Greggy_D

Mon, Dec 20, 2010 : 11:11 p.m.

I never said it was trivial, 1bit. I was simply pointing out that your statement "The biggest contributor to the debt over the past decade have been two concurrent wars" was incorrect. With regard to the wars not being over.....our POTUS could end them at any time.

Greggy_D

Mon, Dec 20, 2010 : 6:53 p.m.

" The biggest contributor to the debt over the past decade have been two concurrent wars." That is simply not true. The cost of both wars stands at $1.1 trillion dollars, spread over 9 years.

maallen

Mon, Dec 20, 2010 : 2:17 p.m.

@ Edward's Ghost "Yes, because Republicans have proven so adept at controlling the deficit, the national debt having risen from $5.4 Trillion to $12 Trillion under Bush II." Knew it was just a matter of time before someone would bring this up. Bush II was sworn into office in January of 2001 and at the end of Fiscal year 2001 debt was at $5.8 trillion. And then when he left office at the end of 2008, it was at $10 trillion. So that is a $4.2 trillion increase over 8 years. Keep in mind, Bush inherited the budget in his first year of presidency, much like Obama did in his, but to compare apples to apples, we must include Obama's first year like Bush's first year. So in that case, Obama took that $10 trillion to $13.5 trillion at the end of fiscal year 2010. A $3.5 trillion increase in two years! It took Obama just two years to increase the amount of our debt the same amount that it took Bush in 8 years! Once again, when the democrats controlled the purse strings the debt rose dramatically under their watch! From 2006 to 2010 it went from $8.5 trillion to $13.5 trillion! Good night!

Greggy_D

Mon, Dec 20, 2010 : 1:50 p.m.

Ghost said : "TW, completely unnoticed by those concerned about the debt/deficit is the fact that the first Obama budget cut the deficit by $300 billion, or by about 15%." Really? YearGDP-US $ billion 20009951.5-236.24 200110286.2-128.24 200210642.3157.75 200311142.1377.59 200411867.8412.73 200512638.4318.34 200613398.9248.19 200714077.6160.94 200814441.4458.55 200914258.21412.68 Gross debt: 2000 5,628.7 2001 5,769.9 2002 6,198.4 2003 6,760.0 2004 7,354.7 2005 7,905.3 2006 8,451.4 2007 8,950.7 2008 9,985.8 2009 12,311.4 2010 13,848.0 http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/Summary.shtml The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that if current laws and policies remained unchanged, the federal budget would show a deficit of about $1.3 trillion for fiscal year 2010 (see Summary Table 1). At 9.2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), that deficit would be slightly smaller than the shortfall of 9.9 percent of GDP ($1.4 trillion) posted in 2009. Last years deficit was the largest as a share of GDP since the end of World War II, and the deficit expected for 2010 would be the second largest. Moreover, if legislation is enacted in the next several months that either boosts spending or reduces revenues, the 2010 deficit could equal or exceed last years shortfall.

Diagenes

Mon, Dec 20, 2010 : 8:38 a.m.

Dear Liberals, You have run out of other peoples money and it is now time to pay for things yourself. I know self sufficiency is a novel concept, but it is really the best way to get what you want and need. The defeat of the omnibus spending bill proposed by Democrat Senator Harry Reid is a message to the people that Uncle Sam is bancrupt and will no longer borrow money to pay for things that each community should pay for itself. If a project has merit and is a LEGITIMATE function of the Federal Government (which the Stadium bridge is not) it should be proposed in conference, debated, and voted on in public not slipped into a thousand plus page bill without review.

AnnArBo

Sun, Dec 19, 2010 : 1:38 p.m.

Our federal government is a disaster. They do not have a budget for the upcoming year, so now they "spin" that keeping tax rates the same as they have been for the last nine years as a "cost" to the government. What a joke, these guys spend money they don't have, then create a panic that divides the country over who should pay for their bloated programs, rather than holding congress accountable. These guys are so focused on pushing ideology, that they are willing to start class warfare so everyone can pick sides and blame each other rather than the congress for failing to address our countries business. Everything ends up being a last minute panic bailout or the whole system will crash attitude. When will we wake up and hold our representatives responsible for running the country in a fiscally responsible way, without blaming a certain segment of the population for our problems.

beuwolf

Sun, Dec 19, 2010 : 11:03 a.m.

We have met the porcine enemy, and he is us.

Awakened

Sun, Dec 19, 2010 : 10:56 a.m.

I personally share the outrage that the Federal government won't borrow money from China to pay for Ann Arbor's bridges!

zip the cat

Sat, Dec 18, 2010 : 8:32 p.m.

Who cares if they ever build a new bridge. I avoid driving in A2 like the plague Too many moron drivers,and I've never seen a DPW that hasent the fogiest idea how to plow snow. Its scrape first then salt when you have 4 plus inches of snow,not salt first then scrape,then salt again,and again on and on. No wonder they run short on salt in A2.

jcj

Sat, Dec 18, 2010 : 3:03 p.m.

If this bridge were in Lima township it would have been condemned years ago with barricades across the road! Put a $2 a ticket tax on the U of M games and get started! Like I have said in the past once an official is elected to any office they loose brain cells! I don't care which side of the fence they are on. There are very few exceptions to this rule.

Raggety Andy

Sat, Dec 18, 2010 : 2:58 p.m.

It's still cool to colonize Iraq and Afghanistan for 378 million dollars a day. Gotta love the priorities and values that represents...

Soothslayer

Sat, Dec 18, 2010 : 1:53 p.m.

How bout we stop funding roads as much and divert resources toward more sustainable mass transit in & around cities and between? Oh right, that won't help. In the heyday the "Big 3" made sure that gas was cheap, roads to nowhere were funded, mass transit projects were buried and uncontrolled sprawl encouraged everyone to drive 50 mile (one way) commutes so they could build houses in rural productive farmlands. The only way to "fix" the short sighted and un-sustainable road maintenance issue we gleefully brought on ourselves is by a complete tear-down & redo of the cities & suburbia in Michigan (and likely the entire corn fed midwest). With budget shortfalls and massive debt across all government agencies there is no solution to this problem now or decades into the future. Enjoy your precious "freedom" that the amazing automotive age has wrought upon us (over crappy roads turned to gravel from pavement and crumbling bridges).

annarbor28

Sat, Dec 18, 2010 : 1:04 p.m.

condemn the bridge and the city government will finally find a way to fix it for the cheapest safest way available, in a crisis mode. Adjust costs downward due to the economy. Charge tolls. Don't wait for a Minneapolis-like disaster.

clownfish

Sat, Dec 18, 2010 : 11:48 a.m.

I remember a time when so many patriots stood out in the cold and held signs that proclaimed "I support my president!". Those patriots supported the wars overseas, wars that still have no end in budget needs. Those people supported the building of bridges, hospitals, schools, rail lines, police stations and a huge embassy. They also supported the lack of oversight of the spending of taxpayer money on these projects. I suspect, but cannot prove on these anonymous pages, that many of those same patriots are now the ones whining the most about tax payer money being spent on local projects. I also suspect that those people have offered zero sacrifice on their part for their communities, no new taxes, no return to the tax levels we had under Clinton (when we had positive economic growth. So, is it better to whine and cry, or to suck it up and do your part? As a certain Griz likes to propagandize...Man Up! What can YOU do for YOUR country/city/county?

Jim Osborn

Sat, Dec 18, 2010 : 11:17 a.m.

@Ghost is correct to mention "facts" He said, "This $18 million bridge project would consume 20% of the city's budget.", ignoring that it can be paid for over many years, consuming only about 2% of the city's budget each year. If only the removal part is done, then even less. They do get a share of gas tax money, but choose to spend it on bicycle lanes and traffic circles instead. Its all about priorities. Why does Ghost think that Ann Arbor "needs help" to pay for a 3 million dollar project, especially if it is paid for over 30 years via a muni bond? Attitudes like that have helped dig our fiscal hole.

ERIC MEYERS

Sat, Dec 18, 2010 : 11:11 a.m.

I am glad THE MOST LIBERAL CITY In the country lost out.face it people the city can't keep sidewalks and roads safe and maintained. Why does the city need to build more they can't or won't maintain.

Jim Osborn

Sat, Dec 18, 2010 : 10:28 a.m.

If this becomes a locally funded project, as it should, we can start looking at ways to cut costs, something that does not happen when a rich uncle is footing the bill. Have you no local pride? Besides questioning if we need the bridge at all, ponder this thought: Can it be cheaper if it is only one lane each way? Why pay to make it 4 lanes only to have the mayor reduce it to 2 so bicycle lanes and an unused center turn lane can be added, as was done on this road 1/4 mile to the west by Pioneer H.S.? If a bicycle lane is wanted, it should be a separate vote, and it will cost less if it is a separate bridge that does not need to support 160,000 pound gravel trains but only 100 to 300 pound bicycle riders. See, local controls can introduce local cost cutting ideas. Why should we pay higher federal taxes just so we can beg to get some, not all, of our money back, with many strings attached on how to spend what was once OUR money?

Silly Sally

Sat, Dec 18, 2010 : 10:18 a.m.

@EM Ghost says, "Our nation's transportation infrastructure depends on federal money for its construction and maintenance. Always has. And no level of government is prepared, overnight, to assume that financial responsibility. Wishing will not make it so." If true, that all roads were dependent upon federal money, then the bridge would be budgeted. The feds pay for things such as I-94 and other major roads. Instead it is a local responsibility, and fed money only comes from earmarks that are placed into legislation.. If anything, our state gas taxes would rise and the federal one should go down by an equal amount. The feds are responsible for the Ann Arbor Saline I-94 bridge. Ghost then says, "In 2009 the Ann Arbor city budget was $89 million. This $18 million bridge project would consume 20% of the city's budget. That is simply impossible to happen." Was Skyline High School Impossible? It cost 3 times as much. An education is needed here - Just as when the AA Schools built the $75 million Skyline school, borrowing via muni bonds finances it. To pay back a 30 year bond at 5 to 6% interest is around $1.6 million per year. Very doable. Ghost then says, "(though the city still would need outside help with the funding) " for a $30,000 to $100,000 grade crossing? Nuts. Why such a beggar attitude? Does he really believe that the people of Ann Arbor are this helpless? Wow.

Dog Guy

Sat, Dec 18, 2010 : 10:18 a.m.

Ann Arbor has made Christmas taboo, but still believes in Santa. Politicians have, for 5000 years, delivered only evil: war, poverty, hatred, slavery, et cet.. Yet gullible Ann Arbor looks to Congress for benefits. I, another Ann Arbor tax parasite, hope to get in on the 2010 energy tax credits. Happy Season's Greetings Holidays to us all.

jns131

Sat, Dec 18, 2010 : 10 a.m.

You all fell for Dingel. You all voted for him. When the rail system died? I knew the Stadium would fall as well. What else did he promise? Like all promises and cookies? Easily broken.

KJMClark

Sat, Dec 18, 2010 : 9:54 a.m.

It might help to explain how earmarks work, since most people don't get it. Earmarks don't affect the total spending. All they do is direct a portion of the spending to a specific project. If you take away the earmarks, you haven't reduced the spending by a dime. Here's how it works. The budget sets a certain amount as funding for a given department. Say $73 billion for the Department of Transportation (last year's appropriation). Within that amount, various legislators might choose (earmark) particular projects that are already planned for their district, and direct some of that money to that project. That guarantees funding for that project, and scores points with the folks back home, but it doesn't increase the total. So take away the earmarks, and the Department decides which projects get the funding, which they do with the un-earmarked amount anyway. That's like the TIGER grants the DOT just awarded. But the total doesn't change unless Congress decides on a different amount.

Gorc

Sat, Dec 18, 2010 : 9:10 a.m.

The federal, state, and local governments don't have a revenue issue....they have a spending issue.

Jay Allen

Sat, Dec 18, 2010 : 9:10 a.m.

OK, folks that KNOW what in the world is going on here vs though will a left or right view and DO NOT have a clue what is going on....... 1. Someone stated 23 MILLION to rebuild the Stadium Bridge? Seriously? Folks, do not sit a believe what is wrote as the Gospel. 2. This is more at ERM's Ghost as I know he'll cut to the chase. While I may not like it, I know I will get the truth. The money that Dingell promised pre-election, is that money still in place? And wasn't that 15 Million? 3. National Debt........Better lay off of that one. Do not toss mud on the right about that. What the left has done in the past 2 years is NOTHING to get excited about. People in glass houses should not throw stones. I am asking a question (#2) and made two observations. Nothing More.......

David Briegel

Sat, Dec 18, 2010 : 12:43 a.m.

Silly Sally and all you genius conservatives, I have just the solution for you. We will cut the taxes for the millionaires and billionaires and "lo and behold", it will all just "trickle down" and the world will be a much better place. That is the lie that has been told since Goldwater handed it down to Ronnie! And the gullible fools just keep lappin' it up!!! And that is why we are where we are and THAT lie is why we are going absolutely nowhere, except the trash heap of history! Don't you all just feel peachy now??

annarbor28

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 11:33 p.m.

@sillysally: That's a good point. Maybe cheap is better, and since money was diverted to other projects, like a fountain and an underground parking lot, the bridge will have to just not be built, and a plain old crossing will have to do. The current bridge does need to be condemned though. I suspect that some Ann Arbor and/or U-M politicians are pulling strings to keep it open now, and in a poorer area, it would have been shut down a long time ago. It is clearly very dangerous now.

Silly Sally

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 11:03 p.m.

@Speechless said, "The financial situation would be very, very different, however, for a similar bridge project located, let's say, in an impoverished West Virginia mining town, population 900." So true, so then if they do not want to pay for such a luxury of a bridge over a seldom used railroad, they could remove it and install a simple railroad crossing. The intersection with State Street could have a signal and they can wait. Why should we pay for every luxury for everyone. Who knows, they might just find less expensive methods if they actually have to pay for it. It works across all aspects of society, including health-care, entertainment, food, education, music, etc.

annarbor28

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 11 p.m.

The Mayor and City Council need to negotiate with U-M for paying for its use of Ann Arbor. Also, make the Stadium Bridge a toll bridge, with discounted passes for city residents and frequent users, and flat fees for crossing it otherwise. You could also install an easypass system. Football games would generate a good revenue for upkeep, and the city could charge tolls for all local city routes to the Stadium on Football Saturdays to insure the revenue flow.

Speechless

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 10:50 p.m.

Maybe, after some fiscal hardship and/or tax increases, the City of Ann Arbor could find the means to underwrite a $25 million Stadium Bridge by itself, without federal or state assistance. The financial situation would be very, very different, however, for a similar bridge project located, let's say, in an impoverished West Virginia mining town, population 900. The latter is the type of situation where federal and/or state support becomes essential, the only way the project can happen. That's a big motivating factor behind sending tax money to D.C. so that it can get redistributed back to the states. Money is pooled at the federal level to redress imbalances between needed infrastructure projects and a lack of local tax base to support them. This is another reason why it's disappointing that the omnibus budget bill didn't get approved. While Ann Arbor may emerge from this failure mostly unscathed, other localities will, in the short term at least, be less fortunate.

csst380

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 10:47 p.m.

keep it up Michigan, keep bilking taxpayer dollars and funnel it to the crooks in Detroit and its corrupted council, ask Kwame, oh wait he got caught. Time for Michiganders to not worry about National government but your own state to spend wisely. Too high of taxbase and no results. Until they fix their spending and get correct oversight happens, infrastructure and services will continue to lack funds.

Silly Sally

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 10:45 p.m.

@Eddie's Ghost Why should this bridge be paid for by the state? Or the feds? That is the problem, why should people look anywhere else than themselves for such things? This is not a road to facilitate transportation between cities or states, it is only used by locals, and only the local people of Ann Arbor should pay for it. Expecting others to pay for things raises the costs, since one is less likely to care as much if someone else is footing the bill. (Hey, isn't that why health-care costs are so high, third party payees?) I've already demonstrated that it will not cost the average person in Ann Arbor that much per year, if they want to lower the costs even more, only have it cross over State street. The railroad crossing can be a grade crossing. Traffic would only rarely be interrupted, as this railroad is not used much. See, locals can save money, as they know the needs best. I would like to see UM pay for some of it since all of the heavy trucks that brought building supplies for the stadium contributed to the bridge failure

csst380

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 10:40 p.m.

Quit crying foul, time for Uof M to start paying taxes in ann arbor, since they are building and updating everything they own and give give Coleman her fat raise every year.

Stephen Landes

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 10:07 p.m.

Just so you all can focus on one thing in this conversation: there is no such thing as Federal Money. What the Feds dole out to us poor supplicant states and localities is OUR money that they have taken from us so they can establish the priorities. This is true even when they borrow money -- WE pay the money back with interest through our taxes. If you are fed up with money being taken from your pocket so it can be handed back to you with strings attached or used to support someone else's priorities in another state then you should be overjoyed that the giant spending bill went down to a well-deserved defeat.

DonBee

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 10:05 p.m.

@Forever27 - Flip thru the pages - there is a lot of stuff I have to question. The main amount for the stadium bridges came through the normal prioritization channel, per the article. This was an extra $750,000 beyond that. No, my issue is the fact that those 1,100 plus pages contain about 11,000 projects that go outside the normal channels. If we are going to do that, then get rid of the people who do the prioritization and we can then use favoritism and vote buying for all of the spending.

Silly Sally

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 9:58 p.m.

@Marcus says, ") Say the bridge fix costs $25 million. That amount would cripple the budget for the city of Ann Arbor or the county of Washtenaw. $25 million is still a huge chunk of the pie from the State of Michigan's budget." Wrong, wrong, wrong. If the city were to borrow the money at 4 to 6% interest, and pay it back over 30 years, that amounts to 12 to 15 dollars a head per year. Even less, since being free of federal standards and extras, the cost could be less. Ann Arbor and county engineers have mentioned how often a local project will get 20% of its funding from the feds, but then they have to adhere to so many regulations that it it hardly worth it. This raises the cost of all projects. The Barton Drive on-ramp cannot be fixed since the federal guidelines require so much more. Making it similar to most other Michigan on ramps is not even an option. I rather pay much higher state and local taxes and much lower Federal taxes. Bureaucrats in Washington DC do not know what is best for Michigan

Silly Sally

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 9:39 p.m.

@Forever27 Why should the feds pay for a local road? Why should we, via the feds, pay for a local road, or a local dog house in Alabama? We shouldn't. All of this stimulus money was wasted, rebuilding roads that were in OK to good condition, instead of fixing broken ones. One, Ellsworth Road from State St west, was redone down to the dirt and new gravel 10 years ago, and last summer it was redone again. How much better it would have been if Ellsworth Road had been left alone and the bridge fixed. But is was a federal decision, not a local one. The Dingelzoarous supports such folly.

pbehjatnia

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 9:33 p.m.

I love the super and mega rich or millionaire commentaries one hears so often nowadays. The bill is not cutting taxes. It is simply not changing anything in the present structure for another two years. If taxes are going to be lowered or raised then how about the democratic way - do it across the board. Raising taxes on a small percentage would not change a thing. How about everybody mind their own business and stop worrying about how much anyone else has? It really smacks of envy and nothing else.

Oregon39_Michigan7

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 9:24 p.m.

@1bit (RE: Why should federal money be used for local stuff, shouldn't it be State / Local dollars). I would argue two points for why Federal money should pay for projects like the Stadium Bridge, etc. 1) We all pay Federal Taxes. 2) Say the bridge fix costs $25 million. That amount would cripple the budget for the city of Ann Arbor or the county of Washtenaw. $25 million is still a huge chunk of the pie from the State of Michigan's budget. Projects like these are good examples of Federal money doing good. 3) I'll bet you a cold beer that even in the new GOP controlled House, "Tea-Party" and all, "earmarks" will not go away. 0 chance. 95% of them are actually for pretty reasonable stuff, I do acknowledge that there are some that are completely ludicrous and abusive. If they're not going anywhere we may as well take what we can get (helps to have the longest serving Represenative too, Congressman Dingell has a lot of power). 4)

aareader

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 9:04 p.m.

"aanative" is very perceptive. Keep track of your post and resubmit it in big letters when, not if, "new" spending priorities are revealed. ( translation = new definition for earmarks) "I am sure the same money will be allocated next year to districts belonging to newly elected Republicans who said that the want to "change the way Washington works".

Speechless

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 8:16 p.m.

Harry Reid can't find sufficient support to shepherd a trillion dollar spending bill through the Senate. Expenditures would have gone to infrastructure maintenance and improvements, or to programs that would in some way benefit the middle class or the poor. But it seems we just can't afford this! Meanwhile, the rich get subsidized to the tune of $600 billion (thanks, Dems and White House, for displaying such solid backbone!). The top 2% have so much money they literally have no idea how to spend it — hence, most of this cash should 'trickle down' to the dazzling Wall Street gambling houses. Taken together, these two episodes encapsulate the virulent class warfare being conducted under the auspices of America's upper crust. Piece by piece, this country's uber-wealthy slowly build their very own Bastille.

Gorc

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 8:09 p.m.

Mrs. Cockrell are you going to be the first in line to kick in a few extra bucks for the bridge?

rusty shackelford

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 7:35 p.m.

If the bridge means that much to us then shouldn't we be the ones to pay more taxes in the form of a millage rather than asking Iowans, Nebraskans, Hawaiians, and the other states to pay for it? Actually, our miserable economy notwithstanding, Michigan is still a donor state. That is, we pay proportionally more in federal taxes than we get back in federal investment. We're paying for Iowans, Nebraskans and Hawaiians, not the other way around.

Speechless

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 7:35 p.m.

The $500,000 in lost additional funding for the Stadium Bridge (thanks, Repubs and Blue Dogs!) equals about 8% of the sum of money which Rick Snyder pulled out of his own wallet to finance his campaign for governor. He could donate twice that amount and likely not even notice it was missing.

stunhsif

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 7:20 p.m.

Perfect, a great present for all of us which is moving a bit back toward fiscal sanity rather than Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi's fiscal insanity and print money to pay for everything mentality! Good Day No Luck Needed

breadman

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 7:06 p.m.

It will take the bridge to fall down before, oops we need to fix it. So when it does do it final crumble just keep driving over and/or under. Good insurance when the chunks keep falling...... Just the other day I seen a semi crossing over towards industerial hwy. Any weight limits??? Box semi can gross up too 80,000 lbs........

Oregon39_Michigan7

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 7:04 p.m.

I'd rather have the Federal Government spend $8 billion in "wasteful" earmarks than $2 Trillion to invade and occupy Iraq. Good thing we were from all those "Weapons of Mass Destruction" they "found" in Iraq. By the way, how come AnnArbor.com isn't covering the Senate Republicans who are blokcing the health care for 9/11 first responders? http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/worker-safety/132907-health-bill-for-911-workers-fails-key-vote

Oregon39_Michigan7

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 6:41 p.m.

Fear not, the wealthies 2% just received a $700 billion tax cut! As we all know, under the trickle down theory, the rich will shower us all with wealth when the spend their money! All is saved!

Patricia Cockrell

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 6:22 p.m.

Here's a golden opportunity for our local millionaires (who just got a HUGE tax break) to kick in the extra money for these bridges. It's a great way to ease your conscience!

Roadman

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 6:21 p.m.

Chase Ingersoll for U.S. Congress in 2012.

Brian Kuehn

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 6:17 p.m.

Hey "Ghost", thank you for pointing out that the loss of funding only related to extra money. I tend to quickly scan articles and I would have missed that and incorrectly concluded that Ann Arbor lost all the bridge money. While $500,000+ is not an inconsequential sum, it is not the end of the world.

Frank

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 6:15 p.m.

So now would be a good time to go the U of M and request the $550,000 or more. It's always been coincidental that the bridges started to show the most wear and tear after the heavy construction from the start of stadium project as well as the indoor practice facility.

John B.

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 5:43 p.m.

"So it's ok to extend the Bush tax cuts and reduce our social security tax (the final nail in that coffin) in a time of ridiculous deficit but improving our infrastructure is a waste of money? Where are our priorities?" Our priorities are making the super-mega-rich in America even richer. God told us so. You gotta get with the program....;-)

Kayjay

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 5:34 p.m.

The bridge problem should have been addressed years ago when money was not tight. Access to this city's biggest revenue producer, i.e. U of M stadium, should have been a priority. What the H--l were the elected officials of A2 thinking???

Kayjay

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 5:33 p.m.

The bridge problem should have been addressed years ago when money was not tight. Access to this city's biggest revenue producer, i.e. U of M stadium, should have been a priority. What the H--l were the elected officials of A2 thinking???

John B.

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 5:23 p.m.

Did anyone bother to actually read the article? The originally secured $17.3 Million is still budgeted. This was regarding a POTENTIAL additional $0.5 Million that MIGHT HAVE been obtained. The whole bridge project will cost about $23 Million, so the 0.5 Million represents just over two percent of the project's projected total cost. Tempest in a teapot, anyone?

treetowncartel

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 5:06 p.m.

@ marshall, actually, the money he posed for the first time is still secured.

1bigbud

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 4:45 p.m.

See what happens when you dont go to the ROSE BOWL You are not loved anymore

Marshall Applewhite

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 4:45 p.m.

This is quite a move by Dingell. Guarantee funding before the election to receive votes, then "Oops! Silly me! I guess that money actually hasn't been allocated." This is scumbag politics at its finest.

David Briegel

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 4:42 p.m.

They just gave billions to the top 6,000 families. A Poverty program for billionaires. Preserving the Plutocracy in a "Meritocracy". Will the Orange Man tear up on us??

whodat

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 4:23 p.m.

So it's ok to extend the Bush tax cuts and reduce our social secuity tax (the final nail in that coffin) in a time of ridiculous deficit but improving our infrastructure is a waste of money? Where are our priorities?

JSA

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 4:21 p.m.

Ear Marks are evil in that they further the corruption of the the political process. Yes, these are not as bad as the teapot museum or the steam locomotive museum but the still don't belong anywhere but in a transportation bill.

Mick52

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 3:56 p.m.

Good idea Treetowncartel, we need a photo of him under the John Dingell Memorial Bridge.

Mick52

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 3:53 p.m.

Earmarks? What do you mean earmarks? I thought the bridge repair and train money was appropriately appropriated funding in a transportation bill where it belongs. In terms of earmarks, this is not as bad as $1 million for broadband expansion in Vt, but earmarks should never be allowed. If Dingell, Conyers, Stabenow and Levin want money for transportation they should put it in a Transportation bill, not piggyback it. The deterioration of this bridge is the fault of Ann Arbor for not identifying the poor conditions as they developed and acted on it before it literally started falling down. So the taxpayers of the entire nation should not have to pay for the neglect of the city. The money to fix this should be in a capital improvement account. How's that million dollar fountain project going? Maybe we can sell it to help fix the bridge. I suppose the musketeers here figured this was not a lock but decided not to mention that before the election.

aanative

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 3:46 p.m.

I am sure the same money will be allocated next year to districts belonging to newly elected Republicans who said that the want to "change the way Washington works".

aanative

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 3:45 p.m.

I am sure the same money will be allocated next year to districts belonging to newly elected Republicans who said that the want to "change the way Washington works".

Forever27

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 3:44 p.m.

@DonBee, this is far from a "Bridge to Nowhere", it is an essential artery to the traffic flow of this city. But hey, who cares about the fact that the bridge is literally falling to pieces. Lets keep those evil gummit folk from spending money! rabble rabble

Top Cat

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 3:42 p.m.

This is a baby step toward fiscal sanity. Time for a giant step such as ending our presence in Afghanistan and Iraq.

DonBee

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 3:34 p.m.

1100+ pages of earmarks, no wonder the government is broken! The people who are in charge of the programs that the money is directed to have priority lists for projects. They should be allowed to run their programs against those priority lists. No more bridges to nowhere please!

Forever27

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 : 3:28 p.m.

Projects like the Stadium bridge and the rail system are examples of the "evil earmarks" and "wasteful spending" that people constantly complain about. Although they'll be the first to blame the government for not fixing their roads.