Back to the financial debate


Saw this article in the NYT today on Road and Rail Spending Proposals Stall as Lawmakers Punt on Revenue Fix

Off the Hill, however, most transportation experts agree you cannot address the nation’s infrastructure without a new revenue source.

As some contended on this post (and this one on funding) this quotation is proof that addressing the “financial infrastructure” is a critical part of this year’s topic. I agree – however, I think it’s for the negative rather than the affirmative =)

But with very few exceptions, politicians have been loath to even suggest raising taxes or imposing other user fees during the current economic recession. And many in the transportation community are warning that any reform efforts — including attempts to cut greenhouse gas emissions — will fail if Washington does not find the political courage to tell Americans that they will have to foot the bill.

To me this is a perfect generic negative solvency argument against any case… but we’ve had that debate so I don’t want to rehash that topic but thought I’d point out this article so everyone can cut some good evidence either way you see this issue! We’ll see how it plays out in rounds!

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader.


Seems to me that the first sentence quoted here indicates the nexus between transportation infrastructure reform as a concept and new revenue sources. Ergo, I would find this quotation to be persuasive for the proposition that any new means of financing transportation planning, construction, and maintenance is topical. This would, of course, be subject to coun terargument, but that is what debate is about.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.