Sometimes, when I read about politics, I think back to Iraq, or to little children. You see, Iraqis (when you work with them) are a lot like little children. They don't see past the immediate. There is little to no long term planning. Politicians, it seems, are quite the same.

To give an example, Congressman Sensenbrenner, of Wisconson, is the ranking Republican on the House Committee on Global Warming. Republicans have, since taking over the house, decided to kill the Committee altogether. I find it rather remarkable that a group which continually says it has no voice or input into "Pelosi's San Francisco Agenda" would kill a Committee of which its ranking member says:

while I was initially skeptical of the select committee's mission, it ultimately provided a forum for bipartisan debate, and an opportunity for House Republicans to share a different view on the pressing energy and environment issues that we currently face.

but hey...who needs a Committee in which they have a voice, in which compromise happens and in which the future is mapped when you can score short-term political points by killing it, right?

I went to Rep. Sensenbrenner's page to see more about him, intrigued that he might be someone who works across the aisle, but alas I found out otherwise. A quick glance over his home page and I found (well, first I found out that Blogger might be dying since it's not one of the options to insta-share, but I also found) the following:

• He is proposing a law which would allow states to return money earmarked for High Speed Rail to pay off the national debt
• He is proposing a law which would reject Department of Transportation guidelines mandating street signs be painted in upper and lower case letters
• He is against mandatory helmet laws

Here is a quote from his page:

This is big government imposing its will on the people. DOT bureaucrats from the top down need to realize that Americans have different priorities when it comes to transportation. My constituents don’t want to see high speed rail from Milwaukee to Madison. New street signs and motorcycle helmet laws forced upon them by the DOT just shows the arrogance of Secretary LaHood. Instead, they’d like to know how we’re going to pay for the street signs and high speed rail.

Now, what Sensenbrenner doesn't seem to see (and here is where I tie into the opening paragraph), is that all of these things are LONG TERM fixes. For example, take the street signs. What the Department of Transportation mandates is that by a certain year (I believe it's 2014 or something) all street signs should be in lower/upper case, not just upper case. The reason? Because studies show they're easier to read. The argument he makes is that this will cost money. The truth is...it will. However, what he fails to see is that street signs are replaced every two to three years ANYWAY because of age. So, this will cost no MORE money than if it wasn't to happen. So...for no marginal cost, we can make roads safer. But of course, this is just "arrogance".

What about helmets? Sure, it's fun to ride your bike with no helmet, but who pays the costs when a biker goes down? It's most often not the biker, it's all of us. We pay in higher insurance premiums. We pay in higher taxes for more frequently used medical services and police services (smaller crashes have higher fatalities with no helmets) and we pay for the emergency room care bikers will receive if they get a traumatic brain injury.

And High Speed Rail? That one bothers me the most. Here's what he wrote on his website:

Instead of being told by bureaucrats in Washington how to allocate their resources, states need to have the flexibility and authority to prioritize how tax dollars are being spent. However, the Obama Administration’s stimulus package does not allow these stimulus funds to be reprogrammed for other worthwhile transportation projects.

So, what "worthwhile transportation projects" do you think he's talking about? You guessed it: more highways and wider roads. [As an aside, I find it ironic that there is now a love affair between Republicans and two things: Medicare and highway transportation. Medicare was abhorred by Republicans when it was first enacted, and now cutting Medicare is a typical Republican scare tactic. And highways? They ARE a federally planned transportation system which is governed by the federal government and which was designed, imposed and overseen by the federal government. I am going to have to look into it, but I imagine the same arguments now used AGAINST high speed rail were used AGAINST Eisenhower's building of the interstate system to begin with...but that was an aside...]

At a time when we're talking about reducing our dependence upon oil, creating jobs and stimulating the economy, high speed rail hits all three. It lessens our use of cars, creates an easier way to move goods to market as well as makes the job market more mobile (by making it easier to work at a distance) and creates jobs in running, operating and maintaining the railways over the years to come. It's a fiscally smart thing to do AND would help fix our currently crumbling and antiquated transportation infrastructure.

But the Congressman doesn't see past NOW, he doesn't see past the immediate. He's like the legislative equivalent of offering a child one jellybean now or a bag of them later--he doesn't see that sacrifice now will pay off later. What's worse is the frivolity with which he dismisses the Department of Transportation. It appears as though he either didn't think of what I wrote (which is rather simple) or, worse, he did think of it but ignores it to make a point. Either he is intellectually lazy, or cynical, but neither one is very helpful to the cause of improving the States.

I understand the ballooning deficit. I understand the MASSIVE debt. What I don't understand is how people can argue for dropping people from welfare, while simultaneously cutting taxes on the rich and opposing oversight and reform of the financial institutions which got us into this mess in the first place. Congressman Sensenbrenner may be a good guy, but his policies are short sighted and reflect a general short-sightedness by those who see nothing BUT the budget deficit. In focusing solely on this one issue, however important, at the expense of everything else, they do not seem to realize or care that short term solutions do not lead to long term fiscal responsibility. Even if the gain is short term political wins, the cost is long term insolvency and puts America on track to spin our wheels while other countries move forward.