Brent Spence Bridge Fix

[Colonels_Wear_Blue]

McConnell Coming To NKY With Plan To Pay For Bridge

 

"U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell will come to Northern Kentucky Friday with a plan that could pay for at least some of the $2.6 billion Brent Spence Bridge project, a source with knowledge of the proposal told the Enquirer Thursday.

 

The source spoke on the condition of anonymity.

 

McConnell will meet with Northern Kentucky Chamber members at 2 p.m. Friday to announce he will introduce the Emergency Interstate Bridge Safety Fund Act next week, the source said.

 

The fund would provide additional money for interstate bridge construction above what's already in the highway budget. Specific figures and where the money would come from were not available Thursday.

 

The proposal would not require raising taxes or tolls, the source said."

[Colonels_Wear_Blue]

McConnell Coming To NKY With Plan To Pay For Bridge

 

"U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell will come to Northern Kentucky Friday with a plan that could pay for at least some of the $2.6 billion Brent Spence Bridge project, a source with knowledge of the proposal told the Enquirer Thursday.

 

The source spoke on the condition of anonymity.

 

McConnell will meet with Northern Kentucky Chamber members at 2 p.m. Friday to announce he will introduce the Emergency Interstate Bridge Safety Fund Act next week, the source said.

 

The fund would provide additional money for interstate bridge construction above what's already in the highway budget. Specific figures and where the money would come from were not available Thursday.

 

The proposal would not require raising taxes or tolls, the source said."

 

If this portion is true, and he manages to get his plan put into action, it will DEFINITELY make Grimes' road to Capital Hill much more difficult.

[Colonels_Wear_Blue]

If this portion is true, and he manages to get his plan put into action, it will DEFINITELY make Grimes' road to Capital Hill much more difficult.

 

Although, I'm also curious to hear how much "some of the $2.6 billion" he is planning to cover with his proposal.

[Habib]

Although, I'm also curious to hear how much "some of the $2.6 billion" he is planning to cover with his proposal.

 

I think the answer to that is why this proposal was conveniently slated for after the primary. :lol2: But, a curious gambit either way. This certainly doesn't endear him to the "tea party" faction that waged a primary challenge against him. And while tolls are considered poisonous in the area, I'm not sure a proposal to increase spending is much more palatable in the region that recently elected Massie. I mean, that's been the heart of the impasse - everyone wants a new bridge but no one is happy with where the money comes from.

[LIPTON BASH]

I think the answer to that is why this proposal was conveniently slated for after the primary. :lol2: But, a curious gambit either way. This certainly doesn't endear him to the "tea party" faction that waged a primary challenge against him. And while tolls are considered poisonous in the area, I'm not sure a proposal to increase spending is much more palatable in the region that recently elected Massie. I mean, that's been the heart of the impasse - everyone wants a new bridge but no one is happy with where the money comes from.

 

I consider myself aligned with the tea party and every fiscal conservative knows the federal government has a few main jobs. One of those jobs being federal infrastructure. So I think any fiscal conservative would be fine with spending the money if it doesn't involve a new tax.

[Colonels_Wear_Blue]

I consider myself aligned with the tea party and every fiscal conservative knows the federal government has a few main jobs. One of those jobs being federal infrastructure. So I think any fiscal conservative would be fine with spending the money if it doesn't involve a new tax.

 

....so then pay for the bridge with money frommmmmmmmm?

[Habib]

I consider myself aligned with the tea party and every fiscal conservative knows the federal government has a few main jobs. One of those jobs being federal infrastructure. So I think any fiscal conservative would be fine with spending the money if it doesn't involve a new tax.

 

I'll trust your judgement then. It has seemed to me that, in this climate, proposals for new spending have been treated as de facto taxes in more conservative corners. I think this plan is the most prudent course of action, but it's not the first time it's been proposed and has been dismissed in those other times. And if memory serves it was largely dismissed along "no new spending" lines.

[LIPTON BASH]

....so then pay for the bridge with money frommmmmmmmm?

 

The tax revenue that was originally intended for infrastructure. The reason the tea party has a problem with the government becoming to big and over spending is because it leaves no money for the Federal governments main jobs. The misconception is the tea party wants no government spending. The tea party wants limited government spending and the focus to be in the areas the federal government was originally intended .

[Jumper_Dad]

That wont happen, in the Ohio bill that passed, it directly says they dont have to use the toll money for the cost of the bridge and can use the funds elsewhere.

 

I hope KY sticks to their guns and says no tolls.

Ky should NOT approve any deal until Ohio changes that...any tolls collected should be used to pay off the debt of the bridge first.

[Jim Schue]

The tax revenue that was originally intended for infrastructure. The reason the tea party has a problem with the government becoming to big and over spending is because it leaves no money for the Federal governments main jobs. The misconception is the tea party wants no government spending. The tea party wants limited government spending and the focus to be in the areas the federal government was originally intended .

 

I just don't feel the nuance in the arguments I usually hear. "No new taxes" means just that, from what I always hear, with a preference toward "starving" the federal government to the point there's nothing in the coffers. Those folks never have a good answer when I ask them how they propose to drive to work.

[LIPTON BASH]

I just don't feel the nuance in the arguments I usually hear. "No new taxes" means just that, from what I always hear, with a preference toward "starving" the federal government to the point there's nothing in the coffers. Those folks never have a good answer when I ask them how they propose to drive to work.

 

Well I guess you never asked me that question because I have a response.

[75center]

Although, I'm also curious to hear how much "some of the $2.6 billion" he is planning to cover with his proposal.

 

Without taxes or tolls, so am I.

[Colonels_Wear_Blue]

Amanda VanBenschoten ‏@avbnky

 

McConnell's "Emergency Interstate Bridge Safety Act" not BSB-specific. Would fund infrastructure projects thru repeal of Davis-Bacon Act.

[Colonels_Wear_Blue]

Amanda VanBenschoten ‏@avbnky

 

McConnell's "Emergency Interstate Bridge Safety Act" not BSB-specific. Would fund infrastructure projects thru repeal of Davis-Bacon Act.

 

Repealing Davis-Bacon. Yeah....that bridge is never getting built.

[Content1]

I forsee a widening of I-471 within the next 10 years . As well as an economic boom to 275 exit business' in the years ahead. For poops and laughs if they charge $3-5 ( assuming a mid size vehicle ), round trip that's $6-10/day x 5 =$30-50/week- $1560-$2600/year. Vans, buses, and semis I couldn't begin to guess…thoughts?

 

Ft. Washington Way, Norwood lateral, 71, 471, 275, and Rt.8 will get a lot busier!!!