Obama Lied, Fair Discussion About Our Debt Died
I can often be found on twitter praising political compromise. Generally speaking, I think it's a good thing when politicians with very different constituencies can come together and settle their differences on mutually agreeable terms.
Having said that, every so often a political leader does or says something so egregious that it makes me think compromise isn't a laudable goal. Today, President Obama flat-out lied about the 2007 bridge collapse in Minnesota that killed 13 people.
"According to the Republican budget that was passed, for example, we would have to eliminate transportation funding by a third," Obama told a townhall meeting in Annandale, Va., today.
"We’d have to cut transporting funding by a third," said Obama. "You remember when that bridge in Minnesota collapsed with all those people on it? And there was a big hue and cry: How can this happen in America? Well, the National Society of Engineers, they’ve looked around and they give us a 'D' when it comes to infrastructure. Our roads, our bridges, our sewer systems are all deteriorating.
It's a pretty easy storyline to sell, right? After all, Republican budget cuts will undoubtedly affect how much money our country spends on infrastructure. So what's the problem? It's completely false.
In a 2008 report on the incident, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) states:
“The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the collapse of the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis, Minnesota, was the inadequate load capacity, due to a design error.”
The NTSB concluded that the collapse was not the result of a lack of maintenance, as the President asserted, but rather a design flaw.
That leaves us pondering two explanations: 1. Obama doesn't know the truth about the bridge collapse or 2. He lied.
I honestly don’t know which explanation I find more distressing. Is it worse if our President doesn’t understand what our budget is and is not responsible for? Or, that he is so determined to protect his bloated bureaucracy that he can’t tell the truth about our budget problems?
- Comment (29)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Re: Obama Lied, Fair Discussion About Our Debt Died
I don't mean that the way you think I mean it. I wish there were a better way to describe what I meant there.
May '10
Re: Obama Lied, Fair Discussion About Our Debt Died
Obama is part of the crowd that INTENTIONALLY starves the highway system from the funds collected from fuel taxes to waste on "green" projects like bike paths and choo-choos. They want to make driving a painful experience to force more people out of their evil cars an into mass cattle transit and bikes.
Jul '10
Re: Obama Lied, Fair Discussion About Our Debt Died
Wrong. I don't buy the liberal premise that the government has a job and that job is to make everyone happy. I suggest you go back and read the "Theory of Moral Sentiments" by Adam Smith. Or read about Edmund Burke's "Reflections of the French Revolution." As Jonah Goldberg and others have pointed out the government doesn't love you. The government is a huge bureaucracy that does most things poorly and a few things acceptably. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are inalienable rights given to us by God. So if you mean the government should do as little as possible so that we may enjoy our freedoms, then I would agree.
Re: Obama Lied, Fair Discussion About Our Debt Died
Okay, I changed the 'it's government's job to make everyone happy.' That wasn't really the main point of the piece, and I think the first paragraph now reflects what I was trying to say.
Dec '10
Re: Obama Lied, Fair Discussion About Our Debt Died
In the case of "The One" (and of course, Bubba) it is better to fight our common law instinct and assume he's lying until proven otherwise.
Feb '11
Re: Obama Lied, Fair Discussion About Our Debt Died
James Lileks:
Anyway, it's true on a meta level, isn't it? If we cut "transportation," then we can't fund high-speed and light rail, which means people will continue to use cars on bridges, and they will be stressed, and fall down. Of course the Republicans don't care, because they have been conducting a War on Science, and do not believe in gravity. · Apr 19 at 7:54pm
Cars don't cause that much stress on bridges (or roads). It's freeze-thaw cycles, trucks, and delayed repairs.
Usually, governments at all levels collect far more in gasoline tax than they spend on the transportation system. Gasoline taxes are a cash cow for govt.
Re: Obama Lied, Fair Discussion About Our Debt Died
Hang On: I don't know why you had to muddle up my argument with something as crass as facts, but since you insist: cars are especially relevant to bridges, because they increase global warming, which leads to more extreme freeze-thaw cycles, which is why we need a carbon tax, with at least 27% of the revenues going to sustainable transportation, like horses, or pro-horse cultural events that raise awareness of alternate modes of transportation. (I'm pretty sure Cowboy Poetry festivals would qualify.)
Hope that helps.
May '10
Re: Obama Lied, Fair Discussion About Our Debt Died
It's uncanny how effectively Obama distorts the truth to score political points. In this regard, I am still trying to determine the long-term ramifications his success will have on my own world-view. Until that bigger question is sorted, suffice it to say that when I heard the old adage "it's better to be effective, than to be correct" I did not have the current POTUS in mind. He takes it to a whole new level, and to steal one from Hayek, shows a "pathological proclivity toward prevarication."
Sep '10
Re: Obama Lied, Fair Discussion About Our Debt Died
Does the Ryan budget cut transportation funding by a third? If it does are the funds for maintenance of roadways cut by a third or does he go after high sped rail, etc.? Is this a good or bad thing? Also if the transportation infrastructure is crumbling (I doubt it) as O. says why are funds being spent on high speed rail that has never been cost effective in this country and would require far more maintenance money in the future? Discussing if O. falsified an antidote or used it in correctly is not a productive discussion. Most politicians do it.