Coburn's crosstown denial

[okrednk]

Somebody tell me why we should support this? From what I have read Coburn wants to do away with the I-44 crosstown construction, why? Is this not something OKC needs and would make things much better for the city? All in part because he wants to help free up money for hurricane relief. Yes, good cause but wrong way to pull funds, this was already signed by the president to happen, I-44 needs redesigned, how will OKC ever grow and be a prosperous city without expansion and making necessary changes.

Does anyone else have any news on this? Maybe I am reading it wrong. This definitely will not affect the I-40 movement will it? I am definitely against Coburn's decision on this idea. Anyone else have any comments?

[metro]

I'm surprised as well about this to a certain extent, although Coburn isn't from Central Oklahoma and Istook isn't any better IMO. Then again, Coburn could of been doing a crossword puzzle while this proposal was being explained and then just voted with the majority to fit in. hehehehe

[okieopus]

Coburn cuts road funding...he did when he was in the house and he's doing it again.

Why were we stupid enough to elect him when we KNEW this was what he was going to do?

[BDP]

It's the Oklahoma Republican Congressman formula: support tax cuts, support spending elsewhere, and pay for it by cutting Oklahoma infrastructure.

I do think we need to make sacrifices for hurricane relief, but these cuts are not because of the hurricane, they are simply the product of poor fiscal planning based on a delusional concept of reality and faith based economics.

[PUGalicious]

Why were we stupid enough to elect him when we KNEW this was what he was going to do?

We?

We?!?

Not me.

To answer your question, it's because people either are ignorant about his views or have very short memories.

.

[okieopus]

we doesnt include "me" either

[okrednk]

It's the Oklahoma Republican Congressman formula: support tax cuts, support spending elsewhere, and pay for it by cutting Oklahoma infrastructure.

I do think we need to make sacrifices for hurricane relief, but these cuts are not because of the hurricane, they are simply the product of poor fiscal planning based on a delusional concept of reality and faith based economics.

This is what he has been saying anyways. That it is to free up unnecessary money that the US government could be using towards the hurricane relief. Okay, hurricane relief is a thing of need. After all the hurricane affected states aren't the only ones who face national disasters. If I remeber correctly Oklahoma still gets tornados and pays for that. We need the money for the interstate to stay here. When is Coburn's term up?

[PUGalicious]

This is the first year of his 6-year term. He's not up for re-election until 2010.

.

[writerranger]

Actually, Coburn is doing the right thing and not being a hypocrite. He has opposed pork barrel spending projects in the highway bill and thinks it needs to be completely redone. He cites many examples with the "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska being only one. He is willing to chuck home projects in the highway bill to start over and use a little fiscal sanity. Liberals won't like it because it means not running to Washington for everything. As for Katrina, he says that all of that money has been allocated without a way to pay for it. The highway bill is chock full of things to eliminate to help pay for it. It isn't hurricane relief, per se, it is that money was allocated without a way to pay and he has proposed redirecting the money in a fiscally sane manner. We have returned to freespending ways in Washington and Tom Coburn isn't just talking about cutting spending, he is acting on his promises to help reign in runaway spending. Love him or hate him, Coburn is genuine.

[PUGalicious]

Actually, Coburn is doing the right thing and not being a hypocrite. He has opposed pork barrel spending projects in the highway bill and thinks it needs to be completely redone. He cites many examples with the "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska being only one. He is willing to chuck home projects in the highway bill to start over and use a little fiscal sanity. Liberals won't like it because it means not running to Washington for everything. As for Katrina, he says that all of that money has been allocated without a way to pay for it. The highway bill is chock full of things to eliminate to help pay for it. It isn't hurricane relief, per se, it is that money was allocated without a way to pay and he has proposed redirecting the money in a fiscally sane manner. We have returned to freespending ways in Washington and Tom Coburn isn't just talking about cutting spending, he is acting on his promises to help reign in runaway spending. Love him or hate him, Coburn is genuine.

Much of what you say is true. However, you easily point the finger at the wrong culprits. It's not the liberals who have been free-spending for the last five years. It's not a liberal Democratic senator who has pushed for the "bridge to nowhere." It's not liberals who have been driving the ballooning pork in recent spending bills — not only the highway bill, but the energy bill with much of the pork going to the GOP's biggest supporters — Big Oil.

I agree that there is too much pork. But aim your criticism where it belongs — not with liberals who you accuse of running to Washington for everything, but rather to the real party in power of the White House and both houses of Congress, the "fiscal conservative" Republicans.

[hipsterdoofus]

Actually from what I have heard, Coburn is not wanting to take money from the I-40 projects as he is saying it is a necessity, which I think is true, he is just trying to make cuts, thank goodness someone is.

[Pete]

In normal times, we could have absorbed the huricane damage without too much of a problem.

However, we are in the middle of a very long and expensive war and have also spent billions domestically for the 'war on terror'.


I said it two years ago: Where do you think this money is going to come from for these miliatry/security efforts? The best idea has been deficit spending while our national debt just hit a record $8 TRILLION and this has nothing to do with Katrina.

Many deep cuts will be coming in domestic programs and by then it will be too late to do anything but take it.

[okieopus]

Bankrupted America...Thank You Mr. President.

Our fearless MISleader

[Pete]

Bush is far from the only one to blame in this mess.


I simply can't believe how fiscally irresponsible we've become as a nation and in the longer term this country will suffer greatly as a result.

[Doug Loudenback]

Coburn cuts road funding...he did when he was in the house and he's doing it again.

Why were we stupid enough to elect him when we KNEW this was what he was going to do?

I didn't vote for him ... he's the most pitiful excuse for a US Senator I know of and I'd not vote for him if no one else was on the ticket.

Talk about morinic ... and I know he must have "some" smarts or he'd not have gotten through med school, I suppose ... but, do you remember in the campaign when he said (among many other asinine things) that the Cherokees were not a Native American tribe, or something like that, and with him living in Muskogee, which is in Cherokee territory!

Coburn is an embarassment to this state, and not just a little.

But, then, "we" did elect him didn't we? I'm hoping that, next time, 5 years hence, Oklahomans will "think" before they/we mark our ballots. I can think of no greater embarrasment to the fine state of Oklahoma than this man. Talk about "Okie from Muskogee" (no disrespect intended to Muskogee or its fine citizens). But, damn!

[BDP]

However, we are in the middle of a very long and expensive war and have also spent billions domestically for the 'war on terror'.

What's interesting is that, according to the Heritage Foundation, "the $166 billion total increase in defense spending from 2000-2003 represents just 21 percent of the $782 billion total spending increase, and less than 25 percent of that defense spending increase can be directly attributed to the war on terrorism. While it is easy to blame legitimate national defense spending for Washington's recent spending spree, the 2000-2003 period still would represent the largest four-year per-household spending hike in 15 years even if defense spending had not risen at all."

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/BG1581.cfm

So, the war on terrorism has really been used as leverage to justify the passing of massive increases in spending. It's more or less another way terrorism has been used to dupe us into supporting unrelated and unjustified projects. They don’t want to spend money on infrastructure, but NASCAR tracks and corporate subsidies are fine?

While Coburn was not directly responsible for these increases, he is now responsible for paying for them. Maybe he's trying to show principle or avoid hypocrisy, but it seems like his principles may guarantee Oklahoma a future of decaying infrastructure. Unless, that is, someone comes up with a solution locally... that we would support... a lottery maybe... oh wait...

The truth is that the federal government spent 5 years spending money on things they wanted, while proposing no concrete way to pay for it all. Then comes along a series of great tragedies and in an effort to pay for those, we are asked to give up things we need.

I'd love it if we didn't need any work on our roads and highways, but it seems that is the only way to get around Oklahoma and, for many, the country at this point.

[Pete]

We spent more than $70 billion in 2004 just for the war in Iraq, not including rebuilding efforts and domestic homeland security funding.

We also spent $50 billion in 2003 and we'll end up spending another $80 billion in 2005. That's $200 billion just for the war to date and billions more for rebuilding, homeland security, improvements to the military in general (rather than the cuts that had helped keep spending under control for the last couple of decades). And we all know spending in these areas will continue at a very high rate for at least a couple of more years and probably well beyond.


All that would have paid for a lot of hurricane damage and freeways, not to mention mass transit, education and healthcare.

[soonerguru]

Any candidate who says "I'm Conservative, He's a Liberal" gets elected in Oklahoma these days.

David Boren, probably our best-ever senator, would have trouble getting elected in this climate.

People need to look past the labels and find out what the candidates are actually going to do in office.

Coburn hasn't been as bad as I thought he would be, to be honest. My expectations of him were so low that he has actually exceeded them.

To the poster above who said Coburn is doing what he said he would do, YOU ARE INCORRECT. Coburn promised DURING THE CAMPAIGN TO THE VOTERS OF OKC that he would support federal funding for the Crosstown Expressway. That was a PROMISE.

Also, what he is doing with this is acting like the GRANDSTANDER, to get attention. Mick covered his ass for this faux pas but Kirk Humphries ripped him a new one, as did the Tulsa mayor.

He's taking two CRITICAL infrastructure projects, both of which are ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY for the state's economic development, and risking them with this attention-getting maneuver.

The I-40 and I-44 ARE NOT PORK PROJECTS. They are essential infrastructure projects that affect two major interstate, FEDERAL highways.

We have been a donor state for too long, and those projects are overdue for funding. We cannot afford to gamble I-40's completion so this egocentric boob can win a few political points. Extremely irresponsible and precisely why I voted against this nutcase, who thinks that God speaks through him.

And Malibu, Bush deserves 90% of the blame for this budget fiasco. He's the one that pushed three rounds of tax cuts during a war and HASN'T VETOED A SINGLE BILL since he's been in the White House. And this fiscal trainwreck has nothing to do with the war.

We used to be tax and spend. Now we're just borrow and spend and it is a disgrace. The GOP has had five years to prove that it is the fiscally responsible party and it has utterly failed.

People keep demonizing liberals, but this country did pretty damn good with about 50 years of Democratic rule. After WWII, this country became the richest, most powerful nation on the planet, and the liberals played their part -- along with conservatives -- to make this the great country it is.

I'm hoping we can survive the next three years, but it is looking bleak.

[PUGalicious]

Well said.

[Doug Loudenback]

I'm hoping we can survive the next three years, but it is looking bleak.

Three for Bush, five for Colburn. I'm not sure that I can stand the latter, but, then again, suicide is not an option. I didn't vote for Bush, either, but he's (as he is) far and away the intellectual superior of Tom Colburn, IMO. And, that's a pretty qualified statement, don't you know? I'm not repelled by the image of GW, but, with TC ... that's another story.

[jbrown84]

I voted for Humphreys in the primary. Believe what you want about him, but without a doubt he would have been better than Coburn.

[writerranger]

I agree that many Republicans are not TRUE conservatives. I agree that Bush and the GOP controlled congress deserves much condemnation. However, Coburn is becoming a hero to the grassroots conservative movement in this country. The Coburn Amendment (Google it - it had A LOT of left-right support in the blogosphere) had many people cheering. It wasn't "grandstanding," it was principle for Coburn. Humphreys would have been another "go along to get along" establishment Republican. Coburn is a CONSERVATIVE first, a Republican second. Many Republicans have lost patience with the Washington entrenched Establishment types and are demanding change including a return to fiscal conservatism, begin enforcing our laws regarding illegal immigration, ending Affirmative Action and set-asides, return to being strong on DEFENSE and security rather than launching offensive wars based on questionable intelligence. The list is long as Bush has disappointed conservatives time and time again. Doug will again tell us again how much he hates Tom Coburn. That's fine. Senator Coburn is not exactly politically correct and thank God for that!!

[soonerguru]

I applauded Coburn's attempted amendment. I've just got a BIG problem with him turning his back on a campaign promise to his constituents and throwing into the pile two projects which, by no definition, fit the description of "pork."

Had I been a Senator, I would have supported his anti-pork initiative, and I agree that it was not grandstanding.

But what he did this week by offering up the two most important projects of his home state is ridiculous, selfish grandstanding. It's grandstanding because it would never pass, but he does it anyway to get attention.

The primary argument I had with Repubs before the last election was that Coburn is a walking disaster for the Senate; he's much better suited for the House. The Senate is by definition a deliberative body, where compromise and negotiation are paramount.

I don't want to see my state penalized because we have an activist in the seat. I'm not saying Coburn should fight for pork for Oklahoma, but again, I-40, which is in desperate straits and is a major interstate highway, IS NOT PORK.

Ol' Tom went off the deep end, and I'm sure he's hearing about it from big brother Inhofe.

For the record, I'm in favor of fiscal discipline and sanity for the federal budget, but I don't like how this current crew is running the country. They introduce new entitlements, which may not be a bad thing if it actually helps people like Social Security, but the prescription drug thing is confusing and unhelpful for most people. If you're going to create an expensive new program, it should at least help people.

Similarly, look at Homeland Security. A whole new government bureaucracy is created, and yet we see how woefully unprepared it is to handle a disaster in the homeland. Now we know it's just a multi-billion dollar boondoggle. And, irony of irony, we find that the one agency that could have helped people, FEMA, was gutted when it was put under DHS. Does anyone think this makes any sense? We've spent all this money but most of it hasn't done any good.

I'm not a big fan of a government program for everything, despite what you may think about liberals. But I do think government is necessary and helpful for some things, we just have people running it right now who don't seem to believe in it.

Maybe this sounds simplistic, but the question that comes to mind is: why would we put people in charge of running the government who don't believe in government?

The administration has grown the government more than anyone since LBJ, and yet it seems to be very poorly managed.

[Doug Loudenback]

writerranger, you said ...

Doug will again tell us again how much he hates Tom Coburn. That's fine. Senator Coburn is not exactly politically correct and thank God for that!!

... I don't think I used the word, "hate". If I did, that was a mistake, as I reserve that word very very carefully, and I don't think that I said that.

What I meant to say, as far as my opinion is concerned, no more or no less valuable than anyone else's, is that I think Colburn is a numbskull.

How could a resident of Muskogee NOT know that the Cherokees were a recognized Native American tribe??? That's one of several snipits of info that he uttered during his primary. Such statements boggles the mind.

Perhaps you have an explanation of this particular instance?

[BDP]

All that would have paid for a lot of hurricane damage and freeways, not to mention mass transit, education and healthcare.

I agree. That’ a completely valid point. I just wanted to highlight that a vast majority of the increase in spending had nothing to do with our defense (or offense as it may be). I think when you add up all the recent increases that the federal government spends money on that has no possible justification as a critical public project, you'll find even more money than the increases made under the defense umbrella.

Coburn and others like him are in a tough spot as they try to curtail government spending. It's much easier to take a whack at major projects in the highway bill (some of which should be whacked) than it is to lop off all of the small pet projects inserted by special interests and given as political paybacks. It's easier to deal with one upset legislator over losing one large project than it is to deal with several losing many. It also doesn't help that these things go unnoticed by the general public as they are vast in number and, yet, individually small enough that they exist outside of the media and public's consciousness.

For example, here's a list of proposed changes by Taxpayers for Common Sense:

http://www.taxpayer.net/budget/fiscalroadmap.htm

While I'm sure we could argue the merits of each suggestion for months, the list at least highlights the level of redundant and unnecessary "incentive" and subsidy programs that plague our budget. They started with a 200 billion dollar goal and worked their way through several projects, some which just delaying them a year would free up billions of dollars.

I think we have to focus on cutting out true pork, while remembering who put us in this position in the upcoming elections.