Converting bus routes to street cars, on the same road will lessen the maintenance of the road because the rails can take the load, vs the constant bending of a road by a bus. Same for moving people from buses to Light Rail. In the case of Light Rail to West Seattle, this is the second corridor after the main Sound Transit Light rail line. It's where the Monorail would be running if that project hadn't failed. (It' wasn't for lack of ridership that it died.) And additional bike paths/cycle tracks/sharrows etc. Car drivers may rail at bicyclists but they use the least resources of any transportation method. If we can move from 3% to Portland's 7% with some paint a few bollards, and some reconfiguration of our roads into bicycle Blvds it will save tons from road abuse by cars.

Ted, in case you haven't notice, oil is getting harder and hard to get. Now is past time to get the city moving via means other than fossil fuels. It's going to take decades to transform the city and the sooner we start the better it's going to be. The less money people spend on gas/autos the more they have for other things. Portland estimates that they have an extra billion dollars spent in their local economy vs having that money sent out of the city. That's not pocket change and well worth taxing cars for their actual impact on all of us.

So raising the marginal tax rates over $100K by 3.6 % (Clinton era rates) is "soaking the rich" ? That's barely a spritz, much less a soak. Care to cite rates from Eisenhower's time, 60 years ago? About 2-2.5x that, but then we benefited from having an economy untouched by WWII devastation while selling the world what they needed to rebuild. But also since that time adjusted wages have been flat while productivity has jumped, and the gains of that productivity have gone to the top 10%, who now weep bitter tears over the "class warfare" that centrist Democrats dare to propose.
Short Buffett- 15% Capital gains on his income, never mind the accountants earning their pay, vs. 30 -38% for wage earners paying FICA plus modest income taxes, plus significant hits for regressive taxes such as sales taxes. If you want to use the Republican talking point about 50% of the country not paying income taxes, here's a solution- increase the wages of the middle class so they can reach the paying brackets. Let's see wealth distribution curves like it was 1950 again. Too bad a generation of Democratic party hacks sold out the ideals and accomplishments of FDR's generation, Democrats such as Scoop ad Maggie, who would disgusted at the lack of backbone of the generation that followed.
Speaking of regressive taxes, those car tabs were once progressive, but since Tim E's flat rate change along with the flat tax on gas, good luck keeping up with rising costs on roads and transport. And what's your problem with with representative democracy? You really want every budget item put to a vote? The private companies I've worked for don't run that way, and people who think governments should be run like businesses don't want to give government the same kind tools businesses use unblinkingly.
Finally, what was your point with Gov. Sanford? A contrast? The man pressed for public investment for public and private gain, along the same lines Obama and the entire Democratic party would like to do to greater or similar extent. That's not a contrast with those leading the charge against the anti-government teahadists and the party that embraces them, it's a positive example, which undercuts your line thought rather than bracing it.

We've been cutting, slashing, punting investments and pushing the future further and further down the road. The only manner in which we're getting to the future is largely literal -- only in time and not progress.

The staid and largely toothless approach of plutocrats and assorted friends (hi, ted!) has done little to lift up every person or provide a means of incremental and sustained growth and progress -- in fact, it's done the opposite: income disparity has risen, investment in efficient modes and infrastructure has flagged, innovation has been throttled by the mean machine of corporate-run government diets and very few but the small number of indifferent captains of industry (hi, ted!) have come into a position that allows them to look backward at the past 20 years as any kind of forward movement.

You aren't fighting gross government intervention, you're fighting progress.

The future is won by building, not deconstructing.

Invest now.

Streetcars in Seattle cost over $50 million per mile, and the rails and streetcars have to be replaced about every 30 years at great expense. Repaving streets costs only a few hundred thousand dollars per lane-mile and lasts about 12-15 years. Streetcars are just stupidly expensive, and not cost-effective whatsoever. Streetcars are also stupidly expensive to operate, at about $400 per hour for the Tacoma streetcar compared to around $135 per hour for a Metro bus.

A recent survey Seattle did on transportation issues shows that the public knows what a waste of money streetcars are.

http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/docs/ctac/CTAC%20III%20Survey%20Summary_FINAL.pdf

Page 6. Paving streets; repairing bridges and overpasses; improving heavily used roads were the top 3 things people considered important. Rail and bus service were both under 50%. Extending the streetcar network was last at 26%, with the highest "not important" rating of 34%.

The world is awash in oil and natural gas. Almost every month there is another story about large new oil deposits being discovered. Oil is plentiful and will be cheap again soon, as these new deposits start producing. Here is one of the latest articles on this in the Seattle Times:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2016257808_americaoil20.html

The proposed $60 car tab increase for streetcars, road diets, bike lanes, bus bulbs, etc. is just the latest salvo in Seattle's war against cars. Tax cars to make it more difficult for cars to get around Seattle, by putting in more road diets and curb bulbs. And ignore the $1.4 billion in deferred maintenance on Seattle's roads and bridges.

Prop 1 is exactly how Seattle came to this inexcusable situation of deteriorating roads and bridges: raise revenue for transportation, then waste it on garbage like bike lanes, streetcars and road diets.

The deteriation of city streets is not because of lack of funding as it is a lack of commitment to basic city funchion such as maintance on firehydrants stripeing crosswalks fixing burned out steet lights!ect property taxes have gone up allmost twice the rate of inflation over the last 15 years! It is easer politicians to promote grandiose projects and sloppy social-welfare programs (family education levie) with little or no public benifit than due the eveyday nuts and bolt buisness of runing a city

comparing people who exchange labor for a wage, and generate profits for an employer, to someone whose money grows by renting it out is absurd. there is no comparison. income for working age men has declined nearly 30% since the 70s, while income for Van Dyk's demographic has grown nearly 30% (see the "Fourth Turning" for how and why this came about). To suggest society needs to invest in the future, means more resources need to flow to the younger generations than to the elderly. instead, the younger generation must downgrade their expectations, while the older generations expectations are non-negotiable. Van Dyk talks in moral terms, but his are in disarray.

For those of you who keep wondering aloud why Crosscut keeps Ted in "print," this gauntlet of public opinion speaks volumes—he is gifted at swiftly bringing all the basic assumptions to the fore, quite a useful function in that it gives Crosscut a measure of where we all are after several years of together attempting to educate ourselves.

At least and for the most part, it's civil and finite, but considering what is before us we still have a long way to go. We seem to be hung up on what to do after gathering together the pieces of the puzzle each of us brings. The metaphor suggests a long period of attempting to fit them together into new thought.

Ted might take a first shot in that he surely has everyone' attention, although it may well be hard for him, and the rest of us too, to focus on pieces other than one's own. It's never easy, just necessary.
Oh, and I doubt if we have all the critical pieces here yet.

The opposite of "soak the rich" is punishing the poor. The poor cannot give any more. They cannot pay more in healthcare and see more cuts in pay or worse be laid off.

Politicians and economists and apparently journalists all have a mindset of absolutes. That mindset has lead us to a disfunctional government. Supply side and demand side economics are not absolutes.

Right now we know businesses are sitting on billions of dollars. They are circling the wagons and waiting for something. To break that logjam government needs to produce jobs and government can produce jobs. There is a tremendous need for shoring up our infrastructure at every level of government. We need to bring transportation, electricity, utilities and internet up to the 21st century.

That investment should be paid for by taxes. Supply siders may scream, but there is no demand for the supply. Jobs and employment need to get to those who can create demand not held tightly by those waiting in fear of the next big crisis.

Thanks for the comments. In considering the issues discussed, I would urge that readers focus on practical solutions to the real problems we face.

The global financial system, and our own economy, are on shaky ground. Stability and then growth must be restored. From growth will come jobs. What mix of policies do you believe are most likely to generate short-term growth and jobs while, at the same time, paving the way for longer-term reduction of debt which will kill growth?

In local transportation: Where should monies be spent to address the huge backlog of needed repair to existing transportation infrastructure? What are the most cost-effective transportation investments for the future? Who should pay for them?

In education: How can we best improve the quality of education in our public schools? Is there any correlation between the recent-year increases in teacher/administrator compensation and improvements in classroom performance? What share of tax money in a period of budget constraints should be used to increase pay and benefits of school administrators and teachers? How does their pay compare to that of private-sector counterparts?

Ted, you bring up some very good points. Particularly that ajusting tax rates will not solve the economic situation.

But, I have to disagree that it is acceptable for people making $40-50,000 pay 12.5 percent federal taxes and those between $20-30,000 only 5.7 percent. One can barely live on $20-$30K and probably should pay no federal taxes. I guarantee you, moving that federal revenue from the low groups to the top one will cause an increase in spending for the low groups and not make a single dent in the top ones!

Anyway, what do you propose? As a writer, I expect you to suggest solutions, not just suggest generalities such as serving the public interest. Those who simply wield a machette and slash every suggestion are anarchists. A leader will come up with ideas for people to grasp and follow. What should Obama do if he were former Gov. Sanford?

I was thinking about this just recently on some of the vexing environmental issues we face.

Remember the plastic bag debate in 2009? The city council meant well in trying to reduce the amount of waste and resource consumption by instituting a 20 cent fee on plastic bags, but when the issue went to the ballot, it degenerated into a debate on such finer points as whether the poor can be expected to get their own reusable bags, how offended we are at the American Chemistry Council would invest in the No campaign, and other such nonsense. The policy was crafted hastily and did not avoid what should have been some of the more obvious pitfalls.

So it is with regressive car tabs and the "Buffet rule", measures that are of greater ideological than practical significance. I was stunned that President Obama would make such a rookie mistake--even after the debt ceiling debacle I didn't expect anything this foolish. The administration will never win an abstract debate over high earners tax rates, as so well demonstrated by the failure of I-1098 last year, and yet they went out of their way to start a losing fight.

But back to environmental matters. I've been through enough debates over the merits of sprawl and densification, cars versus bikes, whether it is fair for the city to fine people for not recycling, and so on to know what a waste of time they are. I wish more environmentalists would give up on these ideological matters and focus on solving the problems. The problem of solid waste disposal, unfortunately no longer on the agenda to the extent it was in the 1970s, can actually be solved fairly easily, without resorting to half measures such as limited curbside pick-up or divisive measures such as fines. An appropriate fee on landfilling--data indicates that $40/ton is the right level--with the revenue invested in wet/dry processing facilities and composting, would be more effective that most recycling programs in the country.

Anyway, that's an example of what might happen when people decide that they've had enough bickering over matters that cannot be resolved either way and instead decide that they are interested in solutions.

I can offer simple solutions to the issues you raise, but inflexisibility makes them politically dead.

How do we fix the financial system? Well we can do little to solve the world's problems, but we can address the US's problems. We need to seriously look at monopolies and breaking up these "too big to fail" companies and banks. Giant corporations have become "too big to succeed". Their only purpose seems to be to eat up smaller companies and eliminate jobs. We also need to seriously pare back the Las Vegas mentality of Wall Street. Risky investments must clearly be defined. Having complex investments makes it impossible for investors to make good decisions.

Those who make money need to be taxed to fix infrastructure. Not only to give jobs to those who need them, but to repair critical needs that our economic engine runs on.

We need year round schooling. Long summer breaks waste a third of our education dollars.

As usual, where does one start in addressing the TVD's inaccuracies and misleading statements, leaving aside his usual rhetoric about how much better the old, supposedly bipartisan days were. In his knee-jerk hostility to President Obama, TVD doesn't appear to have paid much attention to what Obama has actually proposed. Obama's proposal to end the Bush tax cuts on earnings over $250K, and restore the estate tax, would bring in hundreds of billions over 10 years (the evidence shows that true small businesses would be very little affected by ending the Bush tax cuts, and Obama has made that even less likely by applying this to earnings over $1 million). Capping charity and other deductions at 28% on high earners would bring in tens or hundreds of billions more, and that certainly fits TVD's definition of reducing tax expenditures. Obama also has proposed ending certain energy and corporate tax breaks, another reduction of tax expenditures. Obama's proposal to spend on infrastructure projects would give the economy a short- to medium-term boost, as would his proposal to allow homeowners to refinance at lower rates. TVD still can't come to grips with the fact that today's Republican Party has no interest in reaching any deal with Obama and the Dems. As the recent obit of Sen. Charles Percy indicated, there are no moderate, pragmatic dealmakers Republican members of Congress left.

At the risk of boring other readers, I will repeat for "pragmatic" the general programmatic approaches I have suggested previously re the economy.

--By all means extend the payroll-tax relief and unemployment-benefit extensions, as now proposed.

--Send more money to the states to see them through their Medicaid crisis.

--Make immediate cuts in permanent tax rates both for business and individuals. (If it makes you feel better to exempt upper-bracket individual rate cuts from this package, you can do so).

--Simultaneously, undertake a bipartisan initiative to sharply reduce and/or remove "tax expenditures" from the code. These range from such
notorious provisions as the ethanol subsidy and other subsidies and loopholes for favored sectors and industries to generally accepted
deductions for medical expense and home-mortgage interest. Rather than removing entirely the latter, I would cap deductions at a certain limit, such as $400,000 for mortgage interest.

These two actions, in combination--that is, lowering general rates and eliminating loopholes---would both stimulate growth and broaden the federal revenue base.

---Institute public stimulus spending which was carefully designed to
generate growth and job creation. This would include infrastructure
investments. It would not include careless subsidies to activities and companies favored by congressional and other political sponsors. Such
money, extended to Solyndra and other dubious recipients of public largesse, discredited Obama's Stimulus I package and has made a Stimulus II package quite difficult to enact.

---Renew momentum in the so-called Doha Round global trade liberalization
so that barriers to goods, services, and investment could be reduced worldwide (and, thus, benefit our own powerhouse economy and stimulate global growth). At the same time I would stop complaining about "unfair trade practices" by China and others as an excuse for our own lack of competitiveness in certain sectors. We are sinners, too, in this regard and a first-tier country whose complaints properly make us appear weak whiners internationally.

---Make mortgage relief more accessible to hard pressed homeowners. An estimated 20 percent of present mortgage holders are "under water"---that is, their mortgages amount to more than the values of their homes. Present
tight rules on such relief close the program to all but a handful of applicants. Longer term, the housing market must go through a period of adjustment which will put home values at a more realistic level.

---Undertake a bipartisan effort to put Medicare and Social Security on sound long-term financial footing. The solutions are well known and
readily available: Raise eligibility ages; revise COLAs; lift the limit on FICA taxes allocated to these programs; institute modest deductibles.
Small and incremental changes in all these places would solve the problem quickly. Those in retirement or nearing retirement could be exempted from the changes---which must be instituted long-term to address the reality that too few wage earners are paying for the retirments of too many present and prospective retirees.

--Undertake a first-principles review of current Defense spending, beyond
the foreseen liquidation of our present major involvements in Iraq and Afghanistan. This would put major weapons systems and present force levels under review and take a big whack at short-term deficits and long-term federal debt.

---Revise Dodd-Frank, which did not touch the principal factors which led to the 2008 financial crisis and could recur again when risk-taking became reckless. Even more than in 2008, "too big to fail" financial institutions, in a new crisis, would again be given huge infusions of
taxpayer money, putting us further into the red. At the same time, financial regulators should get much tougher toward practices which over the past 20 years have become commonplace in the sector. Any financial house receiving federal assistance should agree to strict limitations on
executive compensation.

--Propose aggressive tort-reform and regulatory-review to enhance productivity and job creation in businesses of all sizes.

--Eliminate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, liquidate their assets, and get them out of the private economy.

Now, these are proposals which could gain political support among both Democrats and Republicans. Some were put forward by the President's own commission last year---but then ignored. Some also were at the heart of President Kennedy's 1961 policies which "got America moving again" and
broke the economy out of a long period of stagnation.

Some of this should be done immediately, some of it announced but pursued
only in phase two. None of it has anything to do with raging against corporate jets, millionaires or billionaires, or refusing to entertain
anything which might be considered a "tax increase" (which many eliminated loopholes could be called).

Again, where to start? TVD doesn't seem to be paying attention to what Obama and the Dems previously have done and recently have proposed. Many of the things TVD proposes were in Obama's 2009 stimulus package, such as aid to the states for Medicaid and other programs. Contrary to what TVD says, a wide range of economists credit stimulus I with saving 1-3 million U.S. jobs. Some of the other things TVD proposes are in Obama's latest jobs/growth package, including infrastructure investment and mortgage relief. As to TVD's proposals for Medicare and Social Security, some of his proposals run counter to evidence and expert opinion. As the recent Kaiser Family Foundation study showed, raising the Medicare eligibility age saves the government a limited amount of money but shifts even more costs to seniors, businesses, and insurers. It's bad policy. In case TVD doesn't know this, Medicare beneficiaries already pay significant copayments and deductibles. Imposing even more out of pocket costs is a big new burden on seniors, most of whom are near-poor. But I agree with TVD on some of what he says here, such as lifting the income level subject to FICA taxes to address the long-term Social Security shortfall and reforming the mortgage interest deduction to make it more progressive and less costly. Bottom line, though Republicans are not going to agree to anything Obama and the Dems propose, except lower taxes for wealthy people and corporations.

One big agreement with TVD, the DoD's budget needs a knife, but as that spending has been carefully spread out in just about every congressional district, so the bipartisan fairy isn't likely to check under that particular pillow. Another is investing in infrastructure, which if passed still have to clear hurdles in states with Republican governors. Not so easy.

You know what saves money and helps the states and small businesses, and for that matter big businesses competing internationally? Single-payer. Don't ask Bipartisan Claus for that. But mortgage relief, goodness, let's shake hands on that, but don't hold your breath when one genuine bipartisan agreement centers around not being mean to bankers. Which is why a better version of Dodd-Frank's inadequate solution, such as a return to the FDR era Glass Steagall act is unlikely.
Free trade works great for capital, not so well for labor. Tort reform, great for big business, not so much for the little folks in the way of uncaring corporate bureaucracies.

But I especially note TVD's conclusion, in which he tut-tuts the Democrats in Republican talking points as being the group responsible for this mess. Hand waving aside, there's not much doubt where he stands.

When President Obama says "tax the rich", the stereotyped reply is "no class warfare." Maybe instead we should be asking "do we want a return to the marriage penalty?" It would be really interesting to see some data of who these people are who would pay more under his proposals. My guess is the biggest number would be working couples in their 30s and 40s who live in high cost of living states like California, NY, etc. This return to the marriage penalty is quite different from the Washington State income tax proposal which was 200 single / 400 married, vs President Obama's proposal is 200/250.

The other interesting question is how much of the difference in tax rates is due to investments in treasury or municipal investments that are tax free.

"One thing Obama and his advisers apparently do not recognize: A majority of voters, of all income levels, do not like punish-the-rich policies. Most still hold to the American dream that their children should have the chance to become rich in the future."

Poll: Most Americans Want Tax Cuts for the Rich to Expire
CBS News Poll analysis by the CBS News Polling Unit

Fifty-three percent of Americans agree with Mr. Obama that the tax cuts for the wealthy should be allowed to expire, while 38 percent do not, according to the poll, conducted Sept. 10-14. Two of three Democrats think it is a good idea, and most independents (55 percent) agree. Most Republicans (57 percent) think it is a bad idea.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20016602-503544.html

Poll: Should taxes on millionaires be boosted?
CNN/ORC International Poll conducted in August after the congressional agreement to create a bipartisan "super committee" to lower the nation's massive budget deficit.

63 percent of the public said they were OK with any deficit reduction bill passed by Congress that included increased taxes on higher-income Americans and businesses, with 36 percent opposed to the idea. The national survey also indicated a wide partisan divide, with eight in ten Democrats supporting an increase in taxes and six in ten Republicans opposed. Sixty-two percent of independent voters supported boosting taxes on higher-income Americans and businesses, with 37 percent opposed.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/19/should-taxes-on-millionaires-be-boosted/

To Dick Nelson: Yes, these are short term poll findings which ratify that, in the current economic/political environment, a majority are OK
with higher taxes on upper-income individuals and business. These no doubt are the same findings on which Obama advisers are basing their approach.
And they probably see it as ratifying the themes they are pursuing.

There is a big difference, though, between a snapshot of voter attitudes
in the midst of this current debate and longstanding voter beliefs which voters have expressed on many occasions in national elections. The Gore and Kerry campaigns found this out anew in 2000 and 2004, when such themes failed. Obama specifically avoided them in 2008 when he especially directed his appeal to independent and young voters and emphasized reaching beyond partisan and ideological differences. Their last success
came in the Depression 1930s when this was an entirely different country.

Voters in national elections most respond to approaches which are not class- or income-based but which appeal to them as Americans facing common problems.

A big question on any poll is "how are the questions asked" and another is "which words are used." Terms like "the wealthy" may or may not equate to a couple earning $250K in a high cost area, especially if that couple has several hundred thousand dollars in student loans which is all too common these days, or if that "income" is the main source for expanding a business.

I would look at a lot of different polling questions before drawing conclusions of what Americans want. Does anyone remember what the polling results were for the income tax vote in our state? Presumably things looked a lot closer than the actual vote turned out to be.

I do think a lot of Americans would vote yes for reducing the tax deductions available for certain items, such as mortgage interest in very expensive homes or on second/third home mortgages. But income tax rates? This is really hard to tell.

Ted, thank you for publishing your points. I'm sure you have in the past but evidentally I missed them.

I think that some of your points are correct, while I find others too libertarian. To keep the comments more or less on the original subject, I won't go into any questions or opinions about them, here.

But, I will ask you why you think Obama is unable to satisfactorily achieve any of these points. Is it that he doesn't believe in them? Is he not a strong enough leader? Does he fail to convince his constituants to vote for senators and reps that support his programs?

And finally, by the way, I doubt most readers find boring that you responded with a listing of your points. Thanks, again.

Wall Street Reform:

1. Eliminate the dividend tax cut paseed during the Bush Administration. It single-handedly reduces investment in new ideas, hosed the IPO market, and financially rewards companies for hoarding cash instead of investing in the future.
2. Curb the use of leverage in our commodity markets as part of a worldwide market reform agreement. Most of our EU and Asian counterparts are 90% there on this, so there would not be the heavy lifting one might expect. Institute a rule of no leverage or derivative instruments allowed in key economic commodities (oil, certain metals, foods) for market participants who are not primary producers or direct consumers of the commodity. Limit derivative and leverage to 2-3x for direct producers and consumers. This will immediately take the "speculation tax" out of key commodities and spur economic growth at the consumer level.
3. Start work with other global financial markets to reduce derivative use overall in the market. An online trader buying an option on certain ETFs is essentially consuming a 4th or 5th-order derivative. The resulting implied and actual leverage makes the velocity of money in the financial markets so high it destabilizes markets.

National
1. Roll back the Bush-era tax cuts. Anyone reasonably proficient with Google can find data showing two key points: (a) They did absolutely nothing for the middle class; and (b) They caused us to put two wars (or an equal amount of domestic discretionary spending, if you prefer) on credit cards held by the Chinese.
2. Re-examine all unfunded state mandates to see which ones can be relaxed in order to relieve budgetary pressure at the state level.

States
The Federal level stimulus programs are being eaten alive by cutbacks at the state level. At the state level, revenue enhancements must be examined instead of all-cuts budgets. Such enhancements are tricky, obviously, because raising taxes in a recession can be problematic. As at the Federal level, States should look to close non-performing tax breaks first before raising taxes on the general population. Raising general population taxes should be done in targeted fashion as much as possible.

Local (Seattle)
Respect your voters by investing in what is needed now. $18 million from a regressive tax to study a streetcar that will take tens to hundreds of millions to build is not rational in the current economic climate. Adding 1,240 bicycle parking spots and over 100 miles of bike lanes and signed bike routes IN ADDITION TO THE hundreds of parking spots and hundreds of miles of bike lanes/signage already funded by Bridging the Gap is also not a rational use of tab fee dollars in the current economic climate.

Investing in more bus hours and routes is rational and addresses the regressivity issue, but the current Prop 1 proposal doesn't do. Putting people to work building sidewalks to access bus routes and schools is rational -- which the current Prop 1 does an insultingly small amount of. Fixing roads and providing at least some planning and matching funds for bridge repairs also represents immediate jobs and addresses an immediate need for ALL Seattle road users (transit, freight, bicycle, pedestrians) is also a rational use of car tab fee dollars.

The $60 car tab fee is regressive for TWO reasons, the second of which is perhaps not so obvious:

(1) The obvious reason is an owner of a $500 beater that runs on alternate Sundays pays the same as the owner of a $75,000 luxury SUV. This can be addressed (theoretically) through rebates, but this measure is irretrievably flawed because budgeting for rebates is not included in the spending plan proposed to voters. Any plan put forward now to take money from the tab tax to pay for rebates is legally questionable. A rumored plan to pay the rebates out of the general fund is simply robbing Peter to pay Paul with the additional disadvantage of hurting other critical programs.

(2) The spending plan exacerbates the regressiveness. Seven percent of the money in this levy is spent to benefit only 2.5% of the commuters with no cross-benefits to other modalities and benefitting an economic group who (largely) suffers the least from this tax. Streetcar spending in this proposal benefits nobody but consultants, as none of the $18 budgeted will actually produce anything in the foreseeable future. Bicycle spending (that 7% for 2.5% of commuters) benefits only cyclists.

Thanks for the many comments. I had not intended to comment further but
will respond to "pragmatic's" request that I suggest why President Obama has been unsuccessful in pressing his stimulus/debt-reduction proposals.

I, as many others, enthusiastically supported Obama's nomination and election. We neglected, however, to note his degree of prior inexperience in a management role and his relative lack of exposure to many financial/economic issues in particular. He made a number of pledges in his 2008 campaign which should have been postponed until financial/economic stability had been restored---most notably, his pledge to do a remake of the health sector. He believed, however, that he had to press everything forward in his first 100 days or he would have no chance
to do it later. He thus overreached badly. He broke with his 2008 posture of reaching across party and ideological lines and framed and passed his stimulus, health care, and other legislation on a one-party basis (and over the opposition, in addition, of many moderate House Democrats).

Voters agreed that he had overreached and, in 2010, 63 House Democrats lost their seats, as well as several Democratic Senators. Entering 2011 he found himself facing a Republican-majority House with a strong Tea Party contingent and only a few remaining moderate Democrats. A sure formula for gridlock unless the President took special care to reach out to the other party in framing fresh proposals. He talked about doing it but, in practice, did not.

He also missed a great opportunity in 2010 to put many difficult and polarizing issues behind the country and himself. He could have done this by accepting his bipartisan debt-reduction commission's recommendations
and submitting them to the Congress for an up-or-down vote in their entirety. He did not do so but, instead, fell back to a reflexive Democratic partisan position warning about changes which might endanger Social Security or Medicare. Short term, he can make partisan points by
scaring seniors about these entitlement programs and/or blaming economic problems on business or upper-income Americans. He can blame congressional Republicans for being "oppositionist." But he cannot pass an agenda that way. He can only assure stalemate and gamble that, in 2012, voters will place blame for stalemate on Republicans, business, the wealthy, etc.

So, the President is not able to pass any major short-term stimulus or long-term debt reduction proposal. He can only hope to get marginal and incremental legislation which will do nothing fundamental to help our financial system or economy.

Why did make such an abrupt change of course from that which he promised in 2008 to pursue? Part of it is because his principal advisors come out of a background in which short-term tactical politics is the only game they know. Part of it, I'm afraid, is because he does not truly comprehend the depth and seriousness of the present dangers to the global and U.S. economies. This is big stuff which should not be addressed with small partisanship.

Bottom line: Obama is well intended, smart, but came to his job inexperienced in both national policy and politics. Three years in, he has still not caught up to what he should know.

Once again, TVD ignores actual history. Obama and congressional Dem leaders, particularly Max Baucus on the Senate side, strenuously reached across to Republicans for support on health care reform but were rebuffed after wasting nearly a year seeking bipartisan support (though the Dems ended up including many GOP provisions in the law anyway and took out the public option in the vain hope of winning at least a few GOP Senate votes). Obama and the Dems also added a heavy dose of tax cuts in the stimulus plan in the vain hope of winning Republican votes. So TVD again is rewriting history to say Obama tried to do these things unilaterally. Many of us thought he would have been better off doing so. Also, the recent history of presidencies shows that presidents do indeed have to move very fast in their first term to pass significant pieces of legislation. TVD can say voters thought Obama and the Dems had overreached, but health care is a very easy issue to demagogue. Responsible Republicans would have joined hands with the Dems to pass health care reform, and could easily have gained a more conservative, modest package of reforms if they had cooperated. But they had zero interest in doing so. TVD really needs to provide concrete examples of where the Republicans demonstrated genuine interest in working with Obama and the Dems on anything other than tax cuts and regulatory rollbacks. TVD, let's hear them. But there ain't none.
Obama and the Dems don't have to make stuff up to scare seniors about GOP plans for Medicare and Social Security. House Republicans actually passed a bill to privatize, voucherize, and slash Medicare, and they've made clear since the George W. Bush administration they want to do the same to Social Security.
BTW, in response to TVD's hawking of medical malpractice "reform," here's a brand new, excellent piece from an expert on the issue arguing that it's mostly a political issue that doesn't have that significant an impact on health care costs.
http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2011/09/26/common-sense-and-malpractice-reform/

Harris, like you, this article makes smoke come out of my ears. I have no intention of sitting idly by while media pundits vilify President Obama because he's inexperienced or isn't reaching out to the 'other side'. The other side is so focused on bringing down President Obama, they'll bring down the entire country to do it. Their only goal is to 'break' Obama.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHV4nDS501Y

Let's be honest, there IS no Republican party anymore. It's merely a group of lobbyists in office who are advocating for corporate interests, super wealthy people and war profiteers. And they're cleaning up big time. They're not being 'soaked' at all.

The intent of the Republican Party is to eliminate social security, eliminate environmental protections and eliminate any other laws that stand in the way of corporate profits. They don't exactly make a secret of that.

TVD speaks as if things are the same today as they were in the Carter days. Alot has changed. 9/11 was used as a huge power grab to give the Presidency more power under the Bush regime not to mention an utter failure of the CIA, FBI and the Pentagon to protect this country. Obama has yet to relinquish these powers. The Supreme Court is totally corrupt and with the Citizens United case, awarded control of our elections to the corporations with the most money, even foreign corporations.

The 2008 financial crash is still playing out and it will play out globally. Here's an article I found 6 months before the crash. It explained in detail what will happen to the U.S. economy.

International experts foresee collapse of U.S. economy
3/10/2008
http://www.intelligencer.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=918803+&archive;=true

From the article:
--
We are not experiencing a "remake" of the 1929 crisis nor a repetition of the 1970s oil crises or 1987 stock market crisis.

What we will have, instead, is truly a global momentous threat - a true turning point affecting the entire planet and questioning the very foundations of the international system upon which the world was organized in the last decades.
--

Not to be overly critical of TVD but let's at least be honest here. What President Obama is having to deal with is unprecedented, and it's threatening the entire planet. He's dealing with a political party that wants to destroy his presidency and apparently doesn't mind bringing down the entire U.S. economy with it.

I think the only apt comparison with Carter is that we're in the midst of a hostage crisis. However our hostage crisis is that of a political party taking the entire US Congress hostage to advance their corporate political agenda.

You can watch a trader talk about the crisis in Europe here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC19fEqR5bA

He's equating it to the crash of '29.

"what about the people?"

You can see the people here:
https://occupywallst.org/

And it isn't pretty. But neither were the early days of the Vietnam protests.

Thanks for that last post Gary. What about the people indeed. There seems to be some misconstrued notion that the President is all powerful. In fact, the Presidency is probably the least powerful branch of the government. After all, it's just one guy.

The real power lies in the people as the Occupy Wall Street crowd is going to show over time. I just stopped by there tonight and observed the park filled with peaceful, mostly young activists who probably see their dim prospects for the future and want to do something about it. It's hard to believe the NYPD had any reason to pepper spray the young woman featured in this video.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/44679119#44679119

The Occupy Wall Street movement is now spreading across America, dubbed Occupy America.

http://www.facebook.com/OccupyAmerica