"And secondly, I would impose a significant state landfill tipping fee and use that tipping fee to fund the billion dollar bond issue that I want to create to produce the funds for all of the environmental challenges that we just went over"
About this Quote
Rendell’s sentence is a small masterclass in how politicians make big government sound like bookkeeping. The policy is ambitious - a billion-dollar bond issue for “all of the environmental challenges” - but the delivery is deliberately procedural: “And secondly,” “I would impose,” “use that…to fund that…to create.” It’s not soaring rhetoric; it’s civic plumbing. That’s the point. By framing climate and environmental remediation as a financing problem with a clean revenue stream, he shifts the debate from ideology (should government act?) to mechanics (how do we pay for it?).
The specific intent is to sell a dedicated, politically defensible funding pipeline: charge more to dump trash, then route that money into debt service for a large bond. A landfill tipping fee is strategic because it feels like a “user fee” rather than a broad tax hike. It also signals a subtle behavioral nudge: if disposal gets more expensive, waste reduction becomes economically rational.
The subtext is coalition-building through euphemism. “Significant” avoids the toxic number that would trigger instant backlash. “Environmental challenges” is expansive enough to include everything from cleanup to infrastructure upgrades without naming winners and losers. The bond issue, meanwhile, quietly acknowledges scale: problems are too large for annual budgets, so the state borrows against the future to act in the present.
Contextually, this fits Rendell’s governing brand: technocratic, infrastructure-forward, comfortable with debt as an investment tool. It’s environmental policy pitched as fiscal engineering - less moral crusade, more a spreadsheet that just happens to reshape behavior.
The specific intent is to sell a dedicated, politically defensible funding pipeline: charge more to dump trash, then route that money into debt service for a large bond. A landfill tipping fee is strategic because it feels like a “user fee” rather than a broad tax hike. It also signals a subtle behavioral nudge: if disposal gets more expensive, waste reduction becomes economically rational.
The subtext is coalition-building through euphemism. “Significant” avoids the toxic number that would trigger instant backlash. “Environmental challenges” is expansive enough to include everything from cleanup to infrastructure upgrades without naming winners and losers. The bond issue, meanwhile, quietly acknowledges scale: problems are too large for annual budgets, so the state borrows against the future to act in the present.
Contextually, this fits Rendell’s governing brand: technocratic, infrastructure-forward, comfortable with debt as an investment tool. It’s environmental policy pitched as fiscal engineering - less moral crusade, more a spreadsheet that just happens to reshape behavior.
Quote Details
| Topic | Money |
|---|
More Quotes by Ed
Add to List
