not going to give anyone an excuse for immorality simply because he has a conservative philosophy.

Correct

But when Republicans are caught, we deal with them. When libs are caught, the Dem party, and liberal media circle the wagons around them

[avatar4321]

Correct

But when Republicans are caught, we deal with them. When libs are caught, the Dem party, and liberal media circle the wagons around them

is it really too much to expect to just not do bad things?

[red states rule]

is it really too much to expect to just not do bad things?

Of course not

If a Republican is caught with his/her hand in the cookie jar - I would be the first one to say he/she need to go. If convicted, toss them in a jail cell

But when it is a Dem, the liberal media tries to ignore or downplay the story. The top Dems will make excuses and ask everyone to withhold judgement

A total 180 from what happens when the accused is a Republican

[red states rule]

At Debate, Yepsen Cites GOP 'Dogma Against Taxes' as Obstruction to Fixing Bridges
By Brent Baker | August 6, 2007 - 07:24 ET
As a questioner, along with George Stephanopoulos, of Republican presidential candidates at the Sunday debate in Iowa carried on ABC's This Week, veteran Des Moines Register political reporter and current columnist David Yepsen pressed the candidates to raise taxes. For the last question in the first hour of the 90 minute session from Drake University, Yepsen urged Mike Huckabee: “Is it time we raise the federal gas tax to start fixing up our nation's bridges and roads?” After Huckabee answered it was a matter of budget priorities, Yepsen turned to Rudy Giuliani: “In Minnesota, Governor Pawlenty, who vetoed an increase in his state gas tax, said now he may consider one. Is this Republican dogma against taxes now precluding the ability of you and your party to come up with the revenues that the country needs to fix its bridges?” Giuliani suggested Yepsen's formulation presumed a “Democratic liberal assumption: I need money, I raise taxes.”

In two weeks, ABC's This Week will gather Democrats for a debate. Will their “dogma against cutting spending” be cited as an impediment to prioritizing money to fix bridges?

Part of the August 5 exchange between Yepsen and Giuliani:


YEPSEN: In Minnesota, Governor Pawlenty, who vetoed an increase in his state gas tax, said now he may consider one. Is this Republican dogma against taxes now precluding the ability of you and your party to come up with the revenues that the country needs to fix its bridges?

GIULIANI: David, there's an assumption in your question that is not necessarily correct, sort of the Democratic liberal assumption: I need money, I raise taxes.

YEPSEN: Then what are you going to cut, sir? What do you cut?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2007/08/06/debate-yepsen-cites-gop-dogma-against-taxes-obstruction-fixing-bridges

[JohnDoe]

the truth is, the government has tons of money. when you add up the amonut of moeny collected in gas taxes, tolls, and othe ruser fees - the roads should be paved in 24K gold

Damnit, you must spread some Rep around.... I tried!!!!

[red states rule]

Damnit, you must spread some Rep around.... I tried!!!!

OK, you can owe me

Thanks anyway for the attempt

[red states rule]

well, obviously it's going to take government spending to fix roads....whether it be federal money on the interstate system, or state or local money on other roads.....

as far as raising taxes is concerned, it may be an interesting study to compare the folks who bitch that the war in Iraq has kept us from infrastructure repairs with those folks who submit earmarks....

this particular article is a real hoot, though....the 'solution' is the nationalization of the banking system?......

Bridge Collapse Revives Issue of Road Spending
By SUSAN SAULNY and JENNIFER STEINHAUER
Published: August 7, 2007
MINNEAPOLIS, Aug. 6 — In the past two years, Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota twice vetoed legislation to raise the state’s gas tax to pay for transportation needs.

Now, with at least five people dead in the collapse of the Interstate 35W bridge here, Mr. Pawlenty, a Republican, appears to have had a change of heart.

“He’s open to that,” Brian McClung, a spokesman for the governor, said Monday of a higher gas tax. “He believes we need to do everything we can to address this situation and the extraordinary costs.”

Even as the cause of the bridge disaster here remains under investigation, the collapse is changing a lot of minds about spending priorities. It has focused national attention on the crumbling condition of America’s roadways and bridges — and on the financial and political neglect they have received in Washington and many state capitals.

Despite historic highs in transportation spending, the political muscle of lawmakers, rather than dire need, has typically driven where much of the money goes. That has often meant construction of new, politically popular roads and transit projects rather than the mundane work of maintaining the worn-out ones.

Further, transportation and engineering experts said, lawmakers have financed a boom in rail construction that, while politically popular, has resulted in expensive transit systems that are not used by a vast majority of American commuters.

Representative James L. Oberstar, Democrat of Minnesota and the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, sent out a news release last month boasting about Minnesota’s share of a recent transportation and housing appropriations bill.

Of the $12 million secured for the state, $10 million is slated for a new 40-mile commuter rail line to Minneapolis, called the Northstar. The remaining $2 million is divided among a new bike and walking path and a few other projects, including highway work and interchange reconstruction.

The $286 billion federal transportation legislation passed by Congress in 2005 included more than 6,000 earmarks, which amounted to blatant gifts to chosen districts, including the so-called Bridge to Nowhere in rural Alaska (that earmark was later removed after a political uproar).

Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, said in a telephone interview Monday that earmarks for transportation in federal legislation were “almost always new construction and not maintenance.” Earlier, Mr. Schumer said that he would introduce legislation next month to double a proposed federal transportation bill appropriation, with a focus on upkeep to $10 billion.

“The bottom line,” Mr. Schumer said, “is that routine but important things like maintenance always get shortchanged because it’s nice for somebody to cut a ribbon for a new structure.”

Last week, Representative John L. Mica of Florida, the ranking Republican on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, met with advisers to the Bush administration to urge a nationwide plan to address transportation needs. Rebuilding the I-35W bridge would be only “a Band-Aid” Mr. Mica said, “to a much more serious problem.”

“We don’t have any kind of strategic plan to deal with infrastructure, and we’re falling behind,” he said.

In statehouses across the country, legislators tried this past session to fill some of the void by passing bond acts or allocating money to improve roads, bridges and other pieces of the transportation system.

In Arkansas, lawmakers set aside $80 million, 15 percent of which will be used to repair county roads, 15 percent for city byways and the rest for its highways. New Mexico approved a $200 million plan for local and tribal road projects, and in Texas, $700 million was allotted for state transportation projects over the next two years.

Voters in California this year authorized nearly $20 billion in transportation bonds to pay for repairs and make other improvements to its taxed system.

“We still barely scratched the surface,” said Adam Mendelsohn, the communications director for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican. “The governor is very concerned about the lack of attention that the federal government has given to infrastructure. It is probably no more acute than in California because of the tremendous strains from population growth.”

The federal budget for transportation comes largely from excise taxes, particularly on gasoline, set by Congress at 18.4 cents in 1993 and eroded over time by inflation and fuel efficiency. As such, over the last decade, state legislatures in 14 states have voted to raise the state gas tax 19 times. And several states are looking at toll roads and congestion pricing initiatives to help shore up the roads.

The National Conference of State Legislatures, a group with members from all 50 states, is calling for a 3-cents per gallon increase in the federal gas tax.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/07/us/07highway.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

[red states rule]

Conservatives can be just as bad. More so even at times. Im not going to give anyone an excuse for immorality simply because he has a conservative philosophy.

An example of the liberal media bias I am talking about


Brzezinski: Democrat's Affair 'Not Pressing,' No Objection to Vitter Coverage
By Michael Lanza | August 6, 2007 - 15:57 ET
Liberals can rest easier knowing that despite her outspoken views on newsworthiness and ethics, MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski can still be counted on to go to bat for the Democrats. The reporter and "Morning Joe" regular showed off her famous sense of journalistic integrity while filling in for host Joe Scarborough on Monday morning. In the first half hour, Brzezinski played a video of a journalist trying desperately to get an interview with Antonio Villaraigosa, the Democratic mayor of Los Angeles. Villaraigosa has been surrounded by controversy since revelations that he had engaged in an extramarital affair with Spanish language reporter Mirthala Salinas.

The video clip showed one female reporter and at least two cameramen chasing the embattled mayor hoping for an interview. Before she could reach the mayor however, one of Villaraigosa’s hired thugs intercepted the reporter, sending the much smaller woman barreling into what appears to be a dumpster.

Commenting on this deplorable video, Brzezinski came to the Democrat’s defense. Speaking of the checked reported and Mayor Villaraigosa’s philandering, Brzezinski said, "That’s an aggressive reporter. Yeah, you know, the problem I have with this is that, eh, it’s just the whole topic is probably not that pressing in terms of the state of our society but let’s role it again, why not?"

Brzezinski’s downplaying of the Villaraigosa affair is surprising when considering that she endured hours of conversation (without objection) about disgraced Republican Senator David Vitter. While "Morning Joe" guest and Hollywood screenwriter John Ridley made the most outspoken attacks against Vitter back in July, Brzezinski had no reservations about occasionally joining the fray. Here is a partial transcript from the July 11th show.

John Ridley: "Why is it with the far right, who’s always, they’re always proselyting and shaking their fingers at people and telling other people how to live? Why is it they always check with God after they make these mistakes? They’re always tight with God..."

Mika Brzezinski: "Very good point."

Ridley: "...but they never think about dialing God up prior to making mistakes or understanding that other people – God can forgive everybody."

Joe Scarborough: "God can."

Ridley: "So why is it that they’ve got some ownership on forgiveness from God..."

Brzezinski, who often criticizes headlines she is asked to read for not being "newsworthy" and achieved YouTube celebrity for tearing up and subsequently trying to burn a story on Paris Hilton, revealed her own double standard for the personal lives of politicians. Why is David Vitter’s sex life worthy of endless conversation while Villaraigosa’s affair is "not that pressing?" Is Vitter’s alleged hypocrisy more newsworthy than years of the Democratic mayor denying allegations of marital unfaithfulness? The video tape played on today’s "Morning Joe" should also concern Mika Brzezinski as a journalist. One would think that a high-minded reporter like Brzezinski would be enraged when a colleague is denied (in this case through brute force) from speaking to elected officials. Or how about the fact that Villaraigosa’s journalist mistress not only reported on the mayor but was given exclusive interviews? Isn’t that a pressing enough story, Ms. Brzezinski? Clearly one Republican’s hypocrisy is more "newsworthy" than a Democrat’s unfaithfulness and a reporter’s complete lack of ethics.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/michael-lanza/2007/08/06/brzezinski-democrats-affair-not-pressing-no-objection-vitter-coverage

[red states rule]

A Bridge Too Far Gone
By Thomas Sowell

It took a collapsing bridge in Minnesota to alert people across the country to the fact that many other bridges in many other places have been allowed to deteriorate without adequate maintenance.

If this were just a matter of poor political leadership at various levels of government, we could at least hope for better leaders in the future. But the problem goes deeper than that.

It is not just the people but the incentives that are responsible for the neglect of infrastructure, while tax money is lavished on all sorts of less urgent projects.

In other words, when there is a complete turnover in political leaders over time, the same problem will remain because the same incentives will remain when new leaders take over.

Some people claim that the problem is how much money it would take to properly maintain bridges, highways, dams and other infrastructure. But money is found for other things, including things far less urgent and some things that are even counterproductive.

The real problem is that the political incentives are to spend the taxpayers' money on things that will enhance politicians' chances of getting re-elected.

There may be enough money available to maintain bridges and other infrastructure but that same money can have a bigger political pay-off if spent building something new instead of maintaining and repairing existing structures.

When money is spent building a new community center, a golf course, or anything that will be newsworthy, there will be ribbon-cutting ceremonies and the politicians who cut the ribbons can expect to see their pictures in the newspapers and on TV.

All that keeps their name before the public in a positive role and therefore enhances their prospects of being re-elected.

But there are no ribbon-cutting ceremonies when bridges are being repaired or pot-holes are being filled in. These latter activities may be more valuable than a community center or a golf course, but they are not nearly as photogenic.

The preference for showy projects that will enhance a politician's career prospects is not peculiar to current politicians. Adam Smith pointed out the same thing about politicians in 18th-century Europe.

We can vote the rascals out but the new rascals who replace them will face the same incentives and in all likelihood will respond in the same way.

A pattern that has persisted for more than two centuries is likely to continue unless something fundamental is changed.

What really needs to be done is to change the incentives.

While most bridges in the United States are owned and operated by government agencies, there are times and places where bridges have been owned and operated by private companies, just as numerous other goods and services are provided through the marketplace.

How would that change the incentives?

A company that has to get the money to build and maintain bridges or other infrastructure through the voluntary actions of people in the financial markets, instead of being able to extract money from the taxpayers, is going to find financiers a lot more finicky about what is being done with their money.

People who are putting their own money on the line are going to want to have their own experts taking a look under the bridges they finance, to see where there are rust, cracks or crumbling supports.

When people know that the lawsuits that are sure to follow after a bridge collapses are going to drain millions of dollars of their own money -- not the taxpayers' money -- that keeps the mind focussed.

Those who like to think of the government as the public interest personified may be horrified at the idea of turning a governmental function over to private enterprise.

Politicians who want to hang onto sources of patronage and power will of course encourage people to look at things that way. But the track record of privately run infrastructure will compare favorably with government-run infrastructure.

But that is only if we stop to compare -- and to think.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/a_bridge_too_far_gone.html