Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (818928)	11/24/2014 1:33:22 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1584556

Former DOT chief: ‘Our infrastructure is on life support’ 11/24/14 12:50 PM—Updated 11/24/14 01:05 PM By Steve Benen There was an interesting segment on “60 Minutes” last night on one my favorite topics: infrastructure. Steve Kroft told viewers: “Business leaders, labor unions, governors, mayors, congressmen and presidents have complained about a lack of funding for years, but aside from a one-time cash infusion from the stimulus program, nothing much has changed. There is still no consensus on how to solve the problem or where to get the massive amounts of money needed to fix it, just another example of political paralysis in Washington. “Tens of millions of American cross over bridges every day without giving it much thought, unless they hit a pothole. But the infrastructure problem goes much deeper than pavement. It goes to crumbling concrete and corroded steel and the fact that nearly 70,000 bridges in America – one out of every nine – is now considered to be structurally deficient.” Kroft talked to Ray LaHood, the former Republican congressman who served as President Obama’s Secretary of Transportation, who did his part to raise the alarm. “Our infrastructure is on life support right now,” LaHood said. “That’s what we’re on.” He’s right. The United States had a reputation for the finest infrastructure in the world, but as investments drop to their lowest level since 1947, the CBS segment added that we now rank 16th according to the World Economic Forum. It’s the sort of thing that hurts the economy, hurts U.S. competitiveness, and poses potential hazards to the public. The problem includes everything from highways to seaports, runways to railways. We’ve neglected infrastructure, and the more we delay investing, the more expensive the problem becomes to fix. The “60 Minutes” segment was quick to characterize this as “a bipartisan failure,” and in context, there’s some truth to that – the Highway Trust Fund, which plays a central role, has dwindled because no one wants to raise the gas tax that provides the resources for the fund. But in the bigger picture, there’s a clearer way to assess responsibility. David Brooks recently argued that there’s a “completely obvious” way to boost job creation: “The federal government should borrow money at current interest rates to build infrastructure…. The fact that the federal government has not passed major infrastructure legislation is mind-boggling, considering how much support there is from both parties.” Brooks is half-right – that is a “completely obvious” solution that would make an enormous difference, but the problem is that there isn’t support from both parties; there’s only support from one. President Obama has pleaded with congressional Republicans for years to invest in infrastructure, but GOP lawmakers have repeatedly said public investments must be curtailed, regardless of the consequences, because government spending that creates jobs is bad for the economy. Paul Krugman’s piece from a month ago rings true. America used to be a country that built for the future. Sometimes the government built directly: Public projects, from the Erie Canal to the Interstate Highway System, provided the backbone for economic growth. Sometimes it provided incentives to the private sector, like land grants to spur railroad construction. Either way, there was broad support for spending that would make us richer. But nowadays we simply won’t invest, even when the need is obvious and the timing couldn’t be better. And don’t tell me that the problem is “political dysfunction” or some other weasel phrase that diffuses the blame. Our inability to invest doesn’t reflect something wrong with “Washington”; it reflects the destructive ideology that has taken over the Republican Party. We have infrastructure that needs repair. We have the ability to borrow easily and cheaply. We have workers eager to help the nation rebuild. We have the simple realization that the more we wait to address the problems, the more expensive it will be to fix. What we don’t have is a congressional majority willing to make the investments.

To: one_less who wrote (818928)	11/24/2014 2:31:01 PM
From: joseffy	2 Recommendations Recommended By FJB steve harris Respond to of 1584556

Jarrett: Boehner Asked Obama For Help Avoiding Conservatives' Ire ............................................................................................................................................................................ by Caroline May 24 Nov 2014 breitbart.com House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) requested that President Barack Obama avoid making a “very public push” on immigration during the midterm primaries, according to White House Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett. Speaking to the Chicago Sun-Times' Washington Bureau Chief, Lynn Sweet, Jarrett claimed that the Speaker asked Obama to wait until after the primaries to publicly move with the immigration issue. As Sweet notes, the immigration issue during the primaries could have served to make fending off conservative challenges — a la the defeat of Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) at the hands of David Brat, who made immigration an issue in his campaign — more difficult. “Initially (Boehner) encouraged the president to hold off on a very public push until after the primary season of the midterms, and the president did that,” Sweet quoted Jarrett. “And after the primary season, the president said, he called again on the House to pass legislation, and the Speaker didn’t call it up, and the president said he wanted it done by the end of the summer, and the Speaker did not call it up, and then the president decided to wait until the end of the year, and after the election the Speaker made it clear he would not be calling it up,” Jarrett continued. Jarrett reiterated her contention when asked for more detail about Boehner’s request to avoid a “public push”. “He said ‘Look, let’s not make this a part of the mid-term primary campaign, let’s just try to, ‘Give me a little time and space to get this done,’ I think was the broader message the Speaker gave to the president. And so the president did hold off,” Jarrett said. To be sure Jarrett — one of Obama’s closest advisors — is no unbiased narrator in this story. Obama recently announced his long anticipated, controversial executive amnesty and has used the Speaker and House Republicans as the proverbial villains who forced him to act unilaterally on immigration, given their failure to pass the bill he wanted. Many have speculated that Obama’s timing has also been intended to spur further division in GOP. Jarrett’s claim would, however, fit the narrative of the more conservative wing of the party which sees Boehner through a skeptical lens, especially on the issue of immigration. Michael Steel, a spokesman for Boehner, said House passage of the Senate Gang of Eight bill wasn't on the table. "The Speaker told the President that his unilateral actions to alter his healthcare law undermined the American people’s faith that he would implement any law as written. He also made it clear that any action on immigration would be done in a step-by-step, common-sense manner – nothing like the Senate ‘Gang’s’ legislation," Steel said.