I hope none of these folks campaign on a message of change

By Jim Stergios
September 4th, 2008

Remember Mayor Bloomberg’s push to create congestion pricing to reduce gridlock in the Big Apple? Well, the Empire State’s legislature shot that down, but thanks to Mary Peters and her crew in the US Department of Transportation, four other cities are moving ahead (Miami, Minneapolis, San Francisco and Seattle).

In 2006 and 2007, DOT sought to get around the Bridge to Nowhere nonsense by providing competitive grants based on performance (reducing congestion being a major goal). Reactions in Congress, as Bob Poole of Reason reports, were not sanguine.

To start there was Rep. John Olver of our fair state, the one delegate to the House Appropriations Committee. He was so ticked off at not being able to continue with earmarks that he called for a GAO investigation. Then

Rep. Joe Knollenberg (R, MI) raked Secretary Peters over the coals at a hearing in February, saying he had major concerns. “I’ve heard from a variety of people around the country who are very upset . . . because they didn’t get it. I’m wondering if there wasn’t [sic] some people that were overlooked, and frankly I don’t know that that decision was one that was best for the entire country.” He complained that a traffic reduction plan “in my own backyard” did not get funded. “They thought they were going to be able to compete, but they couldn’t compete. They couldn’t even get heard.” (Traffic World, Feb. 18, 2008) This really sounds to me like the entitlement mentality at work.

But what really takes the cake is a letter from Rep. John Mica (R,FL) published in the Wall Street Journal on July 30, 2008. Responding to a WSJ op-ed criticizing congressional earmarks in transportation, Mica equated a competitive grant program (UPA) with earmarking of pet projects by members of Congress. “Instead of sending funds to projects in nearly every state, unelected bureaucrats, through a closed process without public hearings or congressional consultation, sent every penny to just five cities for congestion pricing projects. . . . In the end, unelected bureaucrats spent more than $1 billion on projects of their choosing.”

I have heard Olver and Mica speak. They, too, like to speak of change in Washington. But it seems that what they like best is small change in their districts.