Which one is ‘Distorting Facts’ – Obama or Ray LaHood?


I hate to keep beating on a dead-horse, but US Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood or Obama is guilty of falsifying the facts.

It more than likely is both but that is another article. This is just another one of their ploys to mix us all up – get us off track to quit focusing so much on their other schemes they have going such as high-speed rail (HSR.)

But today, I am not going to be on the issue of wasted money with HSR. Since Ray LaHood likes to reference the 2011 State of the Union speech by Obama in his articles, I thought I might do the same today.

Our infrastructure used to be the best, but our lead has slipped. South Korean homes now have greater Internet access than we do. Countries in Europe and Russia invest more in their roads and railways than we do. China is building faster trains and newer airports. Meanwhile, when our own engineers graded our nation’s infrastructure, they gave us a “D.”

This is the only part I want to discuss. Ray LaHood today announced a new and improved bridge oversight initiative that will enable the Federal Highway Administration to more closely monitor how states are performing their bridge inspections and maintenance. Sounds like a good idea to me – bridges are of utmost importance I would guess.

The part that bothers me though is Ray LaHood writes in this press release that “since 1994, the percentage of bridges in the worst condition has declined from 19.4 percent to 12 percent.” Really? But this is not what “our own engineers are saying” the engineers report that Obama referred to in the State of the Union.

I guess maybe Ray LaHood has a different report, one Obama doesn’t have access too. In the report Ray LaHood must have it says: “Obama’s budget for 2012 proposes $70.5 billion for roads and bridges, including $320 million of the proposed National Highway Program for bridge inspections.”

The report that Obama used for his SOTU speech says: “Bridges – More than 26%, or one in four, of the nation’s bridges are either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete.

While some progress has been made in recent years to reduce the number of deficient and obsolete bridges in rural areas, the number in urban areas is rising.

A $17 billion annual investment is needed to substantially improve current bridge conditions. Currently, only $10.5 billion is spent annually on the construction and maintenance of bridges.”

The $70 billion that LaHood is touting I wonder how much of that money will go for walking and bicycling paths? You wouldn’t think those type of paths would cost very much – boy would you be wrong. Ray LaHood gave millions upon millions of dollars away in the last couple of years for bicycle and walking paths. I just wonder which one is fibbing this time, Ray or Obama?

© 2011, Truck Drivers News Blog. All rights reserved.

Related Posts:

About admin

I'm just a EX-truck driver, trying to pass along a little information. I been in the Trucking Industry as a driver for over 15 years. I have driven both as an owner operator and as a company driver. I have also been a driver instructor for an accredited truck driving school in KY. I am no longer a truck driver, but I consider myself to be a watchdog for the trucking industry. In fact this site is the #1 site for getting the real news about trucking. We don't hold back here, you will hear the full story. Twitter | |Truck Drivers News Facebook
This entry was posted in conservative trucking and tagged , Airports, , China Trains, countries in europe, , , , , , infrastructure, Internet Access, , , Oversight, , , , , , state of the union, , union, , Utmost Importance. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Which one is ‘Distorting Facts’ – Obama or Ray LaHood?

  1. Doug Matthews says:

    I don’t find the statements between LaHood – Obama to be inconsistent. Whose to say that Lahood’s “improvement” spin from 19.4 to 12% since 1994 doesn’t add up to Obama’s 26% “total” deficient bridges today? In other words, perhaps in 1994, the “total” deficient bridges was much higher than 26%…closer to 35-40%…but then came a robust 90′s economy, balanced budgets, etc. and improvements were underway up until the debacle of 00′s decade budgets. I don’t know this for a fact–haven’t looked into it–but I choose to reasonably assume that the “difference” you’re seeking between their statements is more along the lines of exaggeration and not “falsification.” Fair enough?


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: