Why should we spend money on museums or the preservation of historic sites? Let’s eliminate all federal funding for such nonsense, shall we?
Congressional Republicans may be opposed to President Obama’s call for new infrastructure spending, but House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) is pushing an idea that he says would free up funds for critical transportation projects.
In a statement responding to Friday’s disappointing jobs report, Cantor highlighted a proposal to eliminate a rule requiring states to set aside 10 percent of federal surface transportation funds for “museums, education and preservation.” Scrapping that provision, Cantor said, “would allow states to devote these monies to high-priority infrastructure projects, without adding to the deficit.”
Let’s create some jobs and build some infrastructure by taking money away from highway beautification projects. Why don’t we do that? That seems like a great compromise.
I swear, there is no dealing with these people. Search as long and hard as you want, you still won’t find a hint of decency in them.
Okay, I’ll bite. Why is money for “museum, education and preservation” coming out of surface transportation funds? I’m all for spending money on such things, but it seems like an odd place for it to be coming from.
Unless it’s, like, The Museum of Asphalt, in which case I’m with Cantor.
because we like nice things.
transportation money has always been a way for the Feds to make states do things. Remember the drinking age and the 55mph speed limit?
Here’s a real answer.
This answers my question, thanks. But it kind of backs up the point I was getting at. These are museums and preservation projects tied to surface transportation (though no doubt the definition gets stretched), not all museums and preservation projects. And frankly, ten percent seems like a lot for railway museums and maintaining covered bridges.
I understand that Cantor is grandstanding (it’s all he ever does), and I understand that we need to fund such projects generally, not just ones related to surface transportation, and I understand that many tea partiers seem to think that anything that would appeal to people with a functioning brain is a waste of money that could be transferred directly to the wealthy instead. But it still seems like an odd and disproportionate requirement.
I think the point is not whether we spend money on museums and memorials, but that we take money away from them if we want to spend more on roads and bridges. Meaning no increase in spending and no stimulus. In other words a zero sum game, which is a win for Cantor and crew.
Apropos the President’s speech on Thursday to the joint session:
I predict that during the President’s speech there will be a Joe Wilson/”You lie!” eruption — only this time it will be an orchestrated group explosion of disrespect for Obama; a herd of House TPers chanting “Where are the jobs?” perhaps, or a mass walkout. Something rude and contemptuous and dramatic to disrupt the event, to make the story all about them and overshadow whatever the President tries to lay out in his speech.
You watch; something nasty and rude and vicious is going to happen during the speech. And the MSM will fall all over themselves to report that and ignore Obama’s speech itself.
Oh, and the whole episode will be Obama’s fault, of course.
Nothing would make me happier than to see Obama stop the whole speech and ask for the sergeant of arms to remove the disruptors.
tell me about it
I think that the sticker there is that it would be John Boehner who would have to ask the Sergeant-at-Arms (a House employee) to clear the disruptors. Talk about Constitutional crisis.
You took the typing right out of my fingers, THD.
On another blog, one commenter on my prediction wondered just how poor the GOP attendance would be:
Which provided me with fresh food for thought:
What the Joe Wilson/Walsh’s of the Congress are ignoring is that this isn’t about them, they represent a constituency some of which voted for them some who didn’t; so a speech of this given magnitude is set up for a nation to listen, to digest and then either go to your local coffeeshop to talk or if you’re a Joe, hit the appropriate airwaves to babble your head off, but argument is set aside for the duration of a US Presidential address.
Why don’t we just ask the congresscritters to give up 15% of their salries to help out in times of need. Seems like they are always asking others to give up or cough up monies.
cantor is trying to make a name for himself is all he is about. he is a cancer on America!
Really odd coming from him, considering his district is perhaps one of the most historic in America that need constant upkeep. Perhaps it’s just not as expensive as other places…
Why don’t we start by ending federal funding for all the Civil War fossils? Like the Confederate cemeteries and monuments in Virginia? In fact there should be a law mandating that every proposed cut to states be carried out first in the states/districts of the legislators who propose them. Then, if the budget isn’t fixed when those states are bled dry, move onto other states. Otherwise the rest get a free pass.
Museums EDUCATE people.
of course, NO museums for you.
Well, there’s that “…doomed to repeat it” thing Santayana talked about way back in the 20th century, but nobody cares about the study of history anymore except DFH academic types and we know its impossible to find a job with a history degree, so what good is it?
</snark>
There’s something odd about Cantor’s statement, and it’s the “requiring states to set aside” part.
It might require states to set aside 10% for “transportation enhancement activities”, but those are far broader than “museums, education, and preservation”.
In fact, the eligible activities include:
I have emphasized some of the real targets of this deregulation. He wants to not have set asides for alternative transportation, like bicycles and sidewalks. He wants to protect outdoor advertising. He wants to pave over undiscovered archaeological sites without research or documentation. Finally, he wants to be able to construct roads without preventing sedimentation of streams, measures to prevent road runoff from contaminating wetlands, and preventing the dumping of wastes from highway construction anywhere.
And for what?
“high-priority infrastructure projects”
Freeways and toll road front-end financing.
We can have infrastructure projects as long as they contribute to higher consumption of oil-based products.
Without contributing to stimulating the economy.
Okay. At first reading of his comment, I thought 10% of highway finding was a bit much for the things he described. But if that 10% includes things like attractive sound-walls surrounding freeways, landscaping, bike lanes, etc, then I think it’s appropriate.
I have an odd story that supports his argument though. San Francisco, where I lived for many years, has an explicit requirement that all public construction projects devote either 10% or 15% (can’t remember) of the construction budget to arts at that public building.
Well, they decided they needed to build a new modern jail, which is VERY expensive and that percentage meant many millions needed to be spent on art – at a jail. So they wound up building a wavy looking work-of-art building (artistic architecture) with custom windows (artsy etching/painting of the insides) on all of the exterior and spending millions on the very artsy lobby with way overpriced paintings and sculptures. It was extremely wasteful for a jail but it was a requirement in a city devoted to supporting the arts (which I am normally all for.)
In what way was it wasteful for a jail? The exterior is seen by the public, and the lobby is seen by lawyers and visitors. Most likely the accommodations inside do not rise to the level of a five-star hotel or even a Days Inn—although likely they cost much more to build.
Combatting the NIMBY effect is a big problem in siting detention facilities. And downtown lockups keep getting replaced every decade or so because they were designed as eyesores. Until the era of skyscrapers, public buildings, even jails, were the cathedrals of American architecture and had as much art and decoration as the jurisdiction could afford. Now corporate headquarters are the cathedrals of American (increasingly trans-national) architecture. No one questions why Rockefeller spent so much money to have Diego Rivera paint a mural in Rockefeller Center. No one questions why First Bank of Chicago spent so much money to have a tile sculpture by Marc Chagall on its plaza.
There is a pernicious attitude in our “democratic” society that art and trees and attractive surroundings are not for the little folks.