On February 10th, after 7 hours
of debate on the House Floor, I voted for legislation to invest in our state’s
crumbling infrastructure and establish a sustainable source of revenue to
maintain and repair our roads and bridges. As a proud progressive, I am happy
to stand by that vote.
We’ve seen some loud opposition
to the truck tolling plan, and I understand where some of this hostility is
coming from.
For
example, I get why the rightwing Center for Freedom and Prosperity would seize
on this issue – they, like their benefactors, the Koch brothers, are philosophically opposed to the
whole premise of taxing private property for the public good, so asking
truck companies to pay their fair share for infrastructure maintenance is
naturally going to rub them the wrong way.
Similarly,
it makes sense that my friends and colleagues in the Republican Caucus – who
have strenuously fought against every policy I’ve put forward to improve wages
for low-income workers, to strengthen the social safety net for struggling families,
and to create a more progressive tax structure – would argue against a proposal
like this, and instead push for more regressive alternatives like privatizing
our roads and bridges.
But I have a lot more trouble
wrapping my head around the handful of progressive voices who have come out
against this public investment and jobs initiative.
To me, the situation seems
pretty straightforward: our infrastructure is in disrepair, and the
responsibility for that disrepair is not evenly distributed throughout our
state.
Big
trucks do a lot of damage to our roads and bridges. In fact, a government study
found that one 40-ton
truck causes as much damage as 9,600 cars.
