Consistent outrage is so much more convincing than politically timed outrage.

So how do we decide when to act on behalf of what’s right and when to let the massacre proceed unabated?

LaHood on Tuesday said this: “”I believe that this regulation makes no sense. It does not properly take into account the high costs that local governments would have to bear. States, cities, and towns should not be required to spend money that they don’t have to replace perfectly good traffic signs.”

The Federal Highway Administration is re-opening the proposed comment period on the rule, which would require mixed case lettering on highway signs instead of all capitals. Here’s how explicit the FHWA was Monday in announcing the massive change in direction:

WASHINGTON – U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood today called for additional public input on compliance dates for a number of federal traffic control regulations, ranging from road sign reflectivity to crosswalk timing.

“Given the difficult economic conditions states currently face, asking for additional input on compliance dates is the right thing to do,” said Secretary LaHood. “We want to be sure these safety requirements are reasonable, fair and cost-effective.”

The public will have 45 days from tomorrow to submit comments to the Federal Register. Comments should be directed to www.regulations.gov.

The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), which has been administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) since 1971, is a compilation of national standards for all traffic control devices, including road markings, highway signs, and traffic signals. It is updated periodically to accommodate the nation’s changing transportation needs and address new safety technologies, traffic control tools and traffic management techniques.

In finalizing updates to the MUTCD, FHWA works with and receives input from the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, composed of more than 250 key stakeholders representing state departments of transportation, city and county governments, academia, and trade groups such as the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), and the American Automobile Association (AAA).

The FHWA also seeks input from the public on changes to the MUTCD, including compliance dates. Comments are solicited from the general public, state and local highway agencies, the insurance industry, law enforcement agencies, incident management and maintenance personnel, academic institutions, planning, construction and engineering organizations, and other industry stakeholders.

“Safety is our priority, but so is good government,” said Federal Highway Administrator Victor Mendez. “Listening to the public helps to ensure both.”

No wonder this story stayed hidden until LaHood’s very explicit statement — who the hell could tell from the FHWA statement just what was happening?

Shame on the FHWA for trying to disguise an important decision and not being explicit with the public about the topics for which public comment is being sought. Hey, kids, the Obama administration is supposed to be all about transparency.

Reporter Cecelia King emphasizes the social media / privacy / corporate aspect of the committee’s future work, but given the Obama administration’s not-so-good track record on Internet / constitutional issues, the committee could well end up trodding merrily across the Constitution in civil rights tracking cleats. Law enforcement and domestic spooks will be well-represented on the committee. From the Post posting:

A blog post last Sunday on the National Science and Technology Council Web site said the subcommittee will include members of several federal agencies, such as the Commerce, Justice, Homeland Security and State departments. Cameron Kerry, general counsel at the Commerce Department, and Christopher Schroeder, assistant attorney general at the Justice Department, will head the group.

Representatives of the Federal Trade Commission and Federal Communications Commission were also invited. And the White House will have representatives from its Domestic Policy Council, National Economic Council, U.S. Trade Representative office and National Security Staff Cybersecurity Directorate.

“In this digital age, a thriving and dynamic economy requires Internet policies that promote innovation domestically and globally while ensuring strong and sensible protections of individuals’ private information and the ability of governments to meet their obligations to protect public safety,” Kerry and Schroeder wrote in the NSTC blog post.

Mr. President, sir. If you do the latter, then the former win. You might as well turn over the keys to the country right now.

One of the administration’s latest assaults on civil liberties occurred, last week, when it argued in federal court (again) that people illegally spied upon by the federal government should not be allowed to seek redress in court because oh my gosh, there are state secrets involved! The brief was filed in response to an Electronic Frontier Foundation lawsuit challenging the government’s electronic spying program.

That’s a tune we should be familiar with by now. The government acts in a wholly illegal manner, then invokes national security to protect its spymasters and bureaucrats. From the government’s brief:

As the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) explained in his declaration asserting the state secrets privilege, the privilege extends to key evidence implicated by plaintiffs’ claims, such as whether plaintiffs themselves had been subjected to any surveillance of the type alleged in their complaints. Confirmation or denial of such claims would cause exceptionally grave harm to national security.

That argument is a head-spinner on its own merit, but the government has another layer of craziness that should propel the collective national noggin around a few more times on its axis. The feds argue that citizens should not use the courts to make the federal government obey the law.

Plaintiffs’ claims here fail to satisfy the requirements of prudential standing because they assert a generalized grievance concerning intelligence policy that is better suited to resolution by the political branches, in light of the extremely sensitive national security concerns at stake and the paramount need for secrecy.

So there you have it: the Obama administration believes in the constitution — except for those pesky parts about jury trials in civil cases, judicial authority and unreasonable search and seizure. Oh, yeah, and that separation of powers thing the framers were so careful to construct.

The Obama administration defending bad conduct with bad arguments that will be misused for decades. We will regret it.

So be afraid, be very afraid, about what our national security apparatus is up to these days. When you have too many law enforcement types chasing too few bad guys, as the US government does now, you are going to end up with bored or corrupt federal agents going after the wrong people through ineptitude, spite or ideology.

Scarier yet: first the Bush administration, then the Obama administration, knocked down rules and the rule of law to give this overpopulated policing world more power and the policed world far less protection from its protectors.

Fareed Zakaria, writing in Newsweek, laid out some details:

Hold the applause, please, at least until we get the details.

First, Republicans don’t like the plan, announcing that it is dead on arrival. Republicans don’t like anything Obama does, so the opposition isn’t new. It still could be significant, though.

Second, it’s not really very much money. $50 billion nationwide over six years. The fine folks at the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission told us seven years ago that spending $6 billion in a small area of a smallish state to rebuild and unnecessarily expand freeways is such a minor consideration that it need not be mentioned in surveys measuring support for the $6 billion effort.

Just kidding. The SEWRPC freeway study planning process, as we all know, was a joke driven by road builders and HNTB (sponsors of the broken Marquette Interchange ramp) to justify a conclusion already reached by road builders and HNTB.  (See how it works? HNTB helps SEWRPC conclude that freeway expansion is needed and then grabs the design contracts for the resulting projects. Sweeeeet.)

What is serious is that $50 billion over six years over 50 states is less than it might first appear. Economist Dean Baker says it is 1.4% of the federal budget and adds:

It is also equal to about 4 percent of the $1.2 drop in annual demand (@ $600 billion in lost consumption and $600 billion in reduced construction) due to the collapse of the housing bubble.

Obama says the $50 billion, targeted at transportation, would be the first phase of an infrastructure bank. But adding $50 billion in spending is just wasting a lot of it if it isn’t spent well. And highway spending, in this country, isn’t done well.

According to the Government Accountability Office report, Highway Trust Fund: Nearly All States Received More Funding Than They Contributed in Highway Taxes Since 2005:

As we have reported, for many surface transportation programs, goals are numerous and conflicting, and the federal role in achieving the goals is not clear. Many of these programs have no relationship to the performance of either the transportation system or of the grantees receiving federal funds and do not use the best tools and approaches to ensure effective investment decisions.15 Our previous work has outlined the need to create well defined goals based on identified areas of federal interest and a clearly defined federal role in relation to other levels of government.16 We have suggested that where the federal interest is less evident, state and local governments could assume more responsibility, and some functions could potentially be assumed by the states or other levels of government.17 Furthermore, incorporating performance and accountability for results into transportation funding decisions is critical to improving results.

So major jobs program? Absolutely, yes. But spending large, but insufficient sums in the usual ways that don’t produce the desired results? Absolutely, no. Please. Let’s get it right.

We are at a truly historic moment in our nation’s history. After more than seven years, our combat mission in Iraq will end tomorrow.

As both a candidate and President, I promised to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end. Now, we are taking an important step forward in delivering on that promise. Since I took office, we’ve brought nearly 100,000 U.S. troops home from Iraq, millions of pieces of equipment have been removed, and hundreds of bases have been closed or transferred to Iraqi Security Forces.

Our combat mission in Iraq is ending, but our commitment to an Iraq that is sovereign, stable and self-reliant continues. As our mission in Iraq changes, 50,000 U.S. troops will remain in Iraq to advise and assist the Iraqi Security Forces as they assume full responsibility for the security of their country on September 1. We will forge a strong partnership with an Iraq that still faces enduring challenges.

I am glad for the lives of soldiers still serving that the combat mission is over, but what a terrible, terrible terrible waste of lives and resources it was. What the hell did it accomplish?

And what happens to the Iraqi people now? Are we going to better for our friends there than we did for the Hmong people after the Vietnam War?

This isn’t about high-speed rail or big new capital projects. Someone’s actually paying serious attention to the nuts and bolts of buses and (existing)  urban rail lines!

From the Dedham Transcript:

“It’s been a challenge for mid-size systems in Cleveland to rural systems in the Dakotas to the big systems in the urban areas,” Therese McMillan, second in command of the Federal Transit Administration, told the News Service after delivering remarks at a meeting of the Metropolitan Area Planning Council. “Everyone is really struggling.”

McMillan cited the national recession as a cause for stress of transit systems nationwide, and she noted that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 permitted 10 percent of capital transportation spending to be used for operating expenses, such as running trains and paying employees.

But McMillan remained mum on a proposal that would permit large urban transit systems to regularly spend more federal dollars on transportation operations, acknowledging the proposal, supported by Rep. Michael Capuano, but saying the Obama administration has yet to take a position.

On the other hand, McMillan pointed to a transportation authorization bill pending in Congress that would provide $2 billion to cover operating costs for transit systems, a proposal supporters say would stave off fare increases and service cuts. According to the bill’s preamble, 84 percent of federal transit systems have raised fares, cut services or have considered one of those actions since January 2009.

Under the bill, sponsored by Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), federal transportation funds may be used to transit systems’ operating expenses in order to “restore a reduction in public transportation service and related workforce reductions” or to “rescind all or a portion of a fare increase.”

It’s got some very good elements, but it is crying out for some income limits.

Here are the major elements of the plan, according to the Washington Post:

• Banks and other lenders would have to reduce the payments to no more than 31 percent of a borrower’s income, which would typically be the amount of unemployment insurance, for three to six months. In some cases, administration officials said, a lender could allow a borrower to skip payments altogether.
• The government will provide financial incentives to lenders that cut the balance of a borrower’s mortgage. Banks and other lenders will be asked to reduce the principal owed on a loan if the amount is 15 percent more than their home is worth. The reduced amount would be set aside and forgiven by the lender over three years, as long as the homeowner remained current on the loan.
• The government will double the amount it pays to lenders that help modify second mortgages, such as piggyback loans, which enabled home buyers to put little or no money down, and home equity lines of credit.
• More incentives will be paid to those lenders that find a way to avoid foreclosing on delinquent borrowers even if they can’t qualify for mortgage relief. For example, the administration is scheduled to launch a program next month encouraging lenders to have borrowers sell their homes for less than the mortgage balance in what is known as a short sale.
• The FHA will offer incentives to lenders that reduce the amount borrowers owe on their primary mortgages by at least 10 percent.

All of those are much-needed measures, but should be limited. There is a fundamental difference between a family of four living on in a 1,500-square-foot house and a twosome living in a 3,500-square-foot monstrosity. Even if layoffs equalize the two households incomes, the former should simply be given more consideration. The couple in the bigger house has more options — like downsizing.

This proposed measure will provide a little relief, but probably less than will be hyped. A six-month mortgage grace period, in the form of lower payments, may really benefit those who can find a job within six months, but will only delay the inevitable for those who can’t and will cost taxpayers a tidy sum even for those not ultimately helped.

It also would be nice for the government to include a “stupid choices” factor that would disqualify homeowners who can’t make their mortgage payments because they made stupid choices — fancy car debt over a savings account, for example, or a $600,000 house on a $100,000 income.

It is, alas, unlikely that the federal government, which often moves with the grace of a large bulldozer, will make those fine distinctions. And this bailout will cause resentment, too.