Contact and Tips
Yahoo Upcoming KC Events- Sep 8, 2008: Blue Monday Jam at American Jazz Museum
- Sep 12, 2008: Jazz Storytelling at American Jazz Museum
- Sep 28, 2008: Lindsey Buckingham at Uptown Theater
- Sep 11, 2008: Heat Index at American Jazz Museum
- Sep 12, 2008: Ida McBeth at American Jazz Museum
- Sep 10, 2008: Janiva Magness at Knuckleheads Saloon
- Sep 11, 2008: The Amazing Rhythm Aces at Knuckleheads Saloon
- Sep 7, 2008: Sunday Worship Service at St James Lutheran Church
- Sep 11, 2008: The Dewayne Brothers at Davey's Uptown
- Sep 12, 2008: Live Lock at Davey's Uptown
Dec
28
Blunt: Do as I say, not as I do
December 28, 2005 |
Governor Blunt has created a task force to identify ways that Missouri can conserve gasoline and other fossil fuels. Perhaps the governor can start with his own office, which purchased brand new SUVs shortly after his election. Then there is also the matter of the state picking up the bill for him commuting to Jefferson City from Springfield, instead of living in the governor’s mansion.
Governor, if you feel that you have to be chauffeured around in an SUV instead of a sedan, don’t forget that Ford makes a hybrid SUV right here in Missouri at its Claycomo plant. What ever happened to leading by example? Other governors are parking their SUVs and/or buying the Missouri hybrids.
Comments
41 Comments so far
Never mind the fact that the state contributes under a million bucks a year to the ATA for KC-area transit. Pathetic.
I didn’t realize or remember that he doesn’t live in the governor’s mansion. This requires at least one letter to someone in this excuse for a state government.
He does stay in the mansion part time, thus the panic buttons. His wife generally stays in Springfield with their new baby, so he splits his time between the two cities. The state pays for the gas and police escort on the 170 mile commute, at least once a week.
While it’s always helpful to see hypocrisy pointed out — it may be even more helpful to actually look at the proposal.
Worst.
Missouri Governor.
Ever.
“While it’s always helpful to see hypocrisy pointed out — it may be even more helpful to actually look at the proposal.”
If we’re going to spend energy on public discourse I’d rather look at a proposal from someone who isn’t a hypocrit.
Next time, vote Ficus!
Joe, I’m sure we’d all rather only consider the suggestions of the most honest and consistent people. However, we’re dealing with politicians and not Saints. Too much energy is spent in this country trying to destroy the credibility of individuals instead of examining the credibility of ideas.
“the crediblity of ideas”?
sounds like a politician…
Poor Boy is right. Virtually every politician is a hypocritical liar at one time or another–it’s part of the job–so it’s a little silly to dislike the proposal just because it’s Blunt’s idea. Of course Blunt is a hypocrite, and his tax-payer funded chauffeur service is ridicilous, the “task force” might come up with some good ideas.
Personally, I think the states should focus on low costs rather than low pollution. Whatever’s cheapest should be the solution. That means no hybrids, which use less gas but cost more money up front. If an individual thinks it’s worth it to pay more money over the life of the car to conserve gas, that’s fine. But why should taxpayers pay extra for a governor’s hybrid just to conserve gas (and make them and lefties feel good about themselves)?
Plus, isn’t this “task force” the kind of idea that lefties should like? What’s more virtuous that conserving fossil fuels?
“sounds like a politician…”
Sounds like someone with nothing constructive to add.
ok poor boy…
you’ve analyzed Blunt’s plan and judged the idea’s credibility - so is it valid? What makes Blunt worth listening to this time? Why should we consider this plan from a man on Time Magazine’s worst governor’s list?
Go ahead… add something constructive.
Hopefully, your reply is more logical than Hippster’s ridiculous idea of low prices at any any cost - including our environment and our future.
What’s more virtuous than conserving fossil fuels?
Not needing them - that’s what.
Chris, the part of what Blunt wants the panel to look at that interests me the most is the emphasis on Biofules. Biodiesel is the most ignored, but likely the most reasonable solution to most of the problems surrounding energy today. Biodiesel is non-polluting, organic, non-toxic, and more efficient than petroleum based fuels. Biodiesel requires less technology that gas/electric hybrids, less expenditure of R&D than the pipe dream that is fuel cell technology and Biodiesel can be delivered with existing infrastructure. Also, given the production characteristics of Biodiesel, America would become a net exporter of energy.
Poor boy,
I agree. I like the idea of biofuels and alternative energy sources (by the way, why doesn’t the windiest of windy states - Kansas - have more wind energy farms?).
However, the argument that started this post still stands - it would be an easier sell if the Governor actually practiced what he preached - and started conserving and using alternative fuel sources himself - instead of being one of the most egregious of fuel consumers by commuting long distances and buying gas guzzling SUVs.
I think it’s imperative that a governor use their position of power and influence not only to make policy, but to energize and involve the people by leading by example and urging folks to do the same.
I sound a little like a politician now, don’t I?
“Chris, the part of what Blunt wants the panel to look at that interests me the most is the emphasis on Biofules. Biodiesel is the most ignored, but likely the most reasonable solution to most of the problems surrounding energy today. Biodiesel is non-polluting, organic, non-toxic, and more efficient than petroleum based fuels. Biodiesel requires less technology that gas/electric hybrids, less expenditure of R&D than the pipe dream that is fuel cell technology and Biodiesel can be delivered with existing infrastructure. Also, given the production characteristics of Biodiesel, America would become a net exporter of energy.”
biofuel would be great if we could somehow double or triple the amount of ariable land in the united states. as it stands, we are losing it to suburban sprawl and depleting aquafers in the west.
missouri and kansas city must heavily invest in its transit infrastructure now. it’s never going to be any cheaper to lay down rails and establish new bus lines than at this very second. pay now or really pay later. due to the idiocy of our national and state governments, we are going to really pay later. this society would rather invest its diminshing wealth in roads, roads which have fewer and fewer people per mile to pay for each mile due to sprawl.
Matt, on your first point I’d suggest you take a look at some of the information put out by biodiesel experts, such as the people at biodiesel.org, who explain how it is quite simple to convert currently barren desert into alge farms to produce the needed plant oils to make the biofuels. I don’t claim to be an expert, nor a scientist, and I’m sure some of their information is biased toward their own goals — but what I’ve read seems, on the surface, to be utterly logical, sustainable and environmentally friendly.
As for mass transit, especially in Kansas City, there are a lot of basic problems. The biggest problem is probably the shear size of the city, 350 square miles just within Kansas City proper. When you start looking at Johnson County, Lee’s Summit, Grandview, Belton, and the Northland…you’re talking about one hell of a mass transit system. If you leave the outlying areas out of the plan, then you’ve really not accomplished much, and also haven’t given surrounding communities a basis to participate financially, which would be neccessary.
There’s also the changing business environment to consider. Jobs are less about 9-5 industrial work these days, and more about services and the odd work hours that come with it. For me to ride a bus, for instanced, you’d have to have a line that could get me from South Kansas City to Shawnee Mission Parkway and be able to bring me home at 7:00 pm (later than busses currently run). With transfers and so-on, it would currently take me nearly two hours to get to work on the Metro, with three bus changes. They can’t get me home at all. The city would need hundreds of more buses, and thousands of miles of rail lines to make mass transit even a little efficient for this city.
Poor Boy -
i will certainly have to research the biofuel options more.
in a nutshell, however, i believe that their are fundamental problems with the way that communites have evolved over the last 50 years. a return to logical and human scaled city planning and development needs to be addressed. far too much pandering to the personal automobile has facilitated the decline of the urban core and the rise of a highly destructive economy that requires endless growth to stay afloat. something is wrong with that. personally, i dont like the isolated and sociopathic nature of exurbia.
of course transit is going to be a difficulty for the outlying areas of our metro. creating transit accessible nodes within our sprawling suburban fabric is one way to work towards this. the city of mission is doing a lot of good things towards creating a more cohesive urban fabric. new urbanism is a more permanent solution to redeveloping declining inner ring suburbs and areas of the urban core that have been completely obliterated. this will also make transit more accessable and put basic amenites within walking distance. no one truly enjoys sitting in traffic with sometimes hostile strangers and standing at the gas pump…
also, don’t forget that americans have shunned public transit in favor of building endless yet still congested highways. of course its a pain to use public transit. its what we (john q public) want. instead of zipping silently home while reading a book on an electric light rail system or hybrid bus with a dedicated right of way, we (john q public) would rather fight a battle day after day on our absurdly expensive highways.
sorry for three posts.
another thing to consider is the fact that bio-fuels are probably going to be considerably more expensive than gasoline ever was. i’m not saying that peak oil production is going to mean the end of the private automobile, just that the use of it of is going to become rather expensive. bio-fuel might be a way to soften the blow and extend the use of the internal combustion engine, but i don’t believe that bio-fuel will ever be a solution to directly replacing fossil due to the overwhelming energy stored in fossil fuel. it might be an element of future energy and transportation mix coupled with intelligent city planning and planning codes (which dont exist in most expanding areas) but i would be *extremely* wary of anyone proporting it to be a direct replacement of fossil fuel. it will be much much more expensive.
i believe that
If we want to reduce traffic and make mass transit work, a few things need to change:
1. People WILLING to try it.
2. More bus and transit lines (including the addition of light rail perhaps)
3. Less urban sprawl
The odds of even ONE of these 3 things happening probably aren’t good, but downtown KC seems to be moving in the right direction regarding a more densely populated urban area where it becomes feasible to walk and bus to everything you need.
It’s ironic to me - that we have TONS of places we don’t need more of (Bank branches, McDonald’s, movie theaters, car dealerships, etc) and not enough of the things that would really help the city (grocery stores, small local restaurants, cultural events, etc) - things that are needed and bring people together.
Much like what matt says, we need a different approach - because what we have done in the past - isn’t working.
Matt, there’s a guy who makes Biodiesel in Lawrence (for use in big trucks, fleets, etc.), he produces the stuff for $.50 per gallon. It typically sales for about $1.30 to cover production costs, distribution and profit to the producer. At $1.30 per gallon, Bio is still cheaper than gasoline, and Bio is about 15% more efficient, so you use less. It’s also an excellent lubricant, so wear and tear are reduced in vehicles and machines that use it. There is simply no down side.
And you can say what you will about why Americans shun mass transit, but we do — Could you imagine a bigger dissappointment than a multi-billion dollar mass transit system that nobody uses?
poorboy -
i know enough about biodiesel to know better than take what you are saying at face value. biodiesel is also usually free, especially in kansas city…
i know what you are thinking, as ive been down that path. ultimately, you will find that your arguements fail and that there is no simple solution to such a complex problem. i sincerely encourage you to continue to explore different options and honestly research the subject. go to the library, read scientific journals, whatever. you will start to understand why things (like ever higher gas prices and eventually astronomical taxes) are changing. maybe you will start to appreciate how the built environment affects you. just don’t accept any one solution as an ultimate fix for our dependence on fossil fuel.
Matt, I have no idea what you mean when you say that Bio is usually free. If you’ve found a free source, then please let me know. Let MFA know too, since they use 5% Bio blends in their fuels, they’d probably love a free source. And call Caterpillar, they run their industrial equipment on Bio, and would probably hire you just to secure the free source of fuel.
And, please don’t tell me that my arguments will fail when you’ve not been able to punch a whole in a single argument I’ve made. Also, don’t condescend to me by telling me to do my research when you have less knowledge than I do about the subject at hand. I’ve researched biofuels for three years, I’ve been to facilities to watch the stuff be produced, I’ve talked to businessmen who make their living producing and distributing the product.
I would like for you to address an issue some friends and I considered tonight when discussing the mass transit issue: isn’t it true that the reason so many Liberals want mass transit so badly is that the individualist nature of the automobile, the most blatant symbol of class and status in our society, is simply offensive to your political ideals? In other words, even if cars ran on muddy water, wouldn’t liberal dogma require that you still stand against the automobile because it only creates separation of classes, and generally prevents the advancement of a communal society?
Poor Boy, check out Smart Moves. It’s a plan to do just what you need - mass transit from suburb to suburb. Plans for a new bistate compact go to the two legislatures this year, and we might be voting on a regional transit system in 2007 or 2008.
http://www.marc.org/kcsmartmoves/
How do you guys know so much about biodiesel?
Poor boy,
The idea that Liberals (you love using that as a derogatory term, don’t you?) want to rid the world of cars in an attempt to remove social structure, is the most idiotic thing I have heard in a long time.
You are obviously (purposely?) confusing liberalism with communism. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING.
Here is a definition I found on liberalism:
“(Liberalism is) an ideology that believes in the following social values: freedom, individualism, equality, pragmatism, and humanism. Liberalism supports social insurance programs, because it believes that they encourage savings (thus being less dependent on the State), shares the risk of unemployment, injury and retirement amongst all those at risk. Liberalism believes in full employment as a social program, so that people support themselves and can be less dependent on the State.”
Does that definition mention the removal of class in America? It’s all about giving all people a equal chance at the American Dream, not trying to bring down hard working people who earned their wealth.
But, let’s not muddy up this discussion of mass transit with issues of political labels, ok?
Chris, I do enjoy using liberal as a derogatory term, yes. I would also have a different definition of liberalism all together than the one you found. Also, it was the original post on BlogKC which chose to address its feelings on Blunt rather than the actual policy issue at hand that lead me to respond at all. I don’t know why I’d be prevented from mixing politics and policy while nobody else is. At least I discussed my policy beliefs first.
BlogKC, I will check the site you’ve recommended. Thanks.
Oh, just another thought on mass transit as I’m reading the Smartmoves website. We saw this week in New York what happens when a city becomes dependent upon mass transit. Workers strike, life is heavily disrupted and millions of dollars are lost.
And then the mass transit goes back to work and everything is fine now.
And the transit workers get to keep their benefits.
That’s how strikes work.
poorboy,
i’m just asking you to keep an open mind. there is a lot more at stake here than class structure. be wary of political dogma and propoganda like the kind you are describing.
biodesiel can be used cooking oil. i know people that run their old diesel mercedes on it.
i’m currently getting a second degree in environmental science after deciding not to teach with my history degree. i’ve made researching all sorts of issues like this my entire life. i don’t care if i ever make more than enough money to feed and house myself, i just want to close this rediculous political gap we have in this country and get people to look at the future in a logical manner.
i don’t mean to sound condescending, i just become fustrated sometimes. i beg you to continue to research fossil fuel dependence and solutions to in a serious manner. as of now, there is no silver bullet for a lot of reasons. i don’t want to get into the economics of biofuel, road construction, or urban sprawl on here because i doubt that it would matter to you. regardless, someday you wont think that some of us “libs” are that rediculious. i hope you eventually find the answers to what you are seeking.
Matt, I’ve got nothing against you, bro, and if you want to discuss some issues further, feel free to drop by my site. It’s true that a very few diesel engines can run SVO, but not without having a warming tank added to the vehicle, among other modifications to the fuel system. Most engines can’t take it (the Mercedes B5 deisel is the only one that can, to my knowledge), and the needed modifications make it unreasonably burdensome for the market to adopt. Biodiesel is substantially different than SVO.
The ATA’s new MAX bus rapid transit line proves that when mass transit runs reliably and frequently, people DO use it. Try finding a seat on one at 8 in the morning headed downtown. It wasn’t that way on the route MAX replaced, and these buses are a lot bigger. They’ve already exceeded their one-year ridership goals, and it’s only been running five months.
Most opposition to Blunt I am sure is more politically motivated than thought out. I see few tree-huggers complaining when Gore, Clinton, Kennedy, or any other liberals cruise around in gas guzzlers.
They are all politicians and until you realize they are buying your votes with your own money they will continue to play you!
Don’t worry, now that Kay Barnes got her giant fishbowl with no parking they will soon be coming to us with yet another proposal to build some overpriced underused train system.
Look at the system in Houston! Total failure!
Besides like everything else in KC if we try to build it someone will complain that their group did not get to be part of the bidding process. Then we will have to have massive court battles to see if we can put the tracks through blighted neighborhoods to be fair to the less fortunate. When it is all said and done the politicians and lawyers will make millions and we will get the shaft.
I would like to comment on the first selection from Heidi. I am not sure where you are coming from bringing up the point that the state should be responsible for covering the cost of the public transit system in KC but this falls on the local government. The state has nothing to do with this. I am sure you probably think the Federal Gov’t should pitch into too. What is next should the state also pay for our Chiefs and Royals.
Also, there is only one state government that position requires the person to reside in Jeff City and that is Attorney General. I do not know about you but if I had a new child and a wife at home I think they would probably be more comfortable in their own surroundings.
Kelly Cole said
“I do not know about you but if I had a new child and a wife at home I think they would probably be more comfortable in their own surroundings.”
I don’t know if this makes any difference to you, but
THE GOVERNOR WORKS FOR THE PEOPLE.
I don’t care if living somewhere else would make them more comfortable!
Blunt took the job - now he should deal with it! And that includes living in the Governor’s mansion. If he can’t put up with a little inconvenience while doing the people’s work, and thinks this job is too much of a burden on his family, he should quit.
A lot of hard working people have to put up with much worse “inconveniences”. (like having their Medicaid cut…)
I’ve no problem with Gov. Blunt living where ever he chooses… And, yes, as one of the people he works for me as well as the rest of you… Company car comes with the job, folks. Sorry.
However, I do think it’s a little crazy that the State pays for the police escort that I’ve been told leads the way for the Gov. on every trip he takes between Jeff City and Springfield… Look at it this way, at least he isn’t burning airplane fuel.
Danny,
You don’t think it’s a little silly for the Governor to shuttle back and forth wasting all this time and gas just so his family is happy? Sacrifice is a dirty word, I guess, unless he is asking US to sacrifice.
“At least he isn’t burning airplane fuel.”
So by using that rationale…
At least he isn’t asking MODOT to build him his own “super expressway” to make his ride extra comfortable…
Is the Governor allowed to live where he likes? Yes.
Should the taxpayers be upset at his extravagance and arrogance while he asks citizens to conserve? ABSOLUTELY.
Obviously sarcasm, which is what the airplane comment was meant to be, doesn’t translate onto a message board…
As for the rest, it’s not as if Blunt is making a daily commute, he’s just not making Jeff City his primary residence. The gas burnt in his SUV on a 180 mile trip twice a week doesn’t really count for “extravagance”, does it?
By no means am I supporter of the Gov., don’t get me wrong. In fact, I hold quite a bit of disdain for him and his ultra-conservative stance on social issues within the State… Issues that are really pretty petty within the scheme of things… i.e. The Strip Clubs! What a waste of time that legislation was..
But, your argument on his commuting habits is no less petty. I mean, really, what are we talking about here?
Danny, Here’s what we are talking about:
Here’s some info I found from an AP story:
Over a three month period (February, March and April), Blunt racked up an astonishing 24,388 miles in his two taxpayer financed Suburbans. That doesn’t even include travel in standard patrol cars. (Click Read More)
If that total wasn’t stunning enough, let’s do some “executive time allocation modeling” on his travels.
24,388 miles divided over the three months reviewed by the Associated Press averages 8129 miles per month.
At an average continuous speed of 50 miles per hour (probably a very high assumption), Blunt would be spending 162 hours a month in the backseat of his taxpayer funded Suburbans.
————
Now, if the time he wastes isn’t bad enough, I figure that his SUV gets about 20mpg. So, with gas being about $2.00/gal, that means he has spent (just on gas) around $2,438.00 driving around.
How much money state money do YOU get to travel back and forth to work, just to make you “comfortable”?
First off, I seriously doubt that all the time in the vehicle is wasted, Chris. You said yourself that his time is in the backseat of the SUV, and I would expect that time to be spent on the cell phone or laptop.
Secondly, I don’t get state dollars to drive back and forth to work, but I am not the Governor of the state, either. And, I doubt that the most of those miles are racked between Springfield and Jeff… How many miles driven by the Gov. would be okay for you? 100 per day? 50? To me, that means that he’s not out in front of the people, answering questions from the farmers in Tarkio or Cape. As it stands, he’s covering roughly 270 miles per day(I’m sure we’ll agree that his position is not a 5-day work week)… With more some days, some less days, that seems reasonable to me… Likewise, how much of the month is 162 hours? There’s more than 700 in a thirty day month… That leaves over 500 for him to be outside the car… Technology being what it is today, I feel just as comfortable him being in the car as I would were he in the office… Moreso, in fact. I don’t think that he’s joyriding. Could be wrong, though. All those miles could come alongside a sixer on the way to the strip clubs.
this article discusses blunts quid pro quo policies that hurt Missourians for his own benefit.
kinda long, but well worth downloading the PDF and reading when you have 10 minutes to get fired up about blunt corruption.
http://www.simpletonu.com/PPI_20060112_Blunt.htm