Maybe I'm too cynical, but I doubt it, not when that money can be used for pretty rail projects. Though I suppose this will be the test to see if TriMet is a transit agency or a land use agency.

And if the $106 billion being spent on the war was instead going to bank and/or insurance company subsidies, and/or unemployment/welfare provisions so pheasants could continue to eat and have shelter, or it was going to transit itself; I bet there'd be outrage on the streets, including further Conservative and Libertarian "Tea Parties" demanding that government instead eliminate high income tax brackets and tariffs on luxury items.

I'm sure we can all agree that's enough on the above.

In all seriousness, does TriMet still have 10% of its stimulus money available, or is it already locked up in unbreakable contracts for bike path improvements and an increase of the surveillance society?
Whoah, TriMet received $53.333 million total in stimulus funding, so 10% is obviously $5.3 million. The number sounds familiar, like the dollar amount of service lost in September service cuts.

I'm supportive of food and shelter for pheasants.

I thought the transportpolitic analysis of this was good. While it's ultimately a small chunk, initiating federal support for transit operations could prevent states from doing what is necessary to solve these service problems, which have the weight of public opposition against them. So, in effect you cancel 10% of the capital projects and provide a level of service that the state may have eventually provided anyway. I'm not doing a great job describing this, so here's the link:

http://thetransportpolitic.com/2009/06/10/washington-considers-covering-transit-operating-costs/

Why shouldn't stimulus money fund operations?

It's not like its a bond that needs to be repaid back, and needs to have collateral against it to garner a lower rate of interest.

While I respect Yonah's (Transport Politic) view, I don't think it really fits here in Oregon. The Legislature has just approved another increase in the payroll tax rate, so the long term picture is a bit better, but the short-term is horrific and there's really no prospect local government can fill the short-term gap. I'm glad to see Federal funds potentially filling the hole.

Unfortunately taxing business more and more eventually ends the businesses, which then ends everything!

They find tons of money for all sorts of idiotic things, like the war, etc.

But they can't help the mentally ill, and they can't help the homeless, and they can't help the people in default on mortgages, on and on and on!!

Afghanistan Saves TriMet?

The whole premise is sickening!

Maybe we ought to arrange it so that when the homeless are fed, the mentally ill are helped, and the busses are driven--some rich dude gets a percentage.

The First Law of Economics seems to be: The Rich Shall Get Their Share. All competing economic theories--Marxism, Keynesism, Austrian School, supply-side, Chicago--simply differ on how to deal with this reality. Some try and keep the rich from their share; others try to feed the rich as much as possible in the hopes that when the trough runs over, the rest of us can enjoy the slop that falls over the side.

:)