Bridges Too Far

Anybody who drives - I'm guessing most of the people reading this - is probably receptive to the meme of "our nation's infrastructure is crumbling". Yet, though billions of dollars are spent annually between all levels of government as soon as one thing gets fixed or improved, another starts falling apart. What's the real story of America's infrastructure? Frankly it's us, the taxpayers, getting screwed.

A couple of weeks ago, a story in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette by Jon Schmitz, "Pennsylvania bridges better, but still need work", caught my eye. The article mentions how in the last three years the number of "structurally deficient" bridges in Pennsylvania has dropped by 1,100. Before you breathe easy, that still leaves about 4,500 in the Commonwealth that need some TLC ("structurally deficient...does not mean they are unsafe but that they are showing signs of deterioration that, if unaddressed, could lead to weight limits or closings").

Later in the article, Mr. Schmitz points out that one of the most important bridges in the Pittsburgh area is on the needy list:

One of the biggest bridges on the deficient list, the Liberty Bridge in Downtown Pittsburgh, is in need of rehabilitation that will cost an estimated $40 million to $60 million, he said. Final design of the project is expected to begin this year but construction funding is not yet available. More than 16,500 vehicles use the bridge on an average day. 

The bridge superstructure is marred with patches of rust and there are areas of corrosion and deterioration in the steel, but Mr. [Dan] Cessna said the span is safe. It is currently undergoing an in-depth inspection. 

The best-case scenario has rehabilitation starting in 2015 if funding becomes available. The department will make interim repairs as necessary until then, Mr. Cessna said.

Dan Cessna is the executive of Pennsylvania Department of Transportation District 11, comprising Allegheny, Beaver, and Lawrence counties. Everybody in Pittsburgh knows the Liberty Bridge, the tunnels that join the bridge to pass under Mount Washington, the lengthy traffic jams during rush hours on both, and what a complete pig's breakfast transportation around here would be if the bridge failed or had to be closed for safety reasons. $40-60 million seems like a bargain to keep the bridge safe and sound. But is it?

Running on the Third Rail

It is past time conservatives start running their campaigns with a "third rail" issue - the supposed politically untouchable - as a centerpiece. We're all fully knowledgeable that government spending is fraught with waste, fraud, and abuse. Our spending levels on government programs that are nothing but wealth redistribution whose costs far outweigh the value received and are completely unsustainable as we saddle future generations with more and more debt.

"Wait!", I hear you say, "Aren't conservatives already fully on board with entitlement spending reform?" Of course they are, for the most part. That isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about defense spending.

That's right, defense spending. If conservatives are going to truly and honestly stand for fiscal sanity and to win spending arguments in the future, fiscal policy proposals and narratives are going to have to include not just touching a third-rail of conservatism, but seizing it enthusiastically.

Our nation deserves it, our children who are being saddled with more and more debt deserve it, and most importantly, the brave men and women who wear the uniform of our Armed Services deserve the best of each and every dollar we give them to defend us with.

Mr. Boehner, Please Read the Constitution

Presumptive Speaker of the House John Boehner has suggested that the first thing Congress should do to save the taxpayers' money is to cut the salaries of the Congress.

Admirable thought.

Too bad it's unconstitutional. To quote the 27th Amendment:

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

In plain language, that means that for the remainder of the 111th Congress and the entirety of the 112th to come, our Congress can only vary the salaries of the 113th Congress, who won't be elected until 2012 and take office in January, 2013.

It says "varying" - not "raising" or "lowering".

The 27th Amendment is one of my favorites - certainly for its content - but also for its ratification history. The amendment was one of the original twelve proposed by the First Congress, ten of which became what we know as the Bill of Rights.

It was adopted by the Congress on September 25, 1789. It became part of the supreme law of the land on May 18, 1992. 202+ years to get the requisite three-fourths of the states to ratify!

I'll have more to say about the 27th Amendment after I do some research on the case where it was adjudicated. The case happens to be...Boehner v. Anderson!