US Transportation Secretary Endorses Anti-Car Agenda

The Newspaper
by The Newspaper

At a National Press Club speech intended to promote the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) stimulus spending initiatives, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood explained how his policies are designed to discourage the ownership and use of automobiles. Although many imagine road building when “shovel-ready” projects are mentioned, the only efforts highlighted by LaHood as worthy of receiving federal taxpayer subsidy included buses, light rail and other forms of multi-modal transit. “We have $8 billion,” LaHood said. “You’re going to see new buses; you’re going to see ability of transit districts to really have the equipment . . . And we’ll begin at DOT to set a standard for our ability to get out of the recession, get people back to work in good-paying jobs.” LaHood says some of those federally funded jobs involve driving buses.

“Well, I’ve said that I’m open-minded about transit districts being able to use some of their money for operating,” LaHood said. “I think it’s a little bit silly to provide all of this money to transit districts to buy new buses if you can’t afford to have drivers and employees to use the equipment. And in these hard times, it is difficult sometimes for transit districts to have the operating money.”

LaHood insisted that he wanted to “think outside of the box” when searching for a source of operating money for the buses and the bus drivers. Imposing tolls on new and existing roads using the infrastructure bank endorsed by President Obama was at the top of the secretary’s list of revenue-raising initiatives.

“Well, now is not a very good time to be talking about raising taxes,” LaHood said. “Infrastructure bank is one thing we’re thinking about. We’re thinking about tolling . . . We need to find ways—other ways to do it—perhaps even public-private partnerships that have been used around the country very effectively.”

When asked whether this included a per-mile satellite-based tax, LaHood side-stepped the issue with a joke. The Transportation Secretary admitted that the new fees and regulations are designed to make driving less attractive. He suggested the only opposition to this policy is found in a recent Newsweek column in which George Will dubbed LaHood the “Secretary of Behavior Modification” for his plan to “transform” Americans out of their cars.

Notwithstanding the fact that George Will doesn’t like this idea—the idea of creating opportunities for people to get out of their cars—we’re working with the secretary of HUD, Shaun Donovan, on opportunities for housing, walking paths, biking paths . . . And that concept of livable communities is something that we’re going to promote and work with the committee on, because we think it’s the way forward. It’s the way to get people more opportunities, rather than just in their automobiles.

Much of these new opportunities will be paid for by diverting gas tax revenue paid by motorists into general funds that will cover the non-road related expenses. Already, such diversions amount to billions of dollars. In 2003, $18 billion in gas tax dollars were funneled into unrelated projects at the federal level, on top of the $9 billion diverted at the state and local level. LaHood explained his fundamental purpose in response to press questions seeking clarification.

“It is a way to coerce people out of their cars, yeah. Look, people don’t like spending an hour and a half getting to work. And people don’t like spending an hour going to the grocery store. And all of you who live around here know exactly what I’m talking about . . . About everything we do around here is government intrusion in people’s lives.”

The Newspaper
The Newspaper

More by The Newspaper

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 72 comments
  • Geeber Geeber on May 29, 2009
    agenthex: No, there’s absolutely no outside evident to support their point of view. It’s all internally generated in the conservative movement that was hatched and then abandon by the main party a while back, right after open racism was no longer consider a populist enough primary stance for the party. You'll have more credibility if you stop referring to the conservatives that exist largely your imagination. You have complained - with justification - about caricatures of liberal views and President Obama's actions regarding the automobile industry. I would suggest not engaging in the same sins yourself. agenthex: Notice the absolutely appalling logic. Notice that you didn't read the entire thread before making a comment, which makes you look completely clueless. Let's review here - dex3703 made the comment that cars are making us unhealthier. One measure of health is life expectancy. (Healthier people tend to live longer.) One would conclude that we would die earlier if we were really unhealthier. This is not happening, based on life expectancies compared to years before people used cars on a widespread basis. agenthex: I guess by independent thinking you must mean outside the usual bounds of logic. If you don't can't counter the point, just admit it and, as one group on your side of the ideological aisle says, "move on." agenthex: And now the bigotry bubbles to the surface after all else fails. As someone once said, charges of bigotry are dragged out when the liberal is losing the argument. Thank you for proving that point nicely. Apparently bigotry now means pointing out the facts - that illegal immigrants present a public health challenge for the U.S. (I don't know how old you are agenthex, but the same charges of bigotry were dragged out whenever anyone noticed that minorities were more likely to commit crimes in urban areas in the 1960s and 1970s. Eventually, the facts became too obvious for all but the dumbest of leftists to ignore, as even the Reverend Jesse Jackson and others were forced to admit the truth. We can only hope and pray that you will admit the obvious regarding the challenges presented by illegal aliens around 2020.) If you can't accept this, I would suggest keeping quiet and leaving the discussion to those who are better informed. agenthex: Is there anything conservatives can’t blame on brown people? Is there any time a liberal won't bring out the tired charges of racism and bigotry to cover for ignorance or not wanting to the face the facts? In your case, apparently, not. A sugestion here, agenthex - I would suggest losing the snark and stop calling people "morons" (as you did in the other thread to another poster), because you don't know as much as you think you do. You can start by learning something about the auto industry, so you will stop believing, for example, that pairing Chrysler with Fiat will produce a viable company, given that Europeans aren't lining up to buy most Fiats. What's next on your agenda to bring back Chrysler - reviving DeSoto?
  • U mad scientist U mad scientist on May 29, 2009
    You’ll have more credibility if you stop referring to the conservatives that exist largely your imagination. Unfortunately for your argument, my imagination is incredibly accurate. If you don't fit the stereotype, you would be the first one ever, and I would congratulate you on being the first ever. - This is not happening, based on life expectancies compared to years before people used cars on a widespread basis. See, this is where your basic understanding of scientific logic fails again. You would have a point if car usage were the ONLY variable in play, and clearly this is not the case. If you don't already understand simple principles like this, it becomes pretty clear that just about everything else you base your worldview is similarly irrational. - If you don’t can’t counter the point, just admit it and, as one group on your side of the ideological aisle says, “move on.” I just want to note that I never dodge points because I never make them unless I can humiliate possible counter-points. The only challenge is to do so in a possibly amusing way. I believe we've been through this before where you make this accusation and then are unable to produce any evidence of it when pushed. History repeats itself. - As someone once said, charges of bigotry are dragged out when the liberal is losing the argument. Thank you for proving that point nicely. Apparently bigotry now means pointing out the facts - that illegal immigrants present a public health challenge for the U.S. No, I believe the record of posts above quite clearly show you were the one to bring this up. A great portion of traditionalist's phobias reflect back to scapegoating outside, often minority, groups (Jews/Blacks, now Mexicans/Muslims/gays or really anybody "different"). The black welfare queen I guess turned into the illegal mexican, both overblown caricatures to rile up the base. -- A sugestion here, agenthex - I would suggest losing the snark and stop calling people “morons” (as you did in the other thread to another poster), because you don’t know as much as you think you do. Here's the real difference. I know exactly how much I know, and the vast world of knowledge out there I don't. In fact I know exactly how much you know and don't. This is why I always win these little silly debates.
  • MaintenanceCosts It's not a Benz or a Jag / it's a 5-0 with a rag /And I don't wanna brag / but I could never be stag
  • 3-On-The-Tree Son has a 2016 Mustang GT 5.0 and I have a 2009 C6 Corvette LS3 6spd. And on paper they are pretty close.
  • 3-On-The-Tree Same as the Land Cruiser, emissions. I have a 1985 FJ60 Land Cruiser and it’s a beast off-roading.
  • CanadaCraig I would like for this anniversary special to be a bare-bones Plain-Jane model offered in Dynasty Green and Vintage Burgundy.
  • ToolGuy Ford is good at drifting all right... 😉
Next