Posted on 02/11/2003 9:06:30 AM PST by Willie Green
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:02:46 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Local waterways officials are outraged over a proposal advanced by the Bush administration calling for waterways users to pay up to half the cost of operating and maintaining the nation's locks, dams and channels.
Yesterday, local and national waterways officials and operators decried the proposal as "shortsighted," and said it violates an agreement forged by the government and waterways users in 1986. That agreement affirmed federal responsibility for inland waterways operation and maintenance in exchange for inland waterways users assuming the obligation for financing 50 percent of future construction and major rehabilitation spending.
(Excerpt) Read more at pittsburghlive.com ...
IMHO, it's no different than what Gray Davis did with Kalifornia's electricity crisis. They failed to invest in adequate generating capacity infrastructure, then go deep into debt just to finance their monthly light bill.
Pinhead politicians are all shortsighted. Our inland waterways are vital to commerce. Capital improvements shouldn't be scuttled by myopic bureaucrats.
A lot of our inland waterways are largely economically useless pork projects.
Though, I'd like to see trucking companies pay much more of their share for road damage, too.
Oh, right, we're doing that already.
Amen. You'll note that while Dubya is allowing our inland waterway infrastructure to degrade, he is also diverting more cash out of General Funds to subsidize highway construction and those blasted, hazardous NAFTA trucks.
Good grief. In many ways this dude is no different than Klintoon and Algore. First he comes out with a bunch of junk-science hoopla about hydrogen cars, then he tries to sneak THIS through. Next thing you know, he'll be running around hyping the American Heritage Rivers Initiative, only he'll come up with a more "compassionate" label so he can claim credit for it. Face it, Dubya is NOT a conservative.
NAFTA trucks, man. Blasted, hazardous NAFTA trucks.
They're the only thing that globalist kook cares about.
Your "contribution" is totally irrelevant.
OTOH it could drive Mike Fink out of business!
And memories of Mark Twain would fade into oblivion.
I am a bit confused....
When we buy gasoline, we help pay for the upkeep of the highways and roadways. If we use certain avenues of convenience (tollways), we pay a toll to maintain the road.
How is that any different from users of the nations system of locks and damns? The cost of operation of these locks and dams to maintain a shipping chanel are huge. To the consumer, it's not going to make a lot of difference, as any cost to shippers will be passed on.
Still, what's wrong with the users of a resourse paying a share of the upkeep of that resourse?
Interference with the "free market" has nothing to do with it. With foundations deeply rooted in English Common Law, navigable rivers such as our inland waterways are considered to be public highways, owned and maintained by the sovereign government for the use and benefit by all. Any proposal to transfer ownership of the system of locks and dams to the private sector should be viewed as a betrayal of public trust.
Nothing at all. In fact, the waterway users already do it.
What they are up in arms about is totally legitimate.
The monies collected from them were designated for a specific purpose.
Now Dubya is proposing deliberate misallocation of those funds for other use.
If I may elaborate further:
The barge and riverboat operators already paid their share, with legitimate expectations that the money would be spent on maintaining and upgrading the infrastructure that they use. By misallocating those funds, Dubya is essentially requiring the barge and riverboat operators to subsidize the more nefarious activities of the Corps of Engineers that they do NOT benefit from: such as the Corps of Engineers enviro-whacknut bureaucracy that harasses any business that happens to have a tiny drainage ditch or "wetland" puddle within the river's watershed. If you were a barge or riverboat operator, would you want your user fees going to support that other nonsense? Heck no!
"McCarville said Congress would have to pass a new law to divert money from the Inland Waterways Fund for operation and maintenance."And your point is?
In the previous paragraphs, Mr. McCarville ALSO called the president's budget proposal "shortsighted".
I am in agreement with him.
If Dubya's budget proposal calls for misallocation of funds, all the last paragraph means is that the WH will be pushing for upcoming legislation to facilitate the diversion. And it is likely to be buried deep in the details of some humongous omnibus appropriations bill where it would get lost among other issues.
Am I being too harsh on Dubya with this criticism? Perhaps. When it comes down to it, I have no reason to suspect that out of the 2 years of his presidency, he's given even 2 minutes of thought to issues involving our inland waterways transportation infrastructure. It's just completely off his radar screen. Like everybody else, he just takes it for granted that everything is hunky-dorey no matter what. I guess it'll have to be in total collapse and chaos before he wakes up and begins the whodunnit political blame-game.
"The proposal, part of an Army Corps of Engineers budget request for next year, would tap a special trust fund — the Inland Waterways Trust Fund — financed by a 20-cent-a-gallon fuel tax paid by barge lines and used for construction and major rehabilitation to maintain navigation on the nation's rivers."I view this as being quite similar to the fishing license that I buy from the state. While I favor many state wildlife programs, I expect the fees gathered from fishing licenses to go directly to the fish management program. And if I also buy a "trout stamp" for my license, I expect those funds to specificly assist the hatchery/stocking activities for trout. Similar state wildlife programs for deer management or pheasants, etc. etc. are nice. But those should be funded from hunting licenses, not my fishing license money. And NONE of those fees should be misallocated to goofy enviro-nut efforts to restore a "sustainable" grey wolf population in the backyards of suburbia.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.