Federal Highway Funding

[DGS49]

Well, children, we are looking at a fairly significant increase in the federal gasoline tax, because the revenues for our highways (and other transportation stuff) are just insufficient to pay for the upkeep of our roads and bridges.

But as with many Government problems, it is largely contrived and the solution is as simple as it is obvious.

First, a bit of history.

During the Great Depression, our worthy Congresspersons spent a lot of their effort trying to "bring home the bacon," so to speak. They fought for the construction of roads, bridges, military installations, and other government buildings in their districts, in order to create (mainly) construction jobs that would stimulate the local economy.

But there was a fly in the ointment. Unscrupulous contractors, mainly from The South, would bid these jobs at very low prices, and execute them with low-wage workers brought in from the outside - usually so-called, "Negroes." Thus, the jobs that were created did not benefit the locals, who the Congressperson was trying to benefit.

So they passed a law that required that on all Federal construction projects, the bidding contractors were required to pay the "prevailing wages" in the locality where the construction took place. So the outside contractors could not gain any benefit by bringing in people who were willing to work for less, because they were required to pay the same as local contractors.

Over a short period of time, the Department of Labor decided that the "prevailing wage" would be defined as the local construction union wages, regardless of any actual reality. So if only 5% of the local construction workers were Union and 95% were not, the "prevailing wage" was still the union rate. This is the way it is now.

As a result, every Federal construction project since the 1930's has been bid and priced at inflated wages and, generally speaking, counterproductive union work rules.

It is impossible to say exactly how much money is being wasted due to federal "prevailing wage" practices (most states have analogous laws as well), but it cannot help but be in the tens of billions of dollars every year. The Obama Administration has doubled down on this counterproductive practice by insisting on project labor agreements, thus ensuring that non-union contractors can't successfully get contracts, even if they agree to pay union rates. Nice, huh?

Repeal Davis Bacon. Fire Barry O'Bama.

Problem solved.

 

[Dad2three]

Well, children, we are looking at a fairly significant increase in the federal gasoline tax, because the revenues for our highways (and other transportation stuff) are just insufficient to pay for the upkeep of our roads and bridges.

But as with many Government problems, it is largely contrived and the solution is as simple as it is obvious.

First, a bit of history.

During the Great Depression, our worthy Congresspersons spent a lot of their effort trying to "bring home the bacon," so to speak. They fought for the construction of roads, bridges, military installations, and other government buildings in their districts, in order to create (mainly) construction jobs that would stimulate the local economy.

But there was a fly in the ointment. Unscrupulous contractors, mainly from The South, would bid these jobs at very low prices, and execute them with low-wage workers brought in from the outside - usually so-called, "Negroes." Thus, the jobs that were created did not benefit the locals, who the Congressperson was trying to benefit.

So they passed a law that required that on all Federal construction projects, the bidding contractors were required to pay the "prevailing wages" in the locality where the construction took place. So the outside contractors could not gain any benefit by bringing in people who were willing to work for less, because they were required to pay the same as local contractors.

Over a short period of time, the Department of Labor decided that the "prevailing wage" would be defined as the local construction union wages, regardless of any actual reality. So if only 5% of the local construction workers were Union and 95% were not, the "prevailing wage" was still the union rate. This is the way it is now.

As a result, every Federal construction project since the 1930's has been bid and priced at inflated wages and, generally speaking, counterproductive union work rules.

It is impossible to say exactly how much money is being wasted due to federal "prevailing wage" practices (most states have analogous laws as well), but it cannot help but be in the tens of billions of dollars every year. The Obama Administration has doubled down on this counterproductive practice by insisting on project labor agreements, thus ensuring that non-union contractors can't successfully get contracts, even if they agree to pay union rates. Nice, huh?

Repeal Davis Bacon. Fire Barry O'Bama.

Problem solved.

Conservative race to the bottom, ALWAYS make it more difficulty on those at the bottom!




Corporate interests and their advocates claim that Davis-Bacon increases taxpayer costs, but numerous studies have shown it does not. Employers who oppose prevailing wage, do so because they want to cut workers’ paychecks and pocket the pay-cuts as profits.

In fact, a study of school construction costs in Great Plains states showed that prevailing wage laws not only do not raise construction costs – but also that repealing such laws hurt taxpayers and workers. After Kansas’ prevailing wage law was repealed, wages fell 11 percent, training programs declined 38 percent, jobsite injuries rose 19 percent and employer contributions to pensions fell 17 percent, according to the study prepared for the Kansas Senate.



Highway construction costs are actually higher when workers are paid less, according to an analysis of Federal Highway Administration data by the Construction Labor Research Council. The study showed that the cost to build a mile of highway in high-wage states (averaging $17.65 per hour) compared with low wage states ($9.76 an hour) was, on average, $123,057 per mile less due to higher productivity.

A Wisconsin study (Belman and Voos) of the state’s prevailing wage law showed that potential savings from wage cuts were far outweighed by the loss of income to communities. The annual cost of repealing the law was estimated at $123 million in lost income and a net tax revenue loss of $6.8 million. In Missouri, a similar study (Kelsay) showed a loss to the state of $318 million to $384 million.

Cost overruns are more likely without prevailing wage laws. In Utah, a repeal of the state prevailing wage law was followed by a tripling of cost overruns, which was attributed to lower productivity and a less skilled workforce (Phillips).



Prevailing Wage and Davis Bacon - Laborers' International Union of North America


Project Labor Agreements (PLA)

A project labor agreement is a business model that increases the efficiency and quality of construction projects for the private sector as well as local, state, and federal government(s)

It is a pre hire collective bargaining agreement that establishes the terms and conditions of employment for all workers and their respective crafts on one or more construction project(s).


Used on all types of construction projects such as schools, hospitals, power plants, government buildings, and sports stadiums

Widespread praise and use by Fortune 500 companies such as Walmart, Toyota, and Boeing


Pro Business

Prohibits all strikes or work stoppages by all construction workers on the project

Establishes a single procedure for handling all workforce disputes regardless of the craft

Is an effective tool for ensuring that large and complex projects are completed on time

Provides construction contractors with access to a highly skilled & properly trained workforce

Creates a set wage for each craft and apprentices on the construction project, allowing for accurate budgeting by the business owner and construction contractors on and off the job site

Encourages employment of local residents, in turn ensuring that these workers’ paychecks will be spent in the local community.


Support Davis Bacon and Project Labor Agreements | Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers - Official Website


Jun 04, 2012

(GOP MAJORITY) House Rejects Attempts to Limit Project Labor Agreements, Eliminate Davis-Bacon


House Rejects Attempts to Limit Project Labor Agreements, Eliminate Davis-Bacon

 

[DGS49]

What a great example of pissing on one's shoes and claiming that it is raining.

Paying the workers less results in higher costs? Pull the other one.

Are you REALLY that stupid and gullible?

Let me ax you this: If Union Contractors are more efficient than non-union contractors, then why are the unions so strident in their defense of Davis Bacon? IF THEY ARE MORE EFFICIENT, THEY WILL WIN THE JOBS FAIRLY THROUGH COMPETITIVE BIDDING! They would have nothing to fear from non-union contractors!

But you see they KNOW that they are NOT more efficient and they CAN'T COMPETE without prevailing wage laws.

Have you noticed that in virtually all competitive industries where unions were prevalent the major employers HAVE GONE OUT OF BUSINESS! Or they are limping along sucking the government's teats or just barely surviving (like the integrated steel industry).

Have you noticed that the non-union American auto manufacturers (Honda, Toyota, Nissan, BMW, Mercedes, Subaru, etc) are DOING FINE? Didn't need no fucking bailout??? And their workers make a decent buck as well.

Do you even know what an "overrun" is, you tool? The only way a fixed-price construction contract price increases is as a result of CHANGE ORDERS! You seem to think that if a non-union contractor spends more than he planned, he can just go back to the (government) owner and get more money. What a fucking marooooooon!

Have you noticed that essentially no commercial construction specifications stipulate Union workers or prevailing wages.

I guess they are just too stupid to realize that they are throwing money away by allowing free and competitive bidding for constructing their buildings.

Again I ask: Are you really that stupid?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Do away with federal highway funding. Kick it all back to the states and let them be responsible for maintaining their own roads, highways, and transportation infrastructure. The federal government is not chartered with this responsibility in the Constitution anyway.

 

[Mr Natural]

And in the magical land of Conservatopia, highways and bridges somehow manage to fix themselves.

 

[Mad Scientist]

And in the magical land of Conservatopia, highways and bridges somehow manage to fix themselves.

In the magic land of Libtopia, raising taxes fixes everything!

 

[Dad2three]

What a great example of pissing on one's shoes and claiming that it is raining.

Paying the workers less results in higher costs? Pull the other one.

Are you REALLY that stupid and gullible?

Let me ax you this: If Union Contractors are more efficient than non-union contractors, then why are the unions so strident in their defense of Davis Bacon? IF THEY ARE MORE EFFICIENT, THEY WILL WIN THE JOBS FAIRLY THROUGH COMPETITIVE BIDDING! They would have nothing to fear from non-union contractors!

But you see they KNOW that they are NOT more efficient and they CAN'T COMPETE without prevailing wage laws.

Have you noticed that in virtually all competitive industries where unions were prevalent the major employers HAVE GONE OUT OF BUSINESS! Or they are limping along sucking the government's teats or just barely surviving (like the integrated steel industry).

Have you noticed that the non-union American auto manufacturers (Honda, Toyota, Nissan, BMW, Mercedes, Subaru, etc) are DOING FINE? Didn't need no fucking bailout??? And their workers make a decent buck as well.

Do you even know what an "overrun" is, you tool? The only way a fixed-price construction contract price increases is as a result of CHANGE ORDERS! You seem to think that if a non-union contractor spends more than he planned, he can just go back to the (government) owner and get more money. What a fucking marooooooon!

Have you noticed that essentially no commercial construction specifications stipulate Union workers or prevailing wages.

I guess they are just too stupid to realize that they are throwing money away by allowing free and competitive bidding for constructing their buildings.

Again I ask: Are you really that stupid?

^^^ Are you really that stupid?^^^

Neo-Liberalism/Conservatives is/has destroyed the American Economy in favor of the so called "Job Creator"... In reality are "Job Exporters"...


We have to decide which kind of capitalism we want- plutocratic capitalism where all the money is concentrated in the hands of 1% of the population, leaving the rest in debt or poverty, or democratic capitalism, where economic growth is created by as much of the population as possible

The conservatives have favored plutocratic capitalism, the belief in supply side economics, that the rich are the job creators but those jobs have to pay the smallest wages possible with no benefits in order to increase profits at the top end, that they should receive favorable treatment like low taxation and little oversight and regulation

Liberals favor democratic capitalism, where the profits are created by a consumer middle class who are paid wages that are sufficient, that the wealth of capitalism is spread and passed from hand to hand, that a welfare state is created for the working force so when there is an economic downturn or a personal disaster or emergency that member of the workforce is not expendable and their families will survive, and in their elder years they will have a pension and healthcare, aliviating that burden on their younger family members in the work force

In the last thirty years the conservative view came back into vogue and the results have been a huge jump in the wealth of a few with the deterioration of the middle class

now the conservatives are going for the middle class jugular with their agenda of cutting the social safety net

YEAH, IT'S UNIONS FAULT *SHAKING HEAD*

 

[Dad2three]

And in the magical land of Conservatopia, highways and bridges somehow manage to fix themselves.

In the magic land of Libtopia, raising taxes fixes everything!

CBO: Fed tax rates hit historic low

The average tax rates for American households reached a historical low in 2009, according to a report issued by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.

Indeed, federal taxes for American households averaged 17.4 percent in 2009, a historical low over the 1979 to 2009 period.

WEIRD, WASN'T THAT WHEN THE TP (BIRCHERS) WERE FORMED?


CBO: Fed tax rates hit historic low - Tim Mak - POLITICO.com


Your taxes are really low, in one chart

The average filer saw her effective tax rate drop from 22 percent in 1979 to 18.1 percent in 2010

Your taxes are really low, in one chart - The Washington Post


Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950


Federal, state and local income taxes consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950

Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950 - USATODAY.com

 

[Dad2three]

Do away with federal highway funding. Kick it all back to the states and let them be responsible for maintaining their own roads, highways, and transportation infrastructure. The federal government is not chartered with this responsibility in the Constitution anyway.

JEFFERSON?

"Many of the opposition [to the new Federal Constitution] wish to take from Congress the power of internal taxation. Calculation has convinced me that this would be very mischievous." --Thomas Jefferson


"I approved from the first moment of... the power of taxation [in the new Constitution]. I thought at first that [it] might have been limited. A little reflection soon convinced me it ought not to be." --Thomas Jefferson

"Taxes should be proportioned to what may be annually spared by the individual." --Thomas Jefferson



"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." --Thomas Jefferson
The founders, despite decades of rancorous disagreements about almost every other aspect of their grand experiment, agreed that America would survive and thrive only if there was widespread ownership of land and businesses.

Equality

Thomas Jefferson to James Madison

..."I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. ...Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. "

Equality: Thomas Jefferson to James Madison



George Washington, nine months before his inauguration as the first president, predicted that America "will be the most favorable country of any kind in the world for persons of industry and frugality, possessed of moderate capital, to inhabit." And, he continued, "it will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property."

The second president, John Adams, feared "monopolies of land" would destroy the nation and that a business aristocracy born of inequality would manipulate voters, creating "a system of subordination to all... The capricious will of one or a very few" dominating the rest. Unless constrained, Adams wrote, "the rich and the proud" would wield economic and political power that "will destroy all the equality and liberty, with the consent and acclamations of the people themselves."

James Madison, the Constitution's main author, described inequality as an evil, saying government should prevent "an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches." He favored "the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigents towards a state of comfort."

Alexander Hamilton, who championed manufacturing and banking as the first Treasury secretary, also argued for widespread ownership of assets, warning in 1782 that, "whenever a discretionary power is lodged in any set of men over the property of their neighbors, they will abuse it."

Late in life, Adams, pessimistic about whether the republic would endure, wrote that the goal of the democratic government was not to help the wealthy and powerful but to achieve "the greatest happiness for the greatest number."



http://www.newsweek.com/2014/02/07/why-thomas-jefferson-favored-profit-sharing-245454.html

 

[westwall]

And in the magical land of Conservatopia, highways and bridges somehow manage to fix themselves.

No, the STATE'S should be responsible for the highway infrastructure within their borders.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Do away with federal highway funding. Kick it all back to the states and let them be responsible for maintaining their own roads, highways, and transportation infrastructure. The federal government is not chartered with this responsibility in the Constitution anyway.

JEFFERSON?

"Many of the opposition [to the new Federal Constitution] wish to take from Congress the power of internal taxation. Calculation has convinced me that this would be very mischievous." --Thomas Jefferson


"I approved from the first moment of... the power of taxation [in the new Constitution]. I thought at first that [it] might have been limited. A little reflection soon convinced me it ought not to be." --Thomas Jefferson

"Taxes should be proportioned to what may be annually spared by the individual." --Thomas Jefferson



"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." --Thomas Jefferson
The founders, despite decades of rancorous disagreements about almost every other aspect of their grand experiment, agreed that America would survive and thrive only if there was widespread ownership of land and businesses.

Equality

Thomas Jefferson to James Madison

..."I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. ...Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. "

Equality: Thomas Jefferson to James Madison



George Washington, nine months before his inauguration as the first president, predicted that America "will be the most favorable country of any kind in the world for persons of industry and frugality, possessed of moderate capital, to inhabit." And, he continued, "it will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property."

The second president, John Adams, feared "monopolies of land" would destroy the nation and that a business aristocracy born of inequality would manipulate voters, creating "a system of subordination to all... The capricious will of one or a very few" dominating the rest. Unless constrained, Adams wrote, "the rich and the proud" would wield economic and political power that "will destroy all the equality and liberty, with the consent and acclamations of the people themselves."

James Madison, the Constitution's main author, described inequality as an evil, saying government should prevent "an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches." He favored "the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigents towards a state of comfort."

Alexander Hamilton, who championed manufacturing and banking as the first Treasury secretary, also argued for widespread ownership of assets, warning in 1782 that, "whenever a discretionary power is lodged in any set of men over the property of their neighbors, they will abuse it."

Late in life, Adams, pessimistic about whether the republic would endure, wrote that the goal of the democratic government was not to help the wealthy and powerful but to achieve "the greatest happiness for the greatest number."



http://www.newsweek.com/2014/02/07/why-thomas-jefferson-favored-profit-sharing-245454.html

None of which has the slightest relevancy to what I said, although I imagine you had a point in there somewhere, what ever it may be.

 

[Shanty]

Well, children, we are looking at a fairly significant increase in the federal gasoline tax, because the revenues for our highways (and other transportation stuff) are just insufficient to pay for the upkeep of our roads and bridges.

But as with many Government problems, it is largely contrived and the solution is as simple as it is obvious.

First, a bit of history.

During the Great Depression, our worthy Congresspersons spent a lot of their effort trying to "bring home the bacon," so to speak. They fought for the construction of roads, bridges, military installations, and other government buildings in their districts, in order to create (mainly) construction jobs that would stimulate the local economy.

But there was a fly in the ointment. Unscrupulous contractors, mainly from The South, would bid these jobs at very low prices, and execute them with low-wage workers brought in from the outside - usually so-called, "Negroes." Thus, the jobs that were created did not benefit the locals, who the Congressperson was trying to benefit.

So they passed a law that required that on all Federal construction projects, the bidding contractors were required to pay the "prevailing wages" in the locality where the construction took place. So the outside contractors could not gain any benefit by bringing in people who were willing to work for less, because they were required to pay the same as local contractors.

Over a short period of time, the Department of Labor decided that the "prevailing wage" would be defined as the local construction union wages, regardless of any actual reality. So if only 5% of the local construction workers were Union and 95% were not, the "prevailing wage" was still the union rate. This is the way it is now.

As a result, every Federal construction project since the 1930's has been bid and priced at inflated wages and, generally speaking, counterproductive union work rules.

It is impossible to say exactly how much money is being wasted due to federal "prevailing wage" practices (most states have analogous laws as well), but it cannot help but be in the tens of billions of dollars every year. The Obama Administration has doubled down on this counterproductive practice by insisting on project labor agreements, thus ensuring that non-union contractors can't successfully get contracts, even if they agree to pay union rates. Nice, huh?

Repeal Davis Bacon. Fire Barry O'Bama.

Problem solved.

You don't know the history on Davis-Bacon, nor the benefits of it.

First, the Department of Labor did not decide the prevailing wage was the union labor rate. Nonunion construction companies do that by not filling out the surveys sent to them by the DoL. They often do not do so because they fear that competitors would know how much they are screwing their workers over on nonunion projects that aren't covered by state or Federal PW laws, then have the competitors use that info to undercut them. Labor unions spend the time and money filling out the forms, showing the wages that are negotiated with good contractors are to the DoL, and the PW is based on the aggregate of the surveys. It's not the highest wage, but the wage most commonly found in an area, and the median found.

Second, public projects done under prevailing wage standards cost no more than projects done without them, and often less. It mostly has to do with having and keeping a ready and productive workforce, where the scab contractors can't. Plus, most state and Federal Prevailing Wage projects have rules about hiring minorities and apprentices being on the jobs, and so help to raise living standards.

Without Davis-Bacon and similar state laws, the state becomes a partner for the race to the bottom for wages, with shoddy work being the product.

 

[Dad2three]

And in the magical land of Conservatopia, highways and bridges somehow manage to fix themselves.

No, the STATE'S should be responsible for the highway infrastructure within their borders.

The Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways (commonly known as the Interstate Highway System, Interstate Freeway System, Interstate System, or simply the Interstate) is a network of freeways that forms a part of the National Highway System of the United States. The system is named for President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who championed its formation. Construction was authorized by the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956, and the original portion was completed 35 years later. The network has since been extended, and as of 2012, it had a total length of 47,714 miles

Interstate Highway System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Dad2three]

Do away with federal highway funding. Kick it all back to the states and let them be responsible for maintaining their own roads, highways, and transportation infrastructure. The federal government is not chartered with this responsibility in the Constitution anyway.

JEFFERSON?

"Many of the opposition [to the new Federal Constitution] wish to take from Congress the power of internal taxation. Calculation has convinced me that this would be very mischievous." --Thomas Jefferson


"I approved from the first moment of... the power of taxation [in the new Constitution]. I thought at first that [it] might have been limited. A little reflection soon convinced me it ought not to be." --Thomas Jefferson

"Taxes should be proportioned to what may be annually spared by the individual." --Thomas Jefferson



"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." --Thomas Jefferson
The founders, despite decades of rancorous disagreements about almost every other aspect of their grand experiment, agreed that America would survive and thrive only if there was widespread ownership of land and businesses.

Equality

Thomas Jefferson to James Madison

..."I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. ...Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. "

Equality: Thomas Jefferson to James Madison



George Washington, nine months before his inauguration as the first president, predicted that America "will be the most favorable country of any kind in the world for persons of industry and frugality, possessed of moderate capital, to inhabit." And, he continued, "it will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property."

The second president, John Adams, feared "monopolies of land" would destroy the nation and that a business aristocracy born of inequality would manipulate voters, creating "a system of subordination to all... The capricious will of one or a very few" dominating the rest. Unless constrained, Adams wrote, "the rich and the proud" would wield economic and political power that "will destroy all the equality and liberty, with the consent and acclamations of the people themselves."

James Madison, the Constitution's main author, described inequality as an evil, saying government should prevent "an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches." He favored "the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigents towards a state of comfort."

Alexander Hamilton, who championed manufacturing and banking as the first Treasury secretary, also argued for widespread ownership of assets, warning in 1782 that, "whenever a discretionary power is lodged in any set of men over the property of their neighbors, they will abuse it."

Late in life, Adams, pessimistic about whether the republic would endure, wrote that the goal of the democratic government was not to help the wealthy and powerful but to achieve "the greatest happiness for the greatest number."



http://www.newsweek.com/2014/02/07/why-thomas-jefferson-favored-profit-sharing-245454.html

None of which has the slightest relevancy to what I said, although I imagine you had a point in there somewhere, what ever it may be.

Got it, so your tag line means bullshit

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Got it, so your tag line means bullshit

That's not the topic of this discussion. If you want to talk about Calvin Coolidge then start your own thread. Don't hijack this one, troll.

 

[Crystalclear]

Just let states or the private sector take over the highways.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The fact is folks that between federal and state gasoline, diesel, tolls, and excise taxes as well as mileage fees for commercial trucks we collected over 100 billion dollars in 2013 alone.

So don't try to tell me we don't have enough money to fix our roads. Instead tell me where all the money is going.

 

[Warrior102]

Do away with federal highway funding. Kick it all back to the states and let them be responsible for maintaining their own roads, highways, and transportation infrastructure. The federal government is not chartered with this responsibility in the Constitution anyway.

Federal Highway Funding is the pot of money that is divvied up to the states. That's exactly what's going away - the Federal funding. Once that's gone - you think road workers are sitting around with their thumbs up their ass now?

Where's Obama during all this?

Dithering on a fucking golf course somewhere.

 

[whitehall]

Government funded projects do not grow the economy. They shift confiscated funds from one segment of society to another segment. Anyone who has traveled through Pa and MD along Interstate 81 and 78 is well aware that highway and bridge construction is ongoing and seemingly never ending.

 

[DGS49]

Actually, it is possible to make a credible argument that the Congress funding the interstate highway system through gas taxes is actually Constitutional, unlike the Dept of Education, NPR, and so on.

The fear that non-union contractors would result in lower-quality construction is groundless. Specifications are specifications. All work is documented and inspected, and not accepted by the Government until the work is done properly and all paperwork is complete.

Again, if union contractors can do the work at the lowest overall cost (which is the claim) then Davis Bacon could be repealed and it would have no effect on union contractors. The fact that they fight like crazy to keep it is proof that even the unions don't believe this malarky.

99% of federal construction work is done on a firm-fixed price basis, and via competitive bids. There is no reason on God's green earth why the Government even needs to know what anyone is making, what their benefits are, or anything else.

Residential construction throughout the U.S. is almost ALL done by non-union labor, because it is cheaper and more efficient.

Davis Bacon is yet another example of elected officials stealing money from the general public (the taxpayers) in order to dole it out to selected political "favorites."