I'm really concerned about U.S. Sen. Pat Toomey's votes and his July 29 vote on the transportation bill dealing with the Highway Trust Fund did not ease my concerns. He was one of 18 senators who voted against a bill that would help improve our highways and bridges and fund other safety projects.
Toomey has voted against every transportation bill put before him as a senator. Notably, after he voted against a transportation bill in 2013 that included $550 million in Department of Transportation national infrastructure investments and $500 million for bridges in critical corridors, he actually bragged about it.
“We did something constructive today ... . I told you we'd kill it, and we did,” Toomey said, his words carried by a tea party group's live online stream.
Toomey has blocked all the transportation bills at a time when the nation's bridges are in terrible condition. In fact, there are more than 60,000 structurally deficient bridges across the country and Pennsylvania leads the list with over 5,200 bridges in need of repair.
I don't understand why he would block bills that help protect our nation from hazardous infrastructure, yet at the same time spur economic growth and employment that would aid in the resurgence of the middle class.
It doesn't make any sense to me.
Clarification: The letter above did not mention that U.S. Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., voted for the final version of the Highway Trust Fund bill passed by the House on July 30 and the Senate on July 31.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.