After winning the Illinois primary on Tuesday, Mitt Romney's victory speech featured an unexpected argument. The former governor was trying to argue that "government" stands in the way of American progress, which led to this observation: "We once built the interstate highway system and the Hoover Dam. Today, we can't even build a pipeline."
It was probably a reference to Keystone XL, but Romney was also referring to two major, expensive taxpayer-financed infrastructure projects -- the kind of policies Republicans now oppose. Indeed, if his point was to talk about how awful "government" is, why did Romney point to the Hoover Dam and the interstate highway system as worthwhile initiatives?
Putting that question aside, about 16 hours later, President Obama delivered a speech on energy policy in Boulder City, Nevada, and made a related observation.
"Eight decades ago, in the midst of the Great Depression, the people of Boulder City were busy working on another energy project you may have heard of," Obama said. "Like today, it was a little bit ahead of its time; it was a little bit bigger than this solar plant -- it was a little louder, too. It was called the Hoover Dam. And at the time, it was the largest dam in the world. Even today, it stands as a testimony to American ingenuity, American imagination, the power of the American spirit -- a testimony to the notion we can do anything. That was true back then; it is true today."
Hmm, Hoover Dam. Where have I heard about that recently? Wait, now I remember.
This "Lean Forward" promo came out last year, and it featured Rachel making a larger argument, referencing that very dam on the minds of Obama and Romney. And while I'm glad this project has become such a popular political metaphor all of a sudden, I'm afraid one of these two leaders may be missing part of the point.
Here's what Rachel said in the ad:
"When you are this close to Hoover Dam, it makes you realize how small a human is in relation to this as a human project. You can't be the guy who builds this. You can't be the town who builds this. You can't even be the state who builds this. You have to be the country that builds something like this. This is a national project. This is a project of national significance. We've got those projects on the menu right now. And we've got to figure out whether or not we are still a country that can think this big."
I'm not sure if Romney fully appreciates this, but if he checked in with his friends on Capitol Hill, he'd realize that most congressional Republicans balk at expanding American infrastructure investments because (a) it spends money, and (b) it's not a tax cut; while another chunk of congressional Republicans reject the idea on principle on the 10th Amendment grounds (the Constitution doesn't mention highways, bridges, or dams).
"We once built the interstate highway system and the Hoover Dam"? Well, yes, we did, and we can do so again. Does Romney not realize he's making a Democratic argument?
Leave a Comment:
The government built the White House, the Capitol Building and the airport the congressmen fly in and out of. Building a pipeline carrying toxic tar sands that will benefit no one that does not own an oil company is ludicrous. It has been over 2 yrs. and a relatively small spill in Mich. [not small to Mich.] is still not cleaned up. If this stuff got into a major aquifer the damage would be catastrophic. Increasing oil production is useful but not worth the loss of safe drinking water. Does big oil own Perrier and Aquafina?
Steve, you might as well make a Josh Lyman "That's the other guys!" gif. This is going to keep happening.
Steve, you say "Boulder Dam," perhaps intending to allude to the naming controversy that surrounded the project, initially informally referred to as "Boulder Dam" for its proximity to Boulder Canyon and Boulder City. Here's a link to the details.
When I saw that speech of Romney's I did think, hey, a shout out to TRMS!
It was a pretty good speech, giving a clear picture of a world ...
... a world that didn't have any actual humans in it, but a pretty exciting world nonetheless.
I couldn't help but think the exact same thing when I heard his speech Tuesday! "Wait, is he REALLY making an argument for infrastructure spending?" I couldn't get my head around it, and still can't. So here's Romney's platform...
The economy it better, but it's not Obama's doing; Obama wants to build infrastructure, but let's not do that - let's build infrastructure; and let's give Ohio Art a little bit of a boost in sales.
I still feel bad for my Republican friends...
Want to understand Republican "economics"? They're Confederate economics. Here is the great Confederate traitor Andrew Stevens, speaking in 1861 (for those who want the entire speech, google "Andrew Stevens cornerstone speech" and you can get the ringing defense of slavery as the "natural condition" of Africans and how that is the central tenet of the Confederacy, so much for the southern b.s. that the Civil War wasn't about slavery):
Again, the subject of internal improvements, under the power of Congress to regulate commerce, is put at rest under our system. The power, claimed by construction under the old constitution, was at least a doubtful one; it rested solely upon construction. We of the South, generally apart from considerations of constitutional principles, opposed its exercise upon grounds of its inexpediency and injustice. Notwithstanding this opposition, millions of money, from the common treasury had been drawn for such purposes. Our opposition sprang from no hostility to commerce, or to all necessary aids for facilitating it. With us it was simply a question upon whom the burden should fall. In Georgia, for instance, we have done as much for the cause of internal improvements as any other portion of the country, according to population and means. We have stretched out lines of railroads from the seaboard to the mountains; dug down the hills, and filled up the valleys at a cost of not less than $25,000,000. All this was done to open an outlet for our products of the interior, and those to the west of us, to reach the marts of the world. No State was in greater need of such facilities than Georgia, but we did not ask that these works should be made by appropriations out of the common treasury. The cost of the grading, the superstructure, and the equipment of our roads was borne by those who had entered into the enterprise. Nay, more not only the cost of the iron no small item in the aggregate cost was borne in the same way, but we were compelled to pay into the common treasury several millions of dollars for the privilege of importing the iron, after the price was paid for it abroad. What justice was there in taking this money, which our people paid into the common treasury on the importation of our iron, and applying it to the improvement of rivers and harbors elsewhere? The true principle is to subject the commerce of every locality, to whatever burdens may be necessary to facilitate it. If Charleston harbor needs improvement, let the commerce of Charleston bear the burden. If the mouth of the Savannah river has to be cleared out, let the sea-going navigation which is benefited by it, bear the burden. So with the mouths of the Alabama and Mississippi river. Just as the products of the interior, our cotton, wheat, corn, and other articles, have to bear the necessary rates of freight over our railroads to reach the seas. This is again the broad principle of perfect equality and justice, and it is especially set forth and established in our new constitution.
Romney is talking to the folks who already believe that government is the problem. It continually amazes me how they constantly want to have it both ways. Government is the problem (spends taxpayer money on infrastructure and other non-essential job creating crap) BUT when I run the government it won't be the problem because I'll build a pipeline for Big Oil companies!
The GOP base totally misses the point that the former uses taxpayer money and benefits everyone while the latter uses taxpayer money and benefits big oil companies and their CEOs, Directors & shareholders and Romney's pals who own NFL and NASCAR teams . . .
- and, oh, yeah, will "reduce the cost of a gallon of gas" ;-/ for the common folk! And so it goes . . . .
I'm starting to look forward to the knock down POTUS is about to bring to Romney in a campaign fight.
I wish someone could negotiate with NBC to use this in an Obama and/or Dems for Congress commercial. Various economists (e.g. Krugman) keep making the point that now, with interest rates so low, is the perfect time to do those "big dream" kinds of infrastructure investments, but it ain't gonna happen if Republicans stay in control of House and effective control (via obstruction) of the Senate.
That is a key point that this commercial begins... it just needs a closer to make it clear who has the big dreams for the future.
I would tell President Obama to negotiate the approval of the Keystone Project by including an additional high capacity WATER PIPE because eventually we will be needing Greak Lake Water to be distributed throughout this thirsty Nation.
I believe all the states and Canadian provinces that touch the Great Lakes must give permission for water to go "inland". Some Chicago area suburban municipalities are having a hard time getting approval to get water from Lake Michigan even though they are only 25 - 50 miles away. The Great Lakes are a huge natural resource for this continent and they will become a "battleground" so to speak in the near future.