|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Mar 11, 2009 8:27:29 GMT -8
President Obama has signed the 2008 Omnibus spending bill. We have some great earmarks for LA County transit. Hopefully, y'all have a good idea of Metro is trying to accelerate or backfill some projects - $81.6 million for the Gold Line eastside extension (maybe these are the safety measures LA County was seeking) - $45 million for Metrolink extension to Perris (will this be a reality? - $9.9 million for Wilshire Blvd. bus-only lanes from Santa Monica to west of DTLA CreditIf this is the dreaded earmark process that McCain campaigned against..then I'm all for pork spending! Editor's Note: All of the above projects were in various Full Funding Grant Agreements. The East LA Gold Line, Perris Metrolink Extension and the Bus Only Lanes are being paid as per multi-year agreement. |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Mar 11, 2009 13:49:50 GMT -8
President Obama has signed the Omnibus spending bill and we have some great earmarks for LA County transit. Hopefully, y'all have a good idea of Metro is trying to accelerate or backfill some projects - $81.6 million for the Gold Line eastside extension (maybe these are the safety measures LA County was seeking) I am curious as to what this is about, since this line is nearly complete and to my knowledge is not over budget. Perhaps this is backfilling the local share of the cost? Maybe someone from the TTC can comment. Editor's Note: The payment for the Eastside Gold Line is the regular annual appropriation that is part of the Full Funding Grant Agreement that was signed in July 2004. |
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Mar 11, 2009 15:50:51 GMT -8
I believe it's the safety measures and pedestrian enhancements the MTA wanted to add to the Gold Line after it opened. If you read the Measure R document, you note that additional funding was needed for "Increased access including pedestrian and bicycle to the Gold Line Eastside light rail project". Refer to the yesonmeasurerla.com campaign website. |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Mar 11, 2009 17:25:53 GMT -8
I would say that $81M is a heck of a lot of money for pedestrian enhancement - no? Editor's Note: Perhaps you could include the link so the many readers of this board can understand your question. What pedestrian enhancement, for what project? |
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Mar 12, 2009 4:45:48 GMT -8
I found it rather peculiar that the funds for the Eastside Gold Line extension, Metrolink extension to Perris and Wilshire Bus-only lanes were labelled as earmarks.
Overall, I view earmarks in a negative light but if they're T/I-oriented the taxpayers will be rather forgiving. I don't view these as "earmarks" or "pork", although some of the other items that have been reported certainly would fall into the negative cariacatures of pork/earmark spending.
Perhaps part of the problem is a lack of differentiation for what "pork" is, and certainly part of the problem is the failure to properly fund the TEA-21 budget. Were this to simply be an extension of the stimulus spending plan, and organized as such, then there would be less controversy.
While there are a few overly-libertarian extremists who would always classify T/I spending as "pork", most individuals in this country will see some merit in this spending. Ditto for the high speed rail money that the President and Senator Reid are pushing for and which were included in the stimulus package.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Mar 12, 2009 9:42:55 GMT -8
frankly, I have never understood why some people insist that earmarks are somehow some evil abberation; and the above example is a good reason why.
yes, there is undoubtedly some waste and "pork" in the system, but blaming the mechanism has always struck me as aiming for the wrong target. and if transit is the ultimate beneficiary.... well, can you blame me for supposing that the ends might justify the means?
I might add that Reid's maglev push, while unfortunate, was blown completely out of proportion. it was much easier to "strawman attack" Reid's desire to have SOME of the high-speed rail funding go to Las Vegas than it was to attack the high-speed rail portion in general, which would much more likely go to California and not to maglev...
|
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Mar 12, 2009 11:16:19 GMT -8
What we think of the $81 million for the Gold Line as a 'just' expense...somebody in Wyoming is saying, that's just more "pork" in the bill.
Honestly, there is nothing wrong with earmarks (pork = earmarks). Yes, it sounded like a good political slogan last year for McCain, but in essence, not a single senator or congressperson would veto the pork process. Cities and districts are always trying to find ways to fund their meaningful projects and generally fall flat at the City, County, or State level. So, what's left? Ask your congressperson or Senator to get it attached to a large spending bill. Too large, that nobody would question a small spending amount.
The earmark process will continue, as it has never hurt anybody. Remember McCain at last year's debate accuse "pork" spending for a telescope at the Chicago Museum. Well..the museum tried every way possible to get a high powered telescope ($3,000) for kids to use at a science museum, unfortunately, the only way was through a congressional earmark. Is that bad?
|
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Mar 12, 2009 14:15:22 GMT -8
Well, I am surprised that $3000 would be so hard to find and fund if one passed the hat around the general community, but in general I exclude T/I projects from the "pork" listing. Museums, feel-good programs and the like are much more (at least in my opinion) what most folks would be likely to deride as pork.
As for anyone in a red state complaining, one needs only remind them that the tax donor states (particularly the blue tax donor states) have been ripped off for quite some time during the past two presidential terms. Were the blue states to have received a greater portion of the funding they gave to Washington, then the need for "pork" would be greatly diminished.
|
|
|
|
Post by wad on Mar 13, 2009 3:34:26 GMT -8
As for anyone in a red state complaining, one needs only remind them that the tax donor states (particularly the blue tax donor states) have been ripped off for quite some time during the past two presidential terms. Were the blue states to have received a greater portion of the funding they gave to Washington, then the need for "pork" would be greatly diminished. Ken, generally speaking, an area's economic power is inversely proportional to its political power. Blue states tended to be economic powerhouses but often tended to be "donor" states. Even if you look at red states with significant economic clout, like Texas, most of it went to rural areas and small towns. Within Texas, urban Houston and Dallas were the luau pigs for the rest of the Lone Star State. There are many reasons why this is so. |
|
