Go to HHH home page.
Smart Politics
 


Oberstar Rails Against Obama on Transportation Policy

Bookmark and Share

Interspersed between his erudite historical recounting of transportation policy over the last 50 years, colorful inside-the-beltway jokes and jabs, and a vision for transportation policy for the next generation, Minnesota DFL Congressman Jim Oberstar offered some particularly harsh language for his party's leader, President Barack Obama, Wednesday afternoon at the Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs.

In a speech entitled, "Getting America to Work: Opportunities and Challenges in Transportation Policy," Oberstar was unrelenting in both his vision to create a new, strategic transportation plan, and his timeline for which this vision should be implemented.

The White House - bottled up in a fierce battle over health care reform in the coming months - has stated that Capitol Hill should take a time out from Oberstar's six-year $450 billion bill, revisit it in 18 months, and simply extend existing laws in the meantime.

Oberstar is not persuaded: "An eighteen month delay in Washington means four years. Inertia is the enemy of progress," he said.

As a result, the 18-term Representative from the Iron Range is not backing down.

After presenting his vision for transformations in federal transportation policy, including a reconstructed Department of Transportation that would include a Council on Intermodalism, Oberstar said the hard part was, naturally, deciding how to pay for the new programs.

The Congressman was not impressed with Obama's leadership when faced with this policy question: "The yes-we-can, change-you-can-believe-in White House ran for cover."

Oberstar says he has heard from a variety of business groups who would support user fees (i.e. gas taxes) as a method to pay for new transportation policy programs, including the Chamber of Commerce, the American Trucking Association, and the Associated General Contractors of America.

The Congressman has requested these and other business leaders to develop a consensus around an approach. He added: "I told the groups that they have to lead, because the White House isn't."

Oberstar later referred to the administration's proposal to spend up to $70 billion from general revenues to pay for transportation policy programs as "A terrible mistake."

Representative Oberstar says he has "put his foot down" against Obama's proposal of an 18-month delay. The Congressman says if the House can get consensus on a funding package, "I expect the administration to come around, join hands, and join with us. I am not going to support an 18-month extension."

In his final remarks, Oberstar recalled how his predecessor, former Transportation Committee Chairman Don Young (R-AK), took the recommendations of the Bush Department of Transportation for a $375 billion program back in November 2003.

"Young went to White House, had an audience with President Bush, advocated for the 375 and was told 'No - and don't ever come back here and talk transportation again.'"

Oberstar said former House Speaker Denny Hastert had a similar run-in with the Bush White House, and, as a result, the legislation ended up with $90 billion less than it needed.

With this precedent, what does the future hold for transportation policy in 2009 and Oberstar's own dealings with the President?

"And so we got a change of administration. Change we can believe in? Yes we can - except no, we can't? We're going to make them believe in it."

Follow Smart Politics on Twitter.

Previous post: Minnesota GOP U.S. House Members Notch $800,000 Fundraising Swing Against DFL Colleagues from 2007 to 2009
Next post: Republican Senators Ignore 'Hispanic Effect' in Sotomayor Confirmation Vote

4 Comments


  • I'm not sure if it's the way you presented the article, but Mr. Oberstar sounds like a baby throwing a tantrum because he isn't getting the attention he wants, when he wants it. I understand that it may be frustrating to believe you have a worthwhile bill you'd like to see pushed through, but last time I checked Obama had a quite a few other items on his agenda: A couple of wars in the middle east, North Korea shooting missiles to and fro, the sour economy and unemployment, not to mention the health care reform situation. Congressman Oberstar needs to take a number and wait his turn in line like a grown-up.

  • There is no reason to postpone transportation reform. In fact now is the time to do it, at the beginning of a Presidential administration. The fact that the economy, health care, climate change, and international problems are top priorities is no reason to delay the transportation reform Oberstar proposes. One of the most successful economic stimulus efforts has been "cash for clunkers." A new transportation bill as Oberstar has proposed would stimulate innovation and new technologies in transportation, which would enhance economic productivity, creating not just short-term but long-term jobs -- a sort of cash for clunkers on steroids. Transportation reform would also speed up transportation changes necessary to address climate change and livability issues, and tackle one of the nations most serious health problems -- traffic deaths. Over 40,000 people are killed on U.S. roads each year and many more are injured, adding significant costs to our health care system. The bill has a major focus on safety, making investments to achieve significant reductions in traffic deaths and serious injuries. It makes no sense to delay on transportation reform.

  • Lee,

    While clearly I am not Obama himself and can't speak for him by any means, I reckon he just wants to clear a few things off his plate in order to give his full attention to this new transportation plan in hopes he could actually get something passed. He's spreading himself thin already, and pretty soon his pleas for fixing a zillion things at once will start falling on deaf ears. He's already pushing so much as it is.

  • As I understand the bill. There will be a request for a gas/fuel tax to pay for it. If indeed that is the case, it is understandable why the administration might not want to get on board at this very moment. Not that I personally have a problem with a higher federal tax on fuels. I think that the list of priorities will include a transportation bill, but not until the white house can frame it on its own terms.

    I suspect that more than anything, Oberstar is thinking more about his personal legacy than the bill itself.

  • Leave a comment


    Remains of the Data

    No Free Passes: States With 2 Major Party Candidates in Every US House Race

    Indiana has now placed candidates from both major parties on the ballot in a nation-best 189 consecutive U.S. House races, with New Hampshire, Minnesota, Idaho, and Montana also north of 100 in a row.

    Political Crumbs

    Gubernatorial Highs and Lows

    Two sitting governors currently hold the record for the highest gubernatorial vote ever received in their respective states by a non-incumbent: Republican Matt Mead of Wyoming (65.7 percent in 2010) and outgoing GOPer Dave Heineman of Nebraska (73.4 percent in 2006). Republican Gary Herbert of Utah had not previously won a gubernatorial contest when he notched a state record 64.1 percent for his first victory in 2010, but was an incumbent at the time after ascending to the position in 2009 after the early departure of Jon Huntsman. Meanwhile, two sitting governors hold the record in their states for the lowest mark ever recorded by a winning gubernatorial candidate (incumbent or otherwise): independent-turned-Democrat Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island (36.1 percent in 2010) and Democrat Terry McAuliffe of Virginia (47.8 percent in 2013).


    An Idaho Six Pack

    Two-term Idaho Republican Governor Butch Otter only polled at 39 percent in a recent PPP survey of the state's 2014 race - just four points ahead of Democratic businessman A.J. Balukoff. Otter's low numbers reflect his own struggles as a candidate (witness his weak primary win against State Senator Russ Fulcher) combined with the opportunity for disgruntled Idahoans to cast their votes for one of four third party and independent candidates, who collectively received the support of 12 percent of likely voters: Libertarian John Bujak, the Constitution Party's Steve Pankey, and independents Jill Humble and Pro-Life (aka Marvin Richardson). The six candidate options in a gubernatorial race sets an all-time record in the Gem State across the 46 elections conducted since statehood. The previous high water mark of five candidates was reached in seven previous cycles: 1902, 1904, 1908, 1912, 1914, 1966, and 2010.


    more POLITICAL CRUMBS

    Humphrey School Sites
    CSPG
    Humphrey New Media Hub

    Issues />

<div id=
    Abortion
    Afghanistan
    Budget and taxes
    Campaign finances
    Crime and punishment
    Economy and jobs
    Education
    Energy
    Environment
    Foreign affairs
    Gender
    Health
    Housing
    Ideology
    Immigration
    Iraq
    Media
    Military
    Partisanship
    Race and ethnicity
    Reapportionment
    Redistricting
    Religion
    Sexuality
    Sports
    Terrorism
    Third parties
    Transportation
    Voting