Our kids will be stuck with the bill for the Stadium Boulevard bridge project
What seems to be very transparent is the political nature of the recent $13.9 million funding of the East Stadium Boulevard bridge “delivered” by Rep. Dingell. Isn’t it amazing how this happened two weeks before the midterm election.
What is not so transparent is source of the funding and who will pay the bill. For every dollar we send to Washington approximately 80 cents is returned to Michigan. This means that we sent 17.4 million of our tax dollars to Washington to get the 13.9 million dollar grant for the bridge. But the federal government is broke and the deficit is 13.6 trillion as of October 18, 2010 - so where did Dingell get the money?
He certainly can’t borrow it from the Social Security Trust fund, given that he is one of two sitting representatives who voted to make these funds available to the US general fund many years ago and has already spent the money. The unfunded liabilities in Social Security and Medicare is $110 trillion as of Oct 18.
So where is the money coming from? It is coming from your kids and grandkids. They are the ones who will be paying for it. So after the bridge is repaired and you use it, make sure you thank and apologize to your kids for sticking them with the bill.
Ben H Colmery III Ann Arbor
Comments
keepitbalanced
Wed, Oct 27, 2010 : 10:38 a.m.
Seriously? How can you put the Stadium bridge in the same paragraph with the war in Iraq? Republicans and Democrats both spend money out of the same pot.
Ignatz
Tue, Oct 26, 2010 : 10:55 a.m.
Well, Ben, If your kids are going to pay for the bridge, then they certainly can use it. I have no kids, but I don't complain about my taxes going towrd paying for the education, et cetera, for the children of others. I feel it is my duty as an American to keep this country going. I'm also thankful that those before me made it possible to live like I am in the fine land of ours.
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball
Tue, Oct 26, 2010 : 7:15 a.m.
The bridge is required. As the land sits - this is the cheapest alternative outside of a toll bridge. Some expenses are investments and some are losses. SS is going to bust sooner and not later because the current projections are based on sunny economic predictions of future times. Even in this very year, 2010, the SS system borrowed money to pay benefits. If only Dingle had not voted, back in the 1960's, to open the SS Trust account.
Elaine F. Owsley
Mon, Oct 25, 2010 : 8:37 a.m.
In the world of improving infrastructure, the game is always "pay it forward" in the sense that bonds or loans are paid after the project is ended, sometimes for years. We paid for schools built long after our own children were gone from the area, the library in Dexter is a long-range pay project. It is impossible to foresee what needs to be done and "save up" for it, so it can be paid for at the time of completion. Sorry, but that's the way the world works.
Steve Pepple
Mon, Oct 25, 2010 : 7:05 a.m.
A couple of off-topic comments and a response to them have been removed. Conversation guidelines.
KJMClark
Mon, Oct 25, 2010 : 5:57 a.m.
Thanks Peg - I hoped someone would say it. *All* large infrastructure is paid for like that, and it should be. If I'm lucky, I'll be around another 40 years or so. My kids will be around another 70, and their kids will be around 100 years from now (but won't be born for 20 years). The new bridges will last about 70 years, so I use them for 40 years, my kids use them for 70 years, and their grandkids use them for 50 years before the bridges get replaced again. So I'm getting 40 years of the benefit, and they're getting 120 years of the benefit. What's wrong with giving them 1/3 of the bill? (Except that it doesn't fit your myth that the country is broke?)
peg dash fab
Mon, Oct 25, 2010 : 2:09 a.m.
historic, you are trying to talk sense to a bunch of febrile loonies, who protest that every public dollar spent is stolen directly out of their kids and grandkids pockets by jack-booted thugs holding guns to their heads.
Historic District
Sun, Oct 24, 2010 : 1:08 p.m.
The City of Ann Arbor applied for, and Congressman Dingell helped secure, a federal TIGER II grant. If Dingell doesn't help secure the grant, those monies likely go elsewhere (i.e., not to the City of Ann Arbor, but to another community to spend on another project). What would you have Dingell do? The system is broke. We all get that. But why, if you were a sitting congressman, would you leave money on the table when it can be used to benefit a community in your congressional district?
peg dash fab
Sun, Oct 24, 2010 : 8:37 a.m.
and our kids will be (among) the ones who benefit from the stadium bridge project!
Speechless
Sun, Oct 24, 2010 : 8:24 a.m.
"... He certainly cant borrow it from the Social Security Trust fund, given that he is one of two sitting representatives who voted to make these funds available to the US general fund many years ago and has already spent the money. The unfunded liabilities in Social Security and Medicare is $110 trillion as of Oct 18...." The breakup of the Roosevelt-era "firewall" between Social Security money and the federal general fund was, I believe, instigated 40 years ago by the Nixon administration. If Dingell joined the congressional majority backing Nixon, he shouldn't have, but unfortunately most elected federal officials did. "... So where is the money coming from? It is coming from your kids and grandkids. They are the ones who will be paying for it...." No, the money absolutely does not have to come from kids and grandkids. We can choose to do otherwise by returning to tax rules that were in place during the time of President Eisenhower, who was also Nixon's former boss. It's actually the wealthy who desire to make our grandkids foot the bill, due to greed and unwillingness to pay a greater share of taxes, like they once did. As far as federal graduated taxation of income is concerned, I liked Ike. Bad Nixon-era legislation and the big tax cuts for the ultra-rich are not valid arguments against accepting federal funding to fix the E. Stadium bridges.
golfbum
Sun, Oct 24, 2010 : 7:48 a.m.
I don't use the Stadium bridge. We should spend the 13.9 million on a better bike bridge across US-23. Won't use that either, but it would be fun to see how many more people we could piss off with the government waste.
Fritz
Sun, Oct 24, 2010 : 7:36 a.m.
A) we need this bridge. B) we don't want our children to pay for it Therefore C) we should pay for it. We are adults. We should pay for the things we need. We have a system to do this. It is called taxes. If you want to see where your tax money actually go, check out your tax receipt at Http://taxes.poormojo.org
rosewater
Sun, Oct 24, 2010 : 7:30 a.m.
Here's hoping the taxpayers retire Rep. Dingell next month! And the bridge will be replaced.
Jody Durkacs
Sun, Oct 24, 2010 : 7:25 a.m.
Pointing out that our national debt and deficit are horrendous and are saddling our kids and grandkids with a terrible burden is good. Singling out an extremely important infrastructure project that is at a critical stage of decay as an example of our wasteful spending to smear a Democratic politician is intellectually dishonest. It's not the bridge or Dingell that caused this country to be broke.
Brad
Sun, Oct 24, 2010 : 7:18 a.m.
Sorry, we needed that money to blow up bridges in other parts of the world, so we can't afford to fix ours.
A2Dave
Sun, Oct 24, 2010 : 7:13 a.m.
Yes, Ben. They will. Just like they will be paying for the unjustified, deception-based invasion of Iraq, courtesy of George W. Bush, as well as the massive deficit created by his massive tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. At least this is a bridge to somewhere, unlike recent Republican deficit building initiatives.
ArborGuide
Sun, Oct 24, 2010 : 7:10 a.m.
I agree with your premise. I am curious however, if you have an alternative to propose? It seems like our options would be to 1.) tear the bridge down, 2.) raise taxes, 3.) borrow from the future or 4.) leave the bridge until it falls apart completely on it's own and possibly hurt or kill someone. Our government(s) (state and federal) are tied in knots with unfunded mandates, pandering to constituents and no-new-taxes dogma, so, it seems getting past option 4 is near impossible. I can appreciate your clarifying a part of the problem, but if you have a solution, please, do tell.