Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

GOP Representative OK With Axing Of DOT

August 15, 2011 by  

President Barack Obama has laid out a six-year plan for the DOT, and has committed $556 billion to the federal agency.Representative Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) expressed his desire to get rid of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) during a recent radio interview, according to The Hill.

Gardner noted that the government agency was too large and the functions that it supposedly handled were things that could be dealt with on a State level, the news source reported.

“Well, I think there are some great ideas that would basically turn the Department of Transportation back to the states, because why do we have this system that says, hey, we’re going to just have you collect money, and we’re going to scrape some off the top,” Gardner said in the interview.

The lawmaker spoke to the notion of the DOT as a middleman that takes money from one area of the country to use it on a highway located in a completely different part of the U.S. Gardner expressed his concern that the government was taking too large of a role in what should be a state-controlled industry, reported The Hill.

President Barack Obama has laid out a six-year plan for the DOT, and has committed $556 billion to the Federal agency, according to the DOT website.

Special To Personal Liberty

You Sound Off! is written by our readers and appears the last Wednesday of each month. If you would like to submit an article or letter to the editor for consideration for You Sound Off!, send it to yousoundoff@personalliberty.com by the Friday before the last Wednesday of the month. To be considered, a submission should be 750 words or less and must include the writer's name, address and a telephone number. Only the writer's name will be published. Anonymous submissions will not be considered.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “GOP Representative OK With Axing Of DOT”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • Michael J.

    Well, kicking the DOT to the curb would be a good start, but why stop there? Culling government buracracies is a target rich environment. Let’s also look at the EPA, Department of Education, Americorp, etc, etc.

    And shouldn’t outfits like FEMA, DHS and others be re-scrutinized or re-tasked?

    The list goes on to infinity. Awe, the hell with it, just chitcan the whole guvment and start over.

    And while we’re at it, let’s expose Political Correctness for what it really is, what it was designed to do. Further the cause of the Marxist Socialist to bring down western capitalism.

    That will be enough for one day, tommorow we’ll focus on something else.

    • Doc Sarvis

      While I don’t dissagree that we may look at federal departments to see if there are benefits to moving them more toward state control I think we need to look very carefully at all the pros and cons of doing so. The EPA for instance; if all of the EPA was relegated to the states I am sure we would start to see some very disturbing trends in pollution of our air and water. For instance, if there were no federal clean air and water standards western states may decide to put all their air polluting industries on their eastern border and spew toxins into the prevailing winds making the states to the east of them suffer all sorts of respritory problems and crop failures. Likewise, states higher in the water drainage patterns would feel free to put their water polluting activities close to where they drain into downstream states killing all aquatic life in those lower states and sickening the human populations below as well. There are many other examples just for the EPA and there are similar situations when you look at several other federal agencies.

      • Bob in Boston

        Eddie – I agree with you. I’m an ardent Ron Paul supporter, and would love to see a ton of unconstitutional government agencies get canned (TSA, DHS, BATFE, DEA, Department of Education among others) but the EPA is the one agency I can think of that we really *do* need some centralized leadership on. Otherwise it would be too easy for one state to pass their polution issues onto other states, and obtain an unfair advantage for their state industries. (because compliance costs are a huge component of profitability in any industry)

        • Bus

          My problem with the EPA is that we are being governed by non-elected bureaucrats. I am for Congress actually doing its job and passing legislation, rather than passing some half thought out “clean air act” and allowing the EPA to fill in the details of the law including penalties and such. And now the president is using them to back door the cap & trade mess. Get rid of them and have Congress (our elected officials) actually do their job.

          • Matt Newell

            I agree!

        • http://?? Joe H.

          Bob,
          If you give all the states the power to control all transport within their borders, you will never move a thing interstate!! Look at the smog requirements of California for instance!! with out SOME federal control, you are gonna see 50 different transport qualifications, and in the end, you are gonna see them truck from one border to the next, unload and reload just to transport through the next state!! There are certain things that need a central governing body to over see!!

      • Michael J.

        Isn’t it ironic, how acutely aware you are about cross state line polution, while being oblivious to human trafficking and the refuse they bring while crossing our border to the south.

        I guess double standards should be included in any definition of Liberalism.

        • Doc Sarvis

          When have I EVER said that illegal immigration was not a problem???

      • Lost in Paradise

        Like anything, too much is also never good. TOOOO much EPA, and TOOO much government.

    • Rick

      Amen brother. The problem is that too much money (power) is concentrated in DC and as soon as you take a dime of it – they act like they own you.

  • tim

    Dept of energy doesn’t do anything except cause our appliance prices to rise with thier ridiculous requirements on energy saving. Then look at the stupid light bulb were supposed to use. Went out and bought me enough of the old style light bulbs to last until I die and my kids inherit them. LOL
    There are all kinds of gov’t agencies that couild be closed, but they want that control over us and they will never even let go of one of them.

    • Doc Sarvis

      About one third of DOE’s budget goes to our nation’s nuclear security (both energy production and nuclear weapons.

  • http://Verizon Bud G.

    Doc Sarvis: I agree that the EPA should not be eliminated, however, I do think that Congress has to put a stop to some of the idiotic legislation of late. Issues like required mileage for vehicles set at an impossible rate, incandescent light bulbs, standards on pollution which eliminate power companies coal burning, etc.

    I do not like the new light bulbs. They provide poor light and do not last as long as they state they do. If a person did the math, a hybrid car with the cost of purchase and that battery that must be replaced is more expensive than a gas powered vehicle that gets good mileage over the life of the vehicle. The same goes for Natural gas powered vehicles. $5,000.00 to convert a Honda for example when it gets about that much on a gas powered Honda. There is a clean burning coal now being used by power companies and eliminating a plentiful and cheap resource is not intelligent.

    The EPA has been a stick in the mud regarding domestic resources in oil and gas for some time now and the smart thing to do in this changing world is to tap those resources now in order for our economy to recover and also for our security. Simply, the EPA should not have the authority to implement change with the approval of Congress.

    • Doc Sarvis

      Bud G.
      The automotive industry has, for a long time, known how to make much more efficient cars and trucks. They have not done so in collusion with big oil/big profits. Moving our transportation towards more efficient methods is the best thing for our country. We have spent, and continue to spend, Trillions with our military in the Middle East to protect our oil interests. We have lost many thousands of good Americans and killed many thousands of non-Americans (combatants and non-combatants) to protect our oil interests in that region as well. It is time to move away from that destructive mindset and improving the efficiency of our vehicles is an important step in that direction.

      As for the cost of a hybrid vehicle, you are looking too narrowly. One needs to factor in the cost of all of our military actions in the Middle East when we look at the cost of either a gas guzzeler vs. an efficient vehicle.

      Poor Light? What a bunch of softies we’ve become!

      • Michael J.

        I agree about wars in the middle east. The solution is simple, utilize our own natural resources. By protecting and then purchasing oil from those who despise us, we are financing our own demise. Oil money has enabled Arab Muslim’s to ascend from camels to Lear Jets in the space of one generation.

      • Duaner

        Hey Doc,

        I got some oil I would like to sell. It is located in the Bracken Oilfields in the northwest corner of North Dakota. The proven reserves of this oilfield is larger than any reserves of most middle east countries, including Saudi Arabia. I agree with the fact that the wars are unecessary and futile. History will repeat itself again and again that democracy does not work and never will in the middle east except Israel. Back to the oilfields in North Dakota. The EPA and Obamanation will not allow more drilling in this region in order to keep this country dependent on foreign oil. The Canadians are drilling like crazy on their side of the border. Go figure??

      • Song

        DOC: It isn’t just an issue about poor lighting, which the new ligh bulbs are, it is an issue of FREEDOM OF CHOICE. In addition, the new lightbulbs contain mercury which are considered a hazard if broken. Perhaps you should educate yourself on the new light bulbs before commenting on them.

        • Doc Sarvis

          Song,

          The compact florescents have mercury in them but I’m pretty sure the LEDs do not. The thermometers that a lot of us still use and put in children’s mouths (and elsewhere) have mercury in them as well.

          Good to see you are all for freedom of choice but don’t let the anti-abortion folks on this site hear about that.

      • Lost in Paradise

        What a “big Goverment” Dick you have become.

  • Lee

    A good start would be to axe as many direct government employees as possible at all levels, fed, state, county and city. People employed by government have no incentive to work efficiently, do a good job or complete that job in a timely manner. Every possible type of job needs to be contracted out, creating competition for the work, with none of this PC preferred minority contractor BS, just the best individual/company for the job. The government agencies may have to hire/keep some people to over see things and ensure they get done, they may have to keep or hire a few people to work out contractual requirements and bid process but even most of this could be contracted out as well. A private contractor is going to require performance from his employees and will get the same amount of work done for far less money. The former gov employees would be in the perfect position to start a company and contract work from the gov as they already have experience in that capacity, the responceability to run a profitable company while at the same time doing a good job would be on them.

    I believe the savings and bang for the buck increase would be substantial from a system like this. The gov talks about more revenue, cut SS, cut medicare etc. but they never once consider trimming the fat from their own ranks. Every part of the private sector has had layoffs due to this economy, but the gov just keeps on hiring.

    I worked for a state agency that did remodel work on the states office buildings, the amount of work we were expected to get done each day was a fraction of what was expected of me working for a private contractor.

    An individual who works for government will be loyal to the government that provides them an easy job, their loyalty is not to the tax payer whose money pays their salary, most I have dealt with have an air of superiority over the citizen/subjects they deal with and are very much in need of re-education, loss of the cushy job and a big dose of reality, when they have to live like the rest of the people in this county.

    • Lost in Paradise

      That kind of thing would be a horrible shock to our already failing economay. I do think it should be done for sure, but over a period of time. However, to rid the government of UNION WORKERS, would be a real boost in productivity. That is where we should start.

  • eddie47d

    If you do away with the Dept of Transportation then expect to live with more toll roads. Whether built with government funds or private contractors. Toll roads are not cheap and can be a heavy burden on those who have to continuously use them. Some Americans don’t want a shared sacrifice anymore and probably never did. Cory Gardner’s District is a rural area with two major portions of Interstates(I-70 and 76). There is no way he could maintain or rebuild those major roads and would always have to depend on the state or Federal government to do it. He would be fibbing to his constituents if he says otherwise. Ronald Reagan tried to put more of the Federal burden back onto the states . It saved the Feds little but put a greater burden on the states. In the end the states still had to ask Washington for more money to maintain their roads so nothing changed. Abolishing any Dept sounds good but what are you going to replace it with. As long as we have an Interstate System that traverses all states there will be a need for the DOT.

    • Bob

      As almost always Eddie, you are wrong again. After being the Controller in a family run business that ran about 2 dozen C-stores, I know something about Fuel taxes. Back then the federal gas tax was 15 cents per gallon and diesel was, 16 cents, if remember right. The federal tax pays for the building and maintaining of the US Highways and Interstates. The money is collected at the state level and then turned over to the feds. That money should stay at the state level.

      What happens is that the states put together their proposals to go to the feds to beg to get some of their money back. Of course the bureaucracy eats up a lot of the money that could be spent directly on the roads.

      Why do the bureaucrats in DC and the politicians from other states think they know what is best for the people in each state? Let each state decide what road project they want.

      By the way, there is also a state fuel tax that each state sets to pay for building and maintaining their state and local roads. That, and the sales tax are the biggest reasons why fuel prices are different for each state.

      • eddie47d

        Prove that someone is wrong Bob don’t just say so. Besides the Federal gas tax has barely budged and is still only $.18 after all those years.The population has increased and traffic on all roads is much greater. That should mean a heck of a lot more money should be coming in to pay for that added traffic. That would be like telling a family they can feed 1 kid as easily as 6 kids.

        • Lost in Paradise

          Actually I would rather have poor roads, and less government in my face all the time. I am plain tired of it. In addition, if the government would stay the hell out of my face, I could support six kids for the price of one. I have been watching this entire government debacle for 40+ years, and our government is no friend of ours, and does little more than cost us the lives of our loved ones, and increase the costs of everything dramaically. There are lots of other countries that are deeply entrenched in SOCIALISM, and if that is what you enjoy, then do not let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

        • http://?? Joe H.

          eddie,
          Hate to tell you, but with increased traffic comes increased gasoline useage and with increased gasoline useage comes more tax money!!! the toll on the Ohio turnpike was originally supposed to be for its original construction only! It was supposed to be dropped about ten years ago!! The state government, in its infinite wisdom decided that a toll would bring in more money to maintain the road better and kept it! BTW, the Ohio turnpike is CONSTANTLY under construction!! No quality in the repairs!!

    • Joe

      Those who drive on the roads SHOULD pay for their upkeep. A person without a car or who drives very little should not have the same liability for road maintenance as someone who drives 100,000 miles a year.

      • Bob

        Joe, they do. It is actually just as you say it should be done. The fuel taxes are paid by us, the drivers on a per gallon basis. So someone who drives 100k miles will pay more for the roads than someone who drives 10k miles.

      • Doc Sarvis

        I MIGHT agree with you if those people never benefit from other’s having roads. For instance, would they ever need the police or fire department? Do they not purchase goods that are transported on our transportation network? Do they use power that travels through lines that are maintained by crews that need road access? Do they receive mail or shipments that travel by road?

      • 45caliber

        Joe:

        The real problem is that the feds are SUPPOSED to only build the interstate system. They don’t maintain it – the states do. Some money is returned to the states for this but that money seldom goes through the DOT.

        Most of the DOT money goes simply to pay for their vast human empire (called “workers”) and to write and administer all their regulations.

        • Lost in Paradise

          OUr entire government is a vast human empire. That is the problem!

          • http://?? Joe H.

            Yeah, tooo vast!!!

  • 45caliber

    Half a trillion dollars for DOT over six years? Why? We don’t need additional highways in areas I’m familiar with and most of those I’m familiar with are in good repair or are being fixed. As far as I’m concerned, this is wasted money.

    I’m fine with elimination of DOT as an arm of the Federal government. I’m also fine with elimination of the Department of Education, DOE, and several others.

    • jibbs

      I agree 100%, and those cuts are just the beginning.

      • 45caliber

        I’m also fine with the elimination of Oblamacare, which I suspect will end up costing us at least a trillion a year.

  • Michael

    I worked for the Federal Government; and what I saw would make you sick. One person working – 5 standing around doing nothing ! B-day party’s, engagement party’s, always some kind of party on work time.
    Yes we need these government agency’s, but we could let 4 out of 5 go, saving the tax payer money. you ever go threw a Immigration check point! One person asking a white person if they are a US citizen, another 10 people standing around, and they are talking about hiring another 50,000, that’s our government at work. Does anyone see something wrong with this picture.

    • 45caliber

      I had a friend that was planning a hunting trip in Colorado awhile back. He went in to get some geodedic maps of the area. It was an 8 story building with (his words) a thousand cars in the parking lot.

      He went to the correct office on the eighth floor about 8:30 in the morning. There were over 20 desks – and one person working. She told him to get a seat – the guy who would get the drawings was out at the moment but would be back soon.
      At 9:30 no one else had showed up so he walked down the hall. All offices were empty. When he returned, she was gone but another man had come in – also hunting maps. They talked until after ten – no one else came in. They decided to go to the cafeteria on the 2nd floor to get coffee. When they got there, (the entire floor was the cafeteria) they couldn’t get in. Too many people all snacking and talking. They went back to the top floor.

      At 11:30, the first woman came back and showed surprise that they were still there. She told them everyone would be back soon and then took out her lunch. Over the next fifteen minutes about half the rest came back from ‘break’ and started getting their lunches out. The man finally came in. He wanted them to wait until after lunch but finally got their maps – in less than five minutes.

      He said it wasn’t any wonder that the government didn’t get much done when their morning break extended from before 8:20 to 11:30 and their “hour” lunch extended from 11:30 to at least 1:30.

  • jmonty79

    While I’m not entirely again St getting rid of DOT, I think some of you miss the point. Our highway system, like the German Autobahn system it was designed after, wasn’t built with the populations comfort in mind. It was build to efficiently and quickly allow military travel of troops and equipment to anywhere in the united states in case of invasion or attack. It was sold as a pub licence necessity so as to be more palatable to the public. That being the case DOT has its function but it is bloated and mismanaged beyond repair. Get rid of it and its fat and put it under DOD where it should be.

    • 45caliber

      I agree.

      • eddie47d

        So you want the military controlling and running our highway system? I don’t want the military running our lives besides who would be paying them to do this job? You’re just transferring the same amount of money to a different department. I think it was the Soviet Union where their DOD ran everything.

  • Joe

    The DOT is one of those redistributive agencies that cause states and localities to have budget shortfalls. Many states send more money to the federal government than they get back. The difference has to be made up by the taxpayers of that state. Basically, less successful states are being subsidized by more successful ones. If one state can’t afford to build a highway, then they shouldn’t have a highway. It shouldn’t be up to the rest of the states to pitch in and help it build one. It’s not my responsibility as a citizen of a successful state to pay for the needs of another state that mismanaged it’s own money and now wants a handout.

    • eddie47d

      So folks in South Dakota should have their roads ignored because they don’t have enough people to support their transportation needs. So if I-90 can’t be maintained then tourists and truckers would have to drive hundreds of miles out of their way to go East or West? The last I looked we are still the United States of America not the state of Oklahoma or the state of Oregon. Each state depends on folks from other states in order to do business.I suspect you would be like some countries that asks for a toll tax at each and every state border crossing. Yes sir there are some of you who want to take this country backwards. What successful state do you live in Joe and would you abandon the highway system in (ex.) South Dakota?

  • ONTIME

    Let’s not stop with just the DOT, the EPA, NEA and anumber of other oversized, over funded agencies that act like cops are in dire need of the axe. This government is full of uncontrollable and irresponsible bullies that in a lot of cases that deserve no money or respect. Re-Pare the government and let’s get it under control.

    • Lost in Paradise

      It is even like that at the local level. Gestopo tactics on citizens.

    • http://?? Joe H.

      ONTIME
      This is really simple! All those non-essential employees they weren’t gonna pay if the budget wasn’t passed??? GET RID OF THEM!! From the IRS on down to maintenance! If they are non-essential, they aren’t really needed!!! Think how much we would save on benefits alone!!!

  • http://PERSONALLIBERTYDIGEST FRENCHIE

    I’M ALL FOR DOING AWAY WITH 3 AND/OR 4 LETTER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES THAT DO LITTLE MORE THAN WASTE TAX MONEY & CREATE MORE RED TAPE. HELL YEAH, THE LESS THE BETTER !!! I JUST KINDA QUESTION THE OVERALL OUTCOME OF THIS. BECAUSE EVEN AFTER YOU GET RID OF THE D.O.T. & TURN IT OVER TO THE STATES TO DEAL WITH, YOU MAY END UP CREATING ANOTHER MONSTER THAT’S EVEN WORSE THAN THE ONE YOU JUST GOT RID OF. TO GIVE THE STATE BMV OR D.O.T. EVEN MORE POWER OVER US IS UNTHINKABLE & IS SURE TO ONLY MAKE IT WORSE. EXAMPLE – THE OHIO BMV AND/OR OHIO D.O.T.’S POWER WOULD BE INCREASED. ANYONE WHO KNOWS ABOUT THE OHIO BMV OR D.O.T. WILL TELL YOU, THAT’S A HORRIBLE IDEA. BECAUSE, BUREAUCRAT = IDIOT ON A POWER TRIP WHO CAN’T BE QUESTIONED & IS NEVER WRONG, JUST THAT SIMPLE. GIVE ‘EM MORE POWER? OH, HELL NO !!! SO, WHILE I’M ALL FOR GETTING RID OF MORE BUREAUCRATS AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL, LET’S ALSO WORK TO REDUCE THE POTENTIAL FOR STATE & LOCAL BUREAUCRATS TO CAUSE HAVOC ON US & REDUCE THEIR NUMBERS AS WELL. ACTUALLY REGULATE THE REGULATORS FOR ONCE. ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION, WE CAN ACTUALLY DO THAT, YA KNOW ? WE CAN ELECT PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM & LESS GOVERNMENT. GOVERNMENT IMPOSED TYRANNY AGAINST US CAN BE STOPPED DEAD IN IT’S TRACKS BY US. WE JUST HAVE TO ELECT INTELLIGENT PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM & OUR CONSTITUTION TO CARRY OUT OUR WILL. YES, I’M TALKING ABOUT RON PAUL THERE. BUT THERE HAS TO BE MORE THAN JUST HIM WILLING TO GIVE US BACK OUR FREEDOM. THERE JUST HAS TO BE. WE NEED TO FIND & ELECT THEM. IT WON’T BE EASY, BUT I PROMISE YOU, IT IS NECESSARY. R3VOLUTION, BABY !!! RON PAUL 2012 !!!!!!!!!!!

  • 45caliber

    I read a comment one time about government expansion.

    The regulations the government people work under are meant to encourage expansion.

    For instance, there is NO incentative for a manager to save money. Instead, if he doesn’t spend every penny authorized by the government, he and his department are penalized the next year. If he does spend it all, he gets a bonus. Which would you do?

    Pay grades for the government employees depend upon how many people they oversee. If you have ten employees, you will remain at that present level until your department increases in size. Once you hire enough people, you will automatically get a pay raise and a promotion. Which would you do – particularly after about ten years at the same pay?

    Job security is very important to all of them. So let’s say you work for them and you do a certain job. The job requirements increase over time until you can no longer do all the work yourself. So – does the government hire one person to help you by splitting the load? Not at all. They hire TWO people to split the load and you oversee them since you know the entire job. You can fill in for either one who might be on vacation, etc. and know their jobs well enough to make sure they are doing their jobs correctly. Also see the reason above for hireing the extra person …

    And these are only three reasons.

  • Bill Wallisch

    There are over 1000 agencies in Washington. Our new President should cut all new hiring and combine those agencies which do similar things. The folks that are no longer needed could then fill the jobs of those who retired.

    • 45caliber

      I was told one time by a Congressman that it is impossible to determine exactly what every agency in Washington did. By the time you’ve checked all of them, the ones you’ve checked have already added new things.

      There is so much duplication it is silly. I agree. Combine them or eliminate them to the point where everything is done only once.

      And don’t let them fight each other with our tax dollars as I’ve seen done time and again.

  • pegasis

    Don’t forget the ICC (Interstate Commerce Commission) that also takes a cut of the price of each load that trucks carry both in and between states. That also gets “redistributed”.

  • CaptTurbo

    I’m fine with getting rid of the DOT but please, don’t stop there! Get rid of the EPA and the DOE as well for starters. Then we can look into the BATF&E after they arranged gun sales to the Mexican drug lords. I think we can do without help like that as well.

  • John Kramer

    It is time to reduce the size of the Department of Transportation or privatize it. Canada has privatized their Department of Transportation
    and it work much better than ours. It did not cost their tax payers any money.

    • eddie47d

      Who pays private companies to build and maintain those roads in Canada John Kramer? It’s the taxpayer so it cost the taxpayer plenty.Some support the privatization of prison systems in the USA yet that hasn’t panned out too well either. It still cost the states a bundle to pay those private companies to do the same job. In some cases they are less efficient and have a high turn over in guards because of the low pay.

  • http://PersonalLibertyDigest Eugen Trucker

    Yes Thank For god Idea because we truckers are blood
    of Economy and DOT Rules specially CSA2010 we truckers
    we puting our Life to work and social enjoyment is on side bad worst is Our paychceck get smaller you can
    slowly make living. Yes we truckers will support his
    action Thank God someone open his eyes.

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.