In recent months, the Antiplanner has wondered if Representative John Mica, chair of the House Transportation Committee, would act as a true fiscal conservative or revert to his old ways of pork barreling for his state and district. The reauthorization proposal he made last week provides one answer; another can be found in his response to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which had criticized Mica’s plan for reducing spending by 35 percent.
The letter castigates the Chamber for demanding higher taxes and more spending. Mica specifically notes that the Democrat’s proposal for reauthorization would have required a huge increase in gas taxes yet reduced highway construction, stymied public-private partnerships, and created numerous new programs that would have diverted even more money away from meeting highway needs. “Despite these flaws,” says Mica, “your organization enthusiastically encouraged support for the legislation.”
Mica notes that, at one time, the Chamber “would advocate strong infrastructure and responsible fiscal policy,” whereas now its main goal “appears to be to lead the lobby for tax increases.” “It is unfortunate that the leadership of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce still does not recognize that the American people have rejected excessive deficit spending and tax increases.”
Disruption this process, may leave the man with the disease uncomfortable and will inevitably lead to a wide generic cialis australia range of health problems that may cause pain. Natural viagra for women online important vitamins and supplements that do not harm our body. You should be able to drive browse around my page now viagra pills canada yourself to and from your cardiac stress test. It is also a fun loving medicine for many adults because viagra purchase online it increases sensitivity to sex. “The American people sent a clear message in electing a U.S. House to change the way business is conducted in Washington,” continues the letter. “The priorities of the American Taxpayer have been and will be placed ahead of the unchecked desires of some in Washington to spend money.”
The most important part of the reauthorization bill, suggests Mica, is “protecting the true engine of our economy: our ability to move goods through the interstate network of highways and rails to and from our ports.” To meet that goal, the Republican bill will “open new doors for private sector investment, eliminate red tape and bureaucracy, and engage American enterprise.” The letter closes by encouraging the chamber to “return to its roots.”
The chamber had advocated for a Senate proposal (meaning a Democrat proposal) to extend the current reauthorization for two years and then pass a full reauthorization bill in 2013. This is a blatant effort by Democrats to put off the pain of spending reductions today in the hope that they can retake the House in the next election and pass a big bill after that.
While I continue to be disappointed by Mica’s support for an expensive and useless commuter-rail line in his state, I am heartened by his willingness to take on a nominally powerful group such as the U.S. Chamber. Maybe some of the chamber’s members will get the message and pressure for a change in the organization’s direction. Meanwhile, another response to Mica’s bill can be found in the fiscally conservative Washington Times.
There are those who would accuse me of being mean-spirited, but I can hardly wait to hear the howls of horror from the leftists who would spend us into oblivion, to fulfill their idiotic vision of government spending billions satisfy their personal preference for outdated, expensive, and inefficient forms of transportation.
“Public-Private Partnerships”
Such a crock of crap. At the end of the day, all of these projects are paid for out of tax dollars and tolls.
We can either be responsible and pay for what we need now at a very minor cost (i.e., increase the gas tax by around 15 cents per gallon, or institute open road tolling with a nationwide EZ-Pass type system), or we can kick the can down the road by indebting the public system to private banks and major engineering/construction and real estate development corporations and exponentially increase our costs through the magic of compound interest. At the end of the day, any money scrounged up through PPP’s has to be paid back with profits and interest out of future tax revenues, tolls, or other funding streams that otherwise would have been available to provide future funding of government transportation agencies, because no private sector enterprise is going to front capital for expensive infrastructure projects without gaining a guaranteed return and covering its opportunity cost.
So the question is, does our basic infrastructure exist to serve our economy, or does it exist to create profit opportunities for large private financial and corporate interests? There is no free lunch, and money is not growing on trees out back. Either we pay for what we want or we sink further in debt.
I am against any and all increases in gas taxes unless transit of any sort is completely cut out of gas taxes. Let us stop the theft of gas taxes by inefficient, government operated pork rail (I am not against gas taxes funding buses, but unfortunately, such a compromise would inevitably result in rail being funded too).
To show how long this fantasy of private money replacing taxes and debt has been around, note this article from 1955 in Time.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,861259-2,00.html
“… allowing private investors to put up the necessary cash to build roads would get roads built without either federal or state governments going further into debt.”
If an obligation exists to pay public revenue to private investors, a debt also exists. Just because it is not formal debt or it is hidden through some shell agency or corporation doesn’t erase its existence.
metrosucks:
I’m opposed to paying gas taxes to subsidize expressway commuters and interstate travellers without some corresponding benefit back to systems of transport that I use. Why should I have to pay 50% of their costs and 100% of my own?
Everyone uses or benefits from roads. Every single person in the US. To say otherwise is to perpetuate a gross deception. Your purchase of gas pays into a big pool of money that is divided up to pay for projects across the US. For the most part, when politics, and to a lesser extent, anti-car planners (hear, hear, Dan), aren’t involved, it actually works pretty well, considering it’s government and all.
“The American people sent a clear message in electing a U.S. House to change the way business is conducted in Washington,â€
This is what every group that has been elected to the majority in whatever house says every time, and yet “politics as usual” is all we ever get. It’s funny that the “clear message,” that seemingly changes every 2-4 years, always falls on deaf ears until that “message” can be used to posture.
Let’s be honest. We are a country divided. There is no consensus amongst 300+ million of us, and there is certainly no “clear message.” This is just another example of political douchebag cleche. Sigh, eye roll, etc.
If I had to estimate the number of light-rail projects demanded by market forces, I would have to place that number at, or near, zero.
.
So the question is, does our basic infrastructure exist to serve our economy, or does it exist to create profit opportunities for large private financial and corporate interests?
I wonder why you think the two are mutually exclusive.
…because no private sector enterprise is going to front capital for expensive infrastructure projects without gaining a guaranteed return and covering its opportunity cost.
And there is no opportunity cost to federal transportation spending?
Andrew,
Regarding the 1955 Time article, the Bureau of Public Roads persuaded Congress to undermine the toll roads movement by building the Interstate Highway System with gas taxes. If the Antiplanner had been working on these issues then, I probably would have opposed the Interstate Highway bill. Today, thanks to electronics, the collection costs of tolls are lot lower than they were in 1955, so toll roads have many advantages that they did not have then. Congress has also removed some of the obstacles to toll roads (such as the rule that no toll road can connect with a federally funded interstate highway), which will make toll roads more viable. As the Time article notes, it was Democrats then who were opposing toll roads, and it is Democrats today who continue to oppose them for the same reasons: they want big government rather than local enterprise running services.
MJ:
The two are mutually exclusive because basic infrastructure should be available to all regardless of profit.
If there is an opportunity for private enterprise to provide something more efficiently than the government, then by all means it should be able and encouraged to do so. But simply because private enterprise cannot make a profit at something does not mean it should not exist. The public convenience and necessity sometimes warrants that an infrastructure enterprise, or a portion of one, which can only be carried out at a loss, or perhaps with no renumeration at all, is still a worthwhile enterprise.
No doubt you are referring to rail with your reference to “which can only be carried out at a loss”. Well, I got news for you Andrew. While it might be your personal preference to ride choo choo everywhere, it doesn’t mean it’s something worth spending hundreds of billions of dollars on.
Randall:
Democrats in the 1950’s are many of the same people who are Republicans today – white Southerners. Its hardly a surprising that the political representatives of a region known for its desire for the free lunch should oppose toll roads and desire a gas tax system where most of the costs would be born by northeastern and midwestern drivers whose states had already created toll roads at that time and so hardly stood in need of the same level of roadway investment as the south did.
I find you ruse of the phrase “local enterprise” interesting. For too many toll road privatization schemes seem to be favors to large foreign corporations who have come in to suck up our assets. It is a shame that we cannot figure out a way to privatize our toll roads (and freeways as well) into the hunds of the US people, with the states retaining an ownership interest to give partial government influence to the direction of the corporation. This would allow competing American road organizations to be formed and direct the profit from the sale into the hands of the citizens and the dividends deriving from the operation fo the roads into the hands of the people who want to retain or own shares in the companies.
Let’s not complicate things. People, at least your average Joe, just want to be able to drive on decent roads, not own shares in them. Your tiresome, repetitive claim about “subsidizing” drivers in other parts of the country is pretty ridiculous. Everyone pays in at the same rate per gallon, and everyone gets to drive on good quality roads. Are you trying to say that the area of the country you live in is missing road infrastructure because other areas have siphoned off the funds?
The Antiplanner wrote:
The chamber had advocated for a Senate proposal (meaning a Democrat proposal) to extend the current reauthorization for two years and then pass a full reauthorization bill in 2013. This is a blatant effort by Democrats to put off the pain of spending reductions today in the hope that they can retake the House in the next election and pass a big bill after that.
Like it or not, in our system of republican government, both houses of Congress have to agree in order to pass most legislation. And even though I am a registered Democrat, and frequently disagree with my party on subjects discussed by the Antiplanner, that still the way our system works.
While I continue to be disappointed by Mica’s support for an expensive and useless commuter-rail line in his state, I am heartened by his willingness to take on a nominally powerful group such as the U.S. Chamber. Maybe some of the chamber’s members will get the message and pressure for a change in the organization’s direction. Meanwhile, another response to Mica’s bill can be found in the fiscally conservative Washington Times.
That commuter rail line is as bad many other passenger rail project that have been promoted in recent years around these United States. I have a hard time taking Mica seriously as long as he promotes this choo-choo train.
I am disappointed that the Antiplanner chooses to quote the Washington Times, a newspaper owned and operated by Rev. Sun Myung Moon, a convicted felon. Plenty of untainted sources out there to choose from while avoiding and ignoring Moon and his enablers and cronies.
What does his conviction have to do with anything? Looks like it was a tax conviction. As far as I’m concerned, that’s a meaningless crime. Why should the government get to lie to the people constantly, yet convict individuals on the basis of comparatively small financial issues?
metrosucks:
While it might be your personal preference to ride choo choo everywhere, it doesn’t mean it’s something worth spending hundreds of billions of dollars on.
Well, I guess it is a good thing it doesn’t cost hundreds of billions for me to to do that, unlike driving on roads, which runs up a bill like that every year.
People, at least your average Joe, just want to be able to drive on decent roads, not own shares in them.
Well then, lets hear no more about privatizing road infrastructure (or parking meters or anything else of this sort) from your side, especially selling it off to foreign interests for their profit at our expense.
Your tiresome, repetitive claim about “subsidizing†drivers in other parts of the country is pretty ridiculous. Are you trying to say that the area of the country you live in is missing road infrastructure because other areas have siphoned off the funds?
I live in a part of the country (suburban Philadelphia), where most of the expressways I drive on are toll roads – PA Turnpike, NE Extension, NJ Turnpike, Atlantic City Expressway, Delaware Turnpike, Maryland Turnpike, lots of toll bridges, etc. The road infrastructure we are missing are the free expressways the rest of the country gets to enjoy while we pay tolls. This shouldn’t be a difficult concept for you to understand. I pay a property tax to enjoy my local streets, I pay tolls to enjoy my local freeways, and I pay a gas tax to subsidze freeloaders elsewhere who are ideologically opposed to tolls and a higher gas tax.
Regardless, there can be no raising of this tax until transit stops stealing from highways. Think of all the money wasted on streetcars, light rail, and useless commuter rail. Except for the NE corridor, rail has no place in the bigger picture, transportation-wise. All that money reallocated to Seattle Light Rail, or Portland Light Rail, or WES, or San Jose light rail, for example, could have paid instead for your free expressways.
Metrosucks, public transit can’t steal public funds & again roads are mostly funded by property taxes.
There’s no point in wasting time explaining it to you.
metrosucks:
You are still missing the point. We don’t want any additional free expressways around here. We like having intact neighborhoods. We DO want freeloaders elsewhere to pay tolls, especially on I80 and I79.
The gas excise tax no more “belongs” to highways than the alcoholic beverage excise tax “belongs” to brewers and vintners.
As to rail projects out west, if the people voted to support them, I don’t understand what your arguement is against them other than distaste for democracy. Ronald Reagan was the one who started the sharing of the federal trust fund when he raised the gas tax, something today’s Republican’s are petrified of doing thanks to Grover Norquist scaring them. The faux conservatives and libertarians of today’s Tea Party would do well to study up on Reagan’s actual fiscal program.
“The gas excise tax no more “belongs†to highways than the alcoholic beverage excise tax “belongs†to brewers and vintners.” – Andrew
The gas tax has a long history of being used to pay for roads.
For example, “The Highway Revenue Act of 1956 proposed to increase the gas tax from two to three cents per gallon and to impose a series of other highway user tax changes. ” ( http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publicroads/96summer/p96su10.cfm )
Alcohol excise taxes have an even longer history than gas taxes. In the US they were never inacted in the name of building a distillery nor brewery. But unlike roads we’ve never argued that we need government building and running those things. In fact while there were often specific claims for their need, such as paying for the Civil War, they have largely lived in the name of discouraging those activities. That is why it’s called a sin tax, after all.
They may both excise taxes but they have relatively different histories and intentions both in their initial creation and ongoing existence.
It’s fine, Metrosucks, we all know you’re willfully ignorant.
Just as we all know that Mr.O’Toole is a fraud.
metrosucks wrote:
What does his conviction have to do with anything?
Because it had everything to do with Moon’s operation of his “church,” a cult and an operation dedicated to all world religions “unifying” around him – he has repeatedly claimed that he is the Messiah.
Looks like it was a tax conviction. As far as I’m concerned, that’s a meaningless crime. Why should the government get to lie to the people constantly, yet convict individuals on the basis of comparatively small financial issues?
It was indeed a tax fraud conviction. You are welcome to consider it as meaningless. I don’t.
The Highwayman [sic] claimed:
It’s fine, Metrosucks, we all know you’re willfully ignorant.
We? You can speak for yourself. I don’t see any need for you to speak for others that read and comment about Randal’s postings.
So CPZ you defend O’Toole’s crooked BS.
You want one standard for roads and another rail too.
I guess you have a point there CPZ. I’m not familiar with this individual and only read about his criminal record. However, I repeat my assertion that the tax fraud charge isn’t all that important. Many, including me, would argue that it’s fundamentally impossible to “cheat” the government.
As for highwayman, go away and stop embarrassing yourself. If rail users can pay for all rail expenses and construction out of ticket sales, be my guest. But they can’t, and never will again, so go suck on a lemon.
Metrosucks you want a double standard, every one pays for roads, no matter who they are, even if they don’t own a car. Why should it any be different for rail?
prk166:
The gas tax has a long history of being used to pay for roads.
A long history does not create an entitlement to revenue. My point is there is nothing inherent in the character of the gas tax that requires it to be used to subsidize road maintenance and construction. It is just an excise tax to collect revenue for various levels of government. The dedication of at least part of the tax to road construction is a political position to garner support for the existence of the tax.
Before the gas tax was used to subsidize road construction, the revenue it generated was used for other governmental purposes. The Time article I cited noted New Jersey’s use of part of its gas tax revenue pre-Interstate to provide aid to public schools.
Alcohol excise taxes have an even longer history than gas taxes.
Of course they do. Alcohol was around long before refined gasoline.
In the US they were never inacted in the name of building a distillery nor brewery.
But they could have been! The US Government owned distilleries in the past (see 3rd paragraph of this article):
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,856037,00.html
and government owned liquor distilleries have a long and distinguished history around the world. The same arguements in logic that the gas tax “must” be dedicated to road construction costs would follow that the liquor tax “must” be dedicated to the operation and construction of distilleries, breweries, and wineries. Similarly, the telephone excise tax enacted to pay for the Spanish-American War “should” have been dedicated to expanding and improving the phone network, right? Also, it would logically follow that the railway ticket tax and railway tarriff taxes enacted to pay for WWII “should” have been dedicated to expansion and improvement of the railway system, wouldn’t it?
But unlike roads we’ve never argued that we need government building and running those things.
Since government owned distilleries used to exist, I guess there wasn’t much arguement about their existence then?
In fact while there were often specific claims for their need, such as paying for the Civil War, they have largely lived in the name of discouraging those activities. That is why it’s called a sin tax, after all.
The liquor tax was enacted a long, long time ago to conveniently collect taxes on agricultural production, a lot of which was turned into alcohol in non-judgemental pre-Victorian times when drinking was not viewed as a “sin”.
They may both excise taxes but they have relatively different histories and intentions both in their initial creation and ongoing existence.
I’m calling BS on you.
The gas tax was implemented for the same reasons any tax is – to collect revenue for the government. It was specificially started in the Revenue Act of 1932 (oh no, a tax increase in the depths of a depression!) and the stated purpose was deficit reduction, not road construction. It was extended and increased to help pay for WWII and the Korean War, not roads.
http://ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/Transportation/trans-24.cfm
Since you buy gas when you drive, a tax on gas is a convenient, efficient way to collect funds to build roads. Except maybe for buying gas to run mowers or chainsaws, both activities contributing little to gas tax collection, I do not see how you can claim that the gas tax is not connected to driving or building roads.
It seems like the federal gas tax is not legally committed to highways by the text of laws, but that the President and congressmen always talk about the gas tax as if it were committed to highway construction. Is that right?
I suspect the federal budget treats the gas tax as if it is committed to the highway funds — i.e. the various funds must add up to the revenue that comes from the gas tax(and tires and other taxes), and if they add more money, it is called a subsidy.
Keep in mind that if transit didn’t steal money from the highway fund, highway construction probably wouldn’t require any subsidies.
The two are mutually exclusive because basic infrastructure should be available to all regardless of profit.
Why? What is “basic infrastructure”? Profit is not a dirty word — in this context it is just the opportunity cost of providing the infrastructure made explicit.
The public convenience and necessity sometimes warrants that an infrastructure enterprise, or a portion of one, which can only be carried out at a loss, or perhaps with no renumeration at all, is still a worthwhile enterprise.
How do we know what constitutes “public convenience and/or necessity”? How do we determine what is “worthwhile”? I still have a land line phone installed at my house. Does this constitute “basic infrastructure”? Should I request that someone else pay in order to make it available for me if I should someday decide to use it?
I find you ruse of the phrase “local enterprise†interesting. For too many toll road privatization schemes seem to be favors to large foreign corporations who have come in to suck up our assets.
I’m not sure what you mean by “suck up our assets”. Nearly all of the PPP deals for toll roads to date have been long-term lease arrangements. The state does not literally “sell” the asset, it merely sells the right to operate it for a given period of time, subject to certain rules that are written into the agreement.
We have absolutely nothing to fear by allowing foreign investment in infrastructure. Most foreign firms currently have more expertise in operating infrastructure, which works to the disadvantage of domestic firms. If we didn’t have such a cravenly statist policy toward infrastructure, our domestic firms might actually have accumulated some knowledge by now and been more able to compete in such situations.
The gas excise tax no more “belongs†to highways than the alcoholic beverage excise tax “belongs†to brewers and vintners.
Actually, it does. The federal government and several states have legislation that specifies this.
Ronald Reagan was the one who started the sharing of the federal trust fund when he raised the gas tax, something today’s Republican’s are petrified of doing thanks to Grover Norquist scaring them. The faux conservatives and libertarians of today’s Tea Party would do well to study up on Reagan’s actual fiscal program.
Ah yes, one of those “but Ronald Reagan said…” arguments. I can’t speak for conservatives or the Tea Party, but no self-respecting libertarian would ever adopt Reagan’s actual fiscal program.
MJ:
What is “basic infrastructure� Profit is not a dirty word — in this context it is just the opportunity cost of providing the infrastructure made explicit.
Basic infrastructure in today’s US would be things like access to clean water, electricity, heating, communications services, improved transportation infrastructure, schools, and the like.
There isn’t anything wrong with profit, but no one should be denied basic infrastructure because someone cannot make a profit on it. That is something that is very frustrating about the modern cell phone service market – the most modern networks are only available in dense urban regions – exactly what was supposed to be combatted with rural electrification and telephone extension.
How do we know what constitutes “public convenience and/or necessity�
It is determined by government regulatory agencies following the statutory laws created by congress.
We have absolutely nothing to fear by allowing foreign investment in infrastructure.
Sure we do, we trade the revenue stream of the infrastructure for a long period of time for a mess of pottage today that is spent immediately. You can only sell off your assets for so long to support current spending before you run out of assets to sell off. Then you have nothing. Try doing it at home – increase your personal spending 50% and sell off your furniture and electronics in sale-leaseback arrangements and see how long you can live off the sale proceeds while making the lease payments. Its the same concept behind taking out home equity loans to take vacations or pay for groceries and clothing shopping sprees. Millions of Americans have done it and obviously are the probable source of political support for such idiocy on the state and national levels.
Most foreign firms currently have more expertise in operating infrastructure, which works to the disadvantage of domestic firms.
Its impossible that they have more experience operating our infrastructure than the government enterprises currently operating it.
our domestic firms might actually have accumulated some knowledge by now and been more able to compete in such situations.
What is the point of the competition? These deals just end up raising tolls, which the state authorities could do all on their own and without needing to also generate a profit for investors. They are nothing more than a shell game that ships American money spent on toll roads overseas instead of keeping it at home to invest in our infrastructure.
Actually, it does. The federal government and several states have legislation that specifies this.
You still don’t get it, do you? That legislation took a pre-existing revenue stream and rededicated to roads only. Thus, one of the costs of the interstate program is that new taxes had to be raised to pay for spending that was previously afforded by the gas tax. The use of the gas tax is a subsidy to roads because the gas tax used to be used to pay for other government activities, like military and education spending. Now that it is “dedicated” to road spending that did not exist before 1956, the billions it provides in government revenue must be made up by raising billions in other taxes such as the income and property tax. Again, the gas tax does not inherently belong to road construction costs. Its just a tax, and it was instituted for other purposes.
Andrew, high speed rail isn’t basic infrastructure, it’s wasteful, luxury pork.
Then the same thing can be said about freeways, wasteful, luxury pork.
I suppose the mentally ill would think that.
Freeways aren’t basic infrastructure, though streets are.