Comments on: DeMint’s “Anti-Bike Lane” Amendment

By: christopher paul

christopher paul — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:06:13 +0000

Bike paths are good for the community, whether they’re paid for by the government or local gov’s. In my opinion. Here in Houston there is a great debate on whether to build a path or not. Here’s the story.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6201599.html

By: Chip Haynes

Chip Haynes — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 15:14:24 +0000

Whew. Serious discussion here. So much for the public not paying attention. Yes, the restrictions on spending would be a bad thing, but please don’t think you’re being self-serving, as a cyclist, when you hope for this stimulus package to help build bicycle infrastructure. Remember: The whole point of the thing is to DO something- to build thing that will mean employment for engineers, designers, builders and the companies they work for and/or own. That money spent will then trickle out as they pay for their food, clothing, shelter and the things they need to live and do their job. The end result (bicycle stuff) is good, but it’s the process, the moving of money through the economy that’s the whole point of the package. For once, “pork” is good, if it’s spread evenly.

By: TimK

TimK — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 03:18:53 +0000

Just wanted to add this link in response to Gavin’s argument about tax cuts vs. government spending:

http://www.americablog.com/2009/02/in-defense-of-nancy.html

That, of course, is a greater political debate. Given the system we have now, I think cycling facilities are one of the more worthwhile ways the government could use its money to stimulate the economy; at least they also do some substantial long-term good.

By: TimK

TimK — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 21:28:58 +0000

I wish this administration and both Democrats and Republicans would embrace the free market instead of attempting to control everything.

The Republicans did that for eight years, and the previous Democratic administration did a pretty fair job of it as well. That’s what got us where we are now: a free-for-all with no regulation. What we need for the medium to long term is to repeal Gramm-Leach-Bliley and restore the regulatory structures that were put in place for our banking system in the 1930s. We learned some lessons then, but apparently we didn’t learn them well enough.

By: Ghost Rider

Ghost Rider — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 20:36:10 +0000

Update, from the League of American Bicyclists via Alan Snel’s “Bicycle Stories” blog:

Thanks to calls from bicycle and pedestrian advocates like you, the Senate refused to hear an amendment that would have blocked any Economic Recovery Bill money from being spent on biking and walking infrastructure projects. Now we need EVERYONE’S HELP to make certain that there is strong support for Transportation Enhancements $ for biking and walking in the final bill!”

Who knows…maybe all this heat worked against DeMint’s proposed amendment?

By: Raiyn

Raiyn — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 18:15:17 +0000

@Ghost
I really want to remain civil, but there’s only so much I’m willing to take from the tin foil hatters.

By: Gavin

Gavin — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:36:30 +0000

Yes, but can we get back to local politics, or are we so top heavy that we can’t truly find the roots anymore. Just like with most grasses, when the top gets overgrown and dries out, the roots die, but if the top stays trimmed, the roots are strong enough that when hard times come and the grass dries, the roots survive so that the grass can regrow. Thus the whole “grassroots” concept.

By: wade G.

wade G. — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:16:34 +0000

Sounds like it’s time to return to our grassroots.
Local politics is where a lot of this starts.

By: Gavin

Gavin — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 13:09:26 +0000

I realize that funding for bike-related projects is tough to get at the local level, and that the majority of funding for such projects that have been carried off has come from federal incentives. I would argue, that philosophically, if the original intent of the founders was followed, federal taxes would be quite small, and local taxes larger, maintaining a small federal government with little responsibility outside of defense and diplomacy while local and state governments managed schools, roads, and such projects as bike lanes and public transit.

However, this is not the case. That being said, I would agree that if the focus of the bill that the senate just passed were truly economic stimulus through infrastructure improvement as it is being sold, bike lanes would be a reasonable addition to the bill. As the bill seems to be more of a collection of pet liberal projects, I can see why some of those, such as bike lanes might be targets of GOP opposition.

On a political/economical sidenote, I think that even were it less pork laden, this bill is the wrong approach. In 1920, the US had a severe economic downturn. The federal government did nothing. Within two years, that downturn had become the “roaring twenties.” However, nearly a decade later when another downturn hit, which was initially less severe, President Hoover stepped in with interventionist policies which were then continued and increased by Roosevelt. The US remained in and economically depressed state seven years longer than the rest of the world.

The US citizens were made to feel like the government was helping us, while in reality they were keeping us where we were.

Free market thinking did not create the economic crisis. Wrong-headed federal policies such as the fair housing act and neighborhood reinvestment act that forced lenders to loan to riskier recipients bear more of the blame.

I apologize, this blog is not really the place for and all-out political debate, but I feel that it is important for Americans to discuss political issues and share points of view. The sooner were stop debating and being concerned about what our government does, the sooner we lose control of it and become enslaved by it.

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 03:21:51 +0000

Guys, I have to repeat that all bike trail funding is piggybacked on other funding/legislation. John Boehner would call this “pork”, but this is how federal funding works. I agree that it would be great if congress members recognized the value of non-motorized transportation and passed independent, strong funding mandates just for multi-use trails, but they don’t.

Also, I would argue that free market thinking was the cause for the economy collapse, and I don’t think a little “hair of the dog that bit you” will work in this case.