<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: A Warning From America&#8217;s Cities: The Recession Has Only Just Begun to Hit</title>
	<atom:link href="http://dc.streetsblog.org/2009/11/19/a-warning-from-americas-cities-the-recession-has-only-just-begun-to-hit/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://dc.streetsblog.org/2009/11/19/a-warning-from-americas-cities-the-recession-has-only-just-begun-to-hit/</link>
	<description>Your daily source for national transportation policy news and analysis.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 23:57:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kenney</title>
		<link>http://dc.streetsblog.org/2009/11/19/a-warning-from-americas-cities-the-recession-has-only-just-begun-to-hit/comment-page-1/#comment-88611</link>
		<dc:creator>Kenney</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:51:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dc.streetsblog.org/?p=51061#comment-88611</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m familiar with this &quot;fundamental shift in thinking&quot; solution that Wessel proposes, and although I agree with it, I think its proponents are missing a crucial link:  Members of Congress.  It takes either blindness or a healthy serving of willful arrogance to suggest that if only the American public was collectively more rational in its opinions, Congress would be able to act more swiftly and efficiently to solve our problems.  

If you want to see a fundamental shift in the way the public thinks, you first have to see a fundamental shift in the way Members of Congress treat the responsibilities of their office.  They need to abandon their knee-jerk indulgence of self-preservation, reacting to the winds of public opinion, and shift to a more &quot;educational&quot; style of representation, where they become willing to call their constituents out on how they&#039;ve been misled.  

A great example of where this should have happened is the vote on funding for the closure of Guantanamo Bay.  Several congressmen and senators said they must vote against the money because they had been inundated with calls from constituents worried about terrorists walking around in their neighborhoods.  What should have happened was for the congressmen and senators to explain to their constituents that not only is it impossible for the Guantanamo Bay suspects to escape the Supermax prisons they would have been transferred to, but also that US Supermax prisons already house convicted terrorists!

Likewise with the gas tax, politicians are more content to indulge (largely fabricated) reports of resistance to a gas tax increase, than to be straight with their constituents about what the tax would fund and how it works.  My overall point is that Members of Congress don&#039;t manage their relationship with their constituents.  Rather, they are content to operate within the current framework of electoral politics that feeds on high emotion and hyper-partisanship.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m familiar with this &#8220;fundamental shift in thinking&#8221; solution that Wessel proposes, and although I agree with it, I think its proponents are missing a crucial link:  Members of Congress.  It takes either blindness or a healthy serving of willful arrogance to suggest that if only the American public was collectively more rational in its opinions, Congress would be able to act more swiftly and efficiently to solve our problems.  </p>
<p>If you want to see a fundamental shift in the way the public thinks, you first have to see a fundamental shift in the way Members of Congress treat the responsibilities of their office.  They need to abandon their knee-jerk indulgence of self-preservation, reacting to the winds of public opinion, and shift to a more &#8220;educational&#8221; style of representation, where they become willing to call their constituents out on how they&#8217;ve been misled.  </p>
<p>A great example of where this should have happened is the vote on funding for the closure of Guantanamo Bay.  Several congressmen and senators said they must vote against the money because they had been inundated with calls from constituents worried about terrorists walking around in their neighborhoods.  What should have happened was for the congressmen and senators to explain to their constituents that not only is it impossible for the Guantanamo Bay suspects to escape the Supermax prisons they would have been transferred to, but also that US Supermax prisons already house convicted terrorists!</p>
<p>Likewise with the gas tax, politicians are more content to indulge (largely fabricated) reports of resistance to a gas tax increase, than to be straight with their constituents about what the tax would fund and how it works.  My overall point is that Members of Congress don&#8217;t manage their relationship with their constituents.  Rather, they are content to operate within the current framework of electoral politics that feeds on high emotion and hyper-partisanship.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

