Tag Archives: Secretary of Transportation

Ray LaHood, Transportation

LaHood: “I’ve never been passionate about any particular issue”

43 Comments

Ray LaHoodAn interview with Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood was published by the New York Times about a week and a half ago. I guess you have to admire the guy’s candor, but it’s a little disconcerting to read that our transportation secretary admittedly knows little about transportation and only got the job because (a) he’s a Republican, and (b) he’s good buddies with Rahm Emanuel.

It also makes me uncomfortable to read passages like this:

Mr. LaHood talks regularly on the phone with Mr. Emanuel and eats dinner with him once a week. And he unabashedly plays his Rahm card when it suits his infighting purposes.

A few weeks ago, for example, Mr. LaHood was in Arizona to announce a $36 million light-rail train project when someone from the White House Office of Management and Budget called and tried to halt the event, saying the project might not be eligible for stimulus money. Mr. LaHood called the budget director, Peter R. Orszag, to complain, but the matter only dragged on.

“That’s when I called Rahm,” Mr. LaHood said. “And that took care of it.”

Took care of… what? You mean, he magically made the project eligible for stimulus money? Huh. That’s handy. Here I thought there was some kind of objective criteria for that money. I should have known better.

When LaHood was a congressman, he was often derisively labeled a RINO (Republican In Name Only), meaning his “political actions, policies, positions on certain issues or voting records are considered to be at variance with core Republican beliefs.” Perhaps his acquisition of that moniker can be explained by this:

When asked if he could foresee disagreeing with the administration on anything, Mr. LaHood shrugged, and eventually shook his head. “I’ve never been passionate about any particular issue,” he said. [emphasis added] “I’m not going to sit around agonizing. The answer is, probably not.”

Well, that explains a lot. I always have found LaHood to be wishy-washy. Now I know why: he is wishy-washy. Maybe some people find indifference to be an admirable quality for a politician. I don’t. I find it blatantly opportunistic.

Amtrak, Ray LaHood

LaHood adopts language of sustainability

9 Comments

Restoring passenger rail service to Peoria is “cost prohibitive” and “impractical,” according to U.S. Rep. Ray LaHood.

“It’s going to take an enormous amount of money,” he said Tuesday, emphasizing that previous attempts to provide passenger rail to the area failed largely because of an inability to offer a more “efficient” way to travel to Chicago. “If you cannot get people into Chicago on a train quicker than by driving, it’s impractical to think people (will travel on a train).”

LaHood, R-Peoria, said if local leaders want to enhance Peoria’s passenger rail options, they should look at supporting existing Amtrak stations in Normal and Galesburg.

“Those of us in Peoria who wanted to take advantage of that will want to promote bus service (to either Bloomington/Normal or Galesburg),” said LaHood, whose congressional position allows him to facilitate discussions on regional transportation priorities and seek federal funding for projects.

–Peoria Journal Star, May 17, 2007

LaHood also described himelf as a strong supporter of Amtrak, the nation’s intercity passenger rail system, and called legislation passed by Congress last year authorizing $13 billion over five years to Amtrak “a very good bill.”

I see. LaHood is for Amtrak in smaller metropolitan statistical areas like Galesburg and Bloomington, but for Peoria — the fourth-largest MSA in Illinois — the bus will do.

At his confirmation hearing, LaHood spoke the lingo of sustainability and livability, of the need to build new infrastructure and the importance of Amtrak, “the lifeblood of many, many communities around the country,” he was quoted as saying in the New York Times. It’s hard to square this rhetoric with LaHood’s comments from a year and a half ago. Denying intercity rail to such a large population so that their only options are to drive or take the bus is not sustainable thinking. Claiming that bringing Amtrak to Peoria is too expensive without even waiting for a feasibility study to be completed is prejudicial.

So how are we to explain LaHood’s testimony? Is he changing his mind, or just adopting language he doesn’t fully understand/believe because it’s what the senators want to hear?

Ray LaHood

LaHood gets heat from press over earmarks

6 Comments

The Washington Post is questioning Barack Obama’s pick for Secretary of Transportation for a familiar reason:

The former Republican congressman chosen by President-elect Barack Obama to direct billions in federal highway spending has been an unapologetic advocate of earmarks, a practice Obama now opposes, and has used his influence to win funding for projects pushed by some of his largest campaign contributors.

It’s interesting to see LaHood’s earmarks reported in the national press. The Post goes on to list how much money in earmarks LaHood secured for Caterpillar, Lakeview, PeoriaNext, and road projects. They also report who his top campaign contributors are and match that list up to how much he secured in earmarks for those contributors. Cat’s contributions are no shock, of course. But I was unaware of these large contributors:

Local road-building companies also have supported LaHood. United Contractors Midwest, led by president James Bruner, is often ranked as his second or third largest donor, and its officials have donated $24,925 to LaHood. Three leading members of the Illinois Asphalt Pavement Association have given more than $60,000 to LaHood.

And:

LaHood also has been criticized for his ties to a longtime Republican state kingmaker in Illinois, William F. Cellini Sr. […] LaHood’s road-building earmarks have highlighted his relationship with Cellini, head of the Illinois Asphalt Pavement Association and other businesses.

Forgive me for being cynical here, but that would certainly explain why LaHood favors road and paved trail projects, and has opposed expanding Amtrak service to Peoria.

Government watchdog groups are not pleased with LaHood’s nomination. They say “LaHood’s selection does not bode well for Obama’s pledge to return transparency to government spending,” according to the Post.

“This guy has history of pork barrel spending and lot of a questionable spending linked to his friends. He’s going to be in charge of funneling hundreds of billions of dollars into local projects . . . and he’s not going to be suddenly changing his stripes tomorrow,” said Leslie Paige of the watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste.

Nevertheless, I’m under no illusion that this will in any way derail LaHood’s confirmation. After all, if Treasury secretary nominee Timothy Geithner can continue to garner praise and support despite the fact that he didn’t pay his taxes for the past four years, one wonders what it would take to disqualify a nominee.