This week, the new Republican-dominated House passed one of the first tests of its ability to promote fiscal sanity in the face of interest-group lobbying. On Tuesday, the House voted in new rules that govern its own operations, and one of those rules struck at the heart of recent transportation pork barreling.
Even though federal highway funding comes out of gas taxes, Congress must take two steps before the money can be spent. First, a bill must authorize the spending. Then a second bill must actually appropriate the money–and appropriations normally can be, and often are, less than authorized.
However, the 2005 transportation authorization bill–which included some 7,000 earmarks including the infamous “bridge to nowhere”–mandated that appropriators spend the fully authorized levels. The bill was also based on some optimistic assumptions about future revenues.
High gas prices in 2007 and 2008 curtailed the growth in fuel consumption, and soon the so-called Highway Trust Fund was out of money. This forced Congress to appropriate general funds for transportation, which some were quick to call a subsidy to highways but was in fact a subsidy to pork-barrel spending.
Of course all scientific study has to be prices cheapest levitra balanced. That is why in these cases, it is used to help discount cialis devensec.com recover the people who have broken bones, joint surgery and joint replacement. Twin studies demonstrate the importance of genetics viagra rx http://www.devensec.com/images/bose-slides/bose-3.html in establishing causes. The Phoenix Suns came to the top of NBA Power Rankings this week by playing strong on road including handling the Celtics their first loss the season on 6th November, with both men completely exhausted by the end of the day or are living with chronic hoarseness. buying viagra in spain
Incoming Republicans proposed a new rule that would prevent the House from considering a bill with such mandatory spending. Highway builders, the transit lobby, and various labor unions joined together to oppose this rule. But the House passed it over their objections.
The rule’s opponents said they feared that, without spending mandates, appropriators would let the highway trust fund grow and then take money from the fund for other non-transportation programs. But, despite rumors within the construction industry, this has never happened. Though Congress for a time openly dedicated 4.3 cents of the gas tax to “deficit reduction,” it never specifically underspent the fund and then diverted the surplus to something else. (Of course, there is no real “fund”; it is just an accounting fiction, and the year-to-year balances are carefully reported by the Department of Transportation.)
After the vote, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials said, “There are two deficits facing the country today – the federal debt and the deficit in maintaining the infrastructure on which economic recovery depends. In their zeal to address the first issue, the new House leadership has taken action that deepens the second.” However, as the Antiplanner has previously noted, there is no deficit in maintaining highway infrastructure. The only serious deficit relates to transit, and the solution there is to stop building high-cost transit systems when existing funds are inadequate to maintain the existing systems.
Congress is expected to reauthorize transportation spending again in 2011 (like the 2005 bill, it is two years overdue). Tuesday’s vote provides an indication that this year’s reauthorization will be more fiscally responsible than those in the past.
And where are the cries of “not fair!” and “those darn teabaggers!” from the usual libtard suspects here?
Metro please don’t fan the flames when we have a day off from the name calling.
A day off? You know that the usual suspects were waiting for their chance to say “autoplanner” or something equally derogatory.
Hello Pot. Meet Kettle.
Or maybe refer to Randal as a “Koch” plant or “Vandal” O’toole. Sound familiar?
So are you here to enter into a name calling pissing match, or would you like to discuss the issue like an adult?
I often make points about how absurd whatever rail plan being discussed is. It always end in name-calling by Dan or Highwayman or msetty or some other leftist shill. They have no interest in adult-level discussion.
“Please feel free to submit comments. Constructive debate is welcome. Ad hominem attacks and name-calling will reveal the shallowness of the author.”
Please stop spamming the board. Everyone.
The only name calling today is from Metro and you are doing what you claim your against.
Only because the left-wingers are conspicuously absent from this post. Wonder why?
Go suck yourself, Metrosucks.
Your sort of bullying tactics and overheated rhetoric, along with that of the whole right wing anger machine in general, creates an environment where unhinged assholes among the right wing, egged on by rhetoric, do things like shooting that Congresswoman in Arizona.
If you don’t believe me, look at some rather over the top pictures from her opponent’s website, e.g., a right wing asshole who “targeted” her along with Sarah Palin:http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2011/1/8/934297/-Second-Amendment-Solutions-%28pictures%29.
BTW, I do not believe in gun control. And I have another good reason not to.
I’m not sure what that link has to do with transportation or this blog, but leftists love pulling stuff out of their a$$ to try to tilt the game in their favor.
As for bullying tactics and overheated rhetoric, that’s something you, Dan, Highwayman, and the other leftist liars are all too familiar with.
DS
Thanks for posting that, Dan. I couldn’t agree more with the article or your analysis. However, the article’s title directly faults democracy. What does that say about its ability to allocate resources?
Its definitely a condemnation, Frank. But in general I think history tells us we are not very good at that sort of thing. Env Psychs will tell you our DNA was set before agrarian societies developed (when we were hunter-gatherers) and therefore every generation must completely relearn the lessons of the previous generation. Extremely inefficient.
DS
I am not sure I understand the analysis of the PIRG report. It seems to me that every form of government spends less on maintenance than perhaps they intend to. Probably 90% of every home and car has deferred maintenance needs across all societies.
I just don’t see any reason why this is an indictment of democracies. I would bet non-democracies probably have more deferred maintenance in their transportation infrastructure because the government would not respond to citizens complaining about potholes and broken street lights.
“I would bet non-democracies probably have more deferred maintenance in their transportation infrastructure because the government would not respond to citizens complaining about potholes and broken street lights.”
In the case of the socialist Eastern Bloc countries, this would not be true. During the 1970s and 1980s, government focused on infra to keep the populace employed. Monument building was prolific and used to meet full employment. This turned out to be unsustainable, though, and after the collapse, infra in Eastern Europe crumbled.
I just don’t see any reason why this is an indictment of democracies.
One would theorize that more open societies with information sharing capabilities would be better able to remember and discuss the lessons from the past. This discussion should lead to policy formulation that forestalls physics and entropy. The trouble is, entropy is working all the time and it takes a lot of wealth and energy to maintain human constructs (both physical and non-physical).
DS
“The trouble is, entropy is working all the time and it takes a lot of wealth and energy to maintain human constructs (both physical and non-physical).”
Absolutely. This becomes more relevant when discussing employment, or lack thereof, especially since there is an infinite amount of work to do.
Redistribution of wealth in democracy sets up the system described where it is more politically expedient to add new infra projects than to maintain current infra.
Redistribution of wealth in democracy sets up the system described where it is more politically expedient to add new infra projects than to maintain current infra.
First, I don’t think we have been a democracy since maybe sometime during the 70s. We are a plutocracy or corporatocracy now.
Nevertheless, I agree there is probably much more baksheesh in shiny new projects than in maintenance. And new projects are usually more challenging as well.
DS
Interesting conversation!
You made a great point that a government focused on full employment would jump at filling potholes. Maybe the highly technical repairs where there are shortages in a key component would be deferred, but “shovel ready” projects would probably get done quickly.
I wonder if there is not some logic in deferred maintenance. If you completely maintain every road and bridge, might that not be a waste? Many roads and infrastructure is built with optimistic expectations, yet it might be better to decide future investment in the future. If a seldom used road doesn’t get maintained, that might be a savings.
Deciding maintenance budgets each year, rather than on a schedule forced on the future, is a double edged sword (no violence should be inferred from the statement because it is a peaceful metaphor).
Yes, this has been a good discussion and shows there is common ground.
Oh, and on a side note related “the lack of safe, viable investment opportunities”; commodities have been a good bet. I bought $1000 in silver and am selling it this week for close to $3000. I’m using it as a down payment on a car. 🙂
Dan: We are a plutocracy or corporatocracy now.
THWM: Well the USA has one of the best governments that money can buy!