Despite Vow That ‘Pork-Barrel Era Is Over,’ Obama Proposes $700 Billion Public Works Project

Tuesday, December 09, 2008
By Tiffany Gabbay

Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, holding a copy of the proposed public works plan, at U.S. Capitol, Dec. 8, 2008. (AP photo)

http://cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=40500

(CNSNEWS.com) - President-elect Obama, who vowed on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday to eliminate pork barrel spending in Congress, is himself proposing a massive stimulus program that would toss money to cities across the country for “public works” construction projects -- and increase the federal deficit by an estimated $2 trillion.

"You know, the days of just pork coming out of Congress as a strategy, those days are over," Obama said Sunday during the interview.

Nevertheless, in light of the worsening economy and steadily increasing unemployment rate, the president-elect is proposing what he calls "the largest public works program in history" as part of a larger package -- up to $700 billion to be spent on public works projects. The intent is to inject cash into various U.S. cities for infrastructure projects and other “job creating” programs.

On Capitol Hill Monday, mayors from major metropolitan areas -- including Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Akron Mayor Don Plusquellic -- met with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), to lobby for their "slice of the pie."

The mayors requested that the stimulus funds be directly allocated to the cities rather than to states – to reduce the “waiting time” and “red tape” associated with starting infrastructure programs such as widening roads, repairing bridges and replacing sewer systems.

"As mayors, we know that by investing in ‘Main Street’ metropolitan economies, which comprise 90 percent of our gross domestic product and drive the national economy, we have the most direct path to creating the jobs and stimulating the business that can begin to reverse the current economic downturn,” Plusquellic said. “This program would help Akron greatly."

Mark Williamson, a spokesman for the Akron mayor, told CNSNews.com that his city wants funds for some 230 infrastructure projects ranging in cost from $40,000 to $15 million -- and said the costs associated are a mere “drop in the bucket” when compared to the cost of the Iraq war.

Williamson said that it “would have been valuable” if even a small portion of the money that was spent rebuilding Iraq was instead spent on rebuilding neglected cities here at home.

“These are our cities,” Williamson stated. He went on to explain that Akron is only requesting the “basic” necessities such as road repairs, school construction and police – the “things that have gone neglected for too long.”

But conservative critics and economists argue that this level of government intervention will harm the economy in the long-run by adding to the already large federal deficit, leaving the financial burden to be absorbed by future generations.

When CNSNews.com asked how, in a severe economic downturn, the mayors have the temerity to seek financial assistance they should have sought in better funancial times, Williamson explained that his boss has “been fighting for infrastructure funds for years” -- in an effort to stave off tragedies like the 2007 Minneapolis bridge collapse, in which 13 people were killed and 145 injured.

Williamson also claimed that the new projects will boost the economy by creating jobs, causing a “trickle down effect.”

In addition to what Obama referred to on “Meet the Press” as “the largest” infrastructure and public works construction project in history, other parts of the proposed economic stimulus package would be spent on creating and installing energy efficient products and school construction.

Proponents of the stimulus program, meanwhile, liken the public works project to Eisenhower’s successful National Interstate and Defense Highways Highway Act of 1956 – an act that built 41,000 miles of interstate highway over a 20 year period across the country, while the federal government incurred 90 percent of its $25 billion cost.

Environmentalists Say Big Three are Blocking States from Imposing 'Clean Car' Standards

Monday, December 08, 2008
By Tiffany Gabbay

Nissan electric car being test-driven. (AP photo)

http://cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=40424

(CNSNews.com) – Environmental groups say consumers want to buy cars that get 50 miles per gallon and they want electric vehicles – but Big Three automakers don’t want to have to produce them.

When asked why the Big Three – Ford, GM and Chrysler LLC -- should be forced to make cars that the automakers say there is no demand for, Mike Tidwell of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network claimed that the market actually wants environment-friendly vehicles.

“Detroit claims that consumers don’t want these vehicles, while every day Detroit pays thousands of dollars to lobbyists to stop any kind of passage of higher gas mileage standards that would lead to hybrid cars, while it sues states that try to go on their own,” Tidwell told CNSNews.com.

“For Detroit to say that consumers don’t want it (fuel efficient cars) while simultaneously trying to stop state houses and Congress from improving standards is a circular and duplicitous argument,” he added.

Tidwell’s group, along with the Global Exchange and California Cars Initiative, called on Congress Friday to require automakers to commit to meet fleet-wide fuel economy standards of 50 miles per gallon (MPG) by 2015 and to produce 500,000 Plug-In Electric Vehicles (PHEV) by 2012, and 3 million by 2015 – before any bailout money is made available.

The groups circled the U.S. Capitol with 25 Japanese electric and hybrid cars as part of a pro-fuel-efficient vehicles demonstration.

The demonstration took place while the Big Three CEOs testified a second time before Congress to plead their case for a $35 billion bailout.

The environmental groups demanded that the automakers, as part of any bailout, agree to end legal action against “clean car” state laws in California and 14 other states.

The laws would require automakers to make significant reduction in the greenhouse gas emissions of cars and light trucks sold in those states, Tidwell said.

“Why is it that Detroit wants our tax dollars but is suing the states that are trying to make cleaner cars?” Tidwell asked.

The environmental groups claim the Detroit automakers have been suing “clean car states” in an effort to skirt the laws in place that they manufacture more fuel efficient vehicles.

When asked why all of the vehicles in the demonstration were Japanese, Tidwell explained that only Japanese automakers are manufacturing cars that get 50 mpg and that American cars have not yet come close to matching that.

Tidwell told CNSNews.com “The best Detroit car only gets 34 mpg.”

“The problem,” he added, “is that I would rather buy a Ford car that gets 50 mpg so I can support an American company.”

When asked if American automakers lacked the same technology used in Japan to manufacture such fuel efficient vehicles Tidwell said that American automakers have “chosen” their path to fall behind in technology and “lease their hybrid technology from Japan.”

He went on to explain that the Big Three had “created their own problem” by not investing in fuel-efficient technologies.

Tidwell, who said the bailout “might make sense” because he “does not want to see” any auto employees lose their jobs -- explained that the groups don’t feel their conditions are unreasonable, in exchange for what he called a “$35 billion taxpayer gift.”

“Is that an insurmountable condition?” he asked. “I don’t think it is.”

Tidwell, who claims that the corporate culture in Detroit, especially at GM, is one that dismisses climate change and energy security as “real concerns” said that if Detroit would “stop suing” then consumers would “get their hands on the hybrids sooner and they would see the demand they claim is not there.”

When asked if environmentalists were placing demands on the Big Three to produce vehicles that perhaps they cannot afford to manufacture now given their financial woes, Tidwell told CNSNews.com that if Detroit produced 50 mpg vehicles --“We’ll buy them.”

Commission Recommends U.S. Use ‘Direct Force’--If Needed--to Stop Iran, N. Korea Nuke Programs

Thursday, December 04, 2008
by Tiffany Gabbay

(AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Washington (CNSNews.com) – A bipartisan commission appointed by Congress is warning the incoming Obama administration that it must not rule out the use of “direct force” – military action – against Iran and North Korea, if diplomatic negotiations fail to stop their nuclear weapons programs.

At a news conference Wednesday, CNSNews.com asked the commission’s chairman, former Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), if the panel was recommending that the U.S. take “military action” against Iran and North Korea, if negotiations and other tactics fail.

“We cannot omit from our range of options the use of direct force if other means are unsuccessful,” Graham said.

The Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) Proliferation and Terrorism report contains a series of recommendations to the incoming Obama administration on how to deal with the threat of weapons of mass destruction.

As one of its recommendations, the commission recommends that, as a top priority, “the next administration must stop the Iranian and North Korean nuclear weapons programs.”

The commission was explicit in its language.

“In the case of Iran, this requires the permanent cessation of all of Iran’s nuclear weapons-related efforts,” the commissioners wrote. “In the case of North Korea, this requires the complete abandonment and dismantlement of all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs.”

The bipartisan panel of former congressmen and experts warned President-elect Obama, however, in no uncertain terms:

“If, as appears likely, the next administration seeks to stop these programs through direct diplomatic engagement with the Iranian and North Korean governments, it must do so from a position of strength, emphasizing both the benefits to them of abandoning their nuclear weapons programs and the enormous costs of failing to do so,” the authors wrote. “Such engagement must be backed by the credible threat of direct action in the event that diplomacy fails.”

“This is a very serious issue,” Graham said, “not only by potentially increasing the nuclear capability of North Korea, adding Iran to one of the nuclear weapons states in the world would become extremely destabilizing to their (respective) regions.”

Graham explained that if North Korea, for instance, continues to add to its “stockpile” then the pressure on South Korea and Japan would weigh heavily, making it very difficult for them to resist responding.

He also said that if Iran acquired nuclear weapons then “Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other countries are going to be under pressure to match Iran’s (nuclear) capabilities.”

“The administration must give these issues the priorities they deserve,” Graham added.

The commission’s sobering report -- "World at Risk" -- goes beyond taking steps to prevent Iran and North Korea from possessing uranium-enrichment or plutonium-reprocessing capabilities.

Former Sen. Jim Talent (R-Mo.), the commission’s co-chairman, said that the “bipartisan, in fact nonpartisan” panel had spent more than six months assessing the risk of terrorist use of weapons of mass destruction, and its “most important” finding is that the risk is growing – not because we have not made progress, but because our enemies have adapted to the changing environment.

Talent warned that the threat of biological weapons outweighs that of nuclear devices because biological weapons are easier to manufacture and duplicate.

Graham said that, based on 250 interviews with academics, scientists, the military and politicians, one conclusion was unanimous: “WMDs will be used somewhere by 2013.”

The commission was established in 2007 as a direct response to the 9/11 Commission warning that “the greatest danger of another catastrophic attack in the United States will materialize if the world’s most dangerous terrorists acquire the world’s most dangerous weapons.”