Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Options
The "Infrastructure" Bill
WestlinnDuck
Member Posts: 13,870
in Tug Tavern
Little infrastructure, huge amount of bureaucracy to be created - more overpaid administrators to make the Americans worse off. Geezus. Green energy isn't green, it's expensive, unreliable and environmentally filthy and the chicoms and India will just ignore it and continue to build coal plants while Americans can freeze in the dark and forced to ride on unsafe public transit. Have fun.
https://www.battleswarmblog.com/?p=48841
The more conservatives look at the $1.2 trillion pork-filled “infrastructure” bill currently worming its way through the legislative intestines of capitol hill, the less they like it.
Vance Ginn and E. J. Antoni of the Texas Public Policy Foundation: “It has just $110 billion, or less than 10%, for what’s historically been considered infrastructure—roads and bridges. The other 90% is to fund mass transit waste, green energy nonsense, and more items that the states or the private sector could do.”
Speaking of green energy nonsense:
Obscured in more than 2,700 pages of the U.S. Senate’s so-called bipartisan “infrastructure” bill is a plan for state-mandated carbon reduction programs….
“A state, in consultation with any metropolitan planning organization designated within the state, shall develop a carbon reduction strategy,” according to the text, which is also in the officially released version of the bill.
The federal government oversees metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), which are designated by agreement between the governor and local governments and represent localities in all urbanized areas (UZAs) with populations over 50,000, as determined by the U.S. Census, according to the Federal Transit Administration. There are at least 420 MPOs in the United States, the National Association of Regional Councils estimated.
No later than two years after the bill’s enactment, states would have to present their carbon reduction programs for approval to the secretary of transportation. The proposed strategies must meet several requirements to be considered “green” enough.
Requirements include but are not limited to:
Reducing traffic congestion by disincentivizing single-occupant vehicle trips and facilitating “the use of alternatives” like public transportation, shared or pooled vehicle trips, “pedestrian facilities,” and “bicycle facilities” within the state.
Facilitating the use of vehicles or modes of travel that result in “lower transportation emissions per person-mile traveled as compared to existing vehicles.”
Incentivizing the construction of vehicles that emit less carbon.
Mark Tapscott also notes that the bill tests a new federal tax on every mile Americans drive:
Buried in the “Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act” in the U.S. Senate is approval for the Department of Transportation (DOT) to test a new federal tax on every mile driven by individual Americans.
The bill directs Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg to establish a pilot program to demonstrate a national motor vehicle per-mile user fee designed “to restore and maintain the long-term solvency of the Highway Trust Fund.”
The objectives of the pilot program include:
To test the design, acceptance, implementation, and financial sustainability of a national motor vehicle per-mile user fee.
To address the need for additional revenue for surface transportation infrastructure and a national motor vehicle per-mile user fee.
To provide recommendations relating to the adoption and implementation of a national motor vehicle per-mile user fee.
Although the new tax is described as a pilot program and would initially rely upon “volunteers” representing all 50 states, the infrastructure measure would also require the Treasury Department to establish a mechanism to collect motor vehicle per-mile user fees from the participants.
This is a very bad camel to let get its nose into the tent.
https://www.battleswarmblog.com/?p=48841
The more conservatives look at the $1.2 trillion pork-filled “infrastructure” bill currently worming its way through the legislative intestines of capitol hill, the less they like it.
Vance Ginn and E. J. Antoni of the Texas Public Policy Foundation: “It has just $110 billion, or less than 10%, for what’s historically been considered infrastructure—roads and bridges. The other 90% is to fund mass transit waste, green energy nonsense, and more items that the states or the private sector could do.”
Speaking of green energy nonsense:
Obscured in more than 2,700 pages of the U.S. Senate’s so-called bipartisan “infrastructure” bill is a plan for state-mandated carbon reduction programs….
“A state, in consultation with any metropolitan planning organization designated within the state, shall develop a carbon reduction strategy,” according to the text, which is also in the officially released version of the bill.
The federal government oversees metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), which are designated by agreement between the governor and local governments and represent localities in all urbanized areas (UZAs) with populations over 50,000, as determined by the U.S. Census, according to the Federal Transit Administration. There are at least 420 MPOs in the United States, the National Association of Regional Councils estimated.
No later than two years after the bill’s enactment, states would have to present their carbon reduction programs for approval to the secretary of transportation. The proposed strategies must meet several requirements to be considered “green” enough.
Requirements include but are not limited to:
Reducing traffic congestion by disincentivizing single-occupant vehicle trips and facilitating “the use of alternatives” like public transportation, shared or pooled vehicle trips, “pedestrian facilities,” and “bicycle facilities” within the state.
Facilitating the use of vehicles or modes of travel that result in “lower transportation emissions per person-mile traveled as compared to existing vehicles.”
Incentivizing the construction of vehicles that emit less carbon.
Mark Tapscott also notes that the bill tests a new federal tax on every mile Americans drive:
Buried in the “Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act” in the U.S. Senate is approval for the Department of Transportation (DOT) to test a new federal tax on every mile driven by individual Americans.
The bill directs Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg to establish a pilot program to demonstrate a national motor vehicle per-mile user fee designed “to restore and maintain the long-term solvency of the Highway Trust Fund.”
The objectives of the pilot program include:
To test the design, acceptance, implementation, and financial sustainability of a national motor vehicle per-mile user fee.
To address the need for additional revenue for surface transportation infrastructure and a national motor vehicle per-mile user fee.
To provide recommendations relating to the adoption and implementation of a national motor vehicle per-mile user fee.
Although the new tax is described as a pilot program and would initially rely upon “volunteers” representing all 50 states, the infrastructure measure would also require the Treasury Department to establish a mechanism to collect motor vehicle per-mile user fees from the participants.
This is a very bad camel to let get its nose into the tent.
Comments
Haven't heard shit from Cocaine Mitch and the rest of the DC crowd other than they are close to an agreement
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/
I DON’T WANT TO HEAR ANOTHER WORD ABOUT GLENN REYNOLDS’ CARBON FOOTPRINT: It’s good to be the Climate Czar! John Kerry’s family jet has taken 16 trips this year.
are these the re-education camps?
Every bill coming out of DC is pure pork for someone. Usually a relative
BOOM roasted