Whoops But Mary Burke Is Wrong On This One

I realize that running her gubernatorial campaign on a meme of jobs is a positive attention getter…but Mary Burke is flat out wrong on this one. Prioritize road work based on what would create the most jobs? With our deteriorating infrastructure it seems that the right approach is a priority on what needs fixing to keep the public safe. From JSOnline:

…former Trek Bicycle Corp. executive Mary Burke, hasn’t determined whether she wants to spend more on transportation. But she said she would not rule out any options to supplement funding for highways — including raising the gas tax or creating a mileage fee.

She said she would prioritize road work based on what would create the most jobs and would find new sources of revenue if necessary.

Course there could actually be a discussion on real transit at some point!


Related Articles

5 thoughts on “Whoops But Mary Burke Is Wrong On This One

  1. Have long believed we need more tax on gasoline fuel. Two problems with maintaining a low tax on gas: 1)Doesn’t really affect gas prices that much as suppliers base their price on what sale quantity will optimize profit. 2)diving big gas driven vehicles not only destroys roads, but also air, water and soil.

    Road tolls don’t really limit big, gas driven vehicles. So no help with the environmental problems associated with carbon fuels. Don’t see studies being done on gas tax vs toll fees However, it seems likely that Tolls will hurt tourism trade more than higher gas tax. Let’s at least study it, Wisconsin.

  2. How about prioritizing road work based on how much traffic there is on a particular road and what condition the road is in?

    Prioritizing road work based on how many jobs it would create is code for widening roads when they really don’t need to be widened.

  3. A higher gasoline tax would be hard on individuals with fixed incomes who drive many are people with disabilities. I think the tax should be put on trucks that carry heavy loads.

  4. Wrong? Possibly. But I suspect the “prioritize road work” comment was well intended campaign rhetoric. Seems roads in need of repair would be a higher priority and any road repair/construction is jobs. Much ado about nothing..

    1. When I originally read the article it just struck me as a rather odd statement. And when I found a few spare moments last night I just thought I throw it out there as a quick hit.

      I agree that it is just campaign rhetoric but your comment made me think about that for a bit this afternoon. Why should any of us accept something as just campaign rhetoric from our candidates…isn’t that what’s gotten us into this fix in a way? Shouldn’t we expect candidates to say what they really mean? Am I supposed to expect that once elected that the candidate will fix the roads that need fixing ahead of the roads that will create the most jobs? Of should I expect her to actually go for the most jobs, need be damned?

Comments are closed.