Speaker of the House John Boehner announced last week that House Republicans will soon introduce a surface transportation reauthorization bill called the American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act. The good news is that the plan (now available only in outline form) would eliminate New Starts and other slush funds that encourage cities to waste money. The bad news is that the plan would create a new slush fund that will encourage states to waste money on highways and bridges.
As Antiplanner readers know, Congress was scheduled to reauthorize surface transportation–meaning spending of gas taxes and other federal highway user fees–in 2009. But recently Congress has been gridlocked between Tea Party Republicans, who oppose new taxes and wasteful spending, and Senate Democrats, who want to increase spending to “create jobs” but don’t know where the money would come from.
Boehner proposes to resolve this by increasing production of oil & gas on federal lands, including Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and dedicating the revenues from such production to highways and bridges. Boehner’s plan continues to include no more earmarks; ending or consolidating nearly 70 transportation funds such as New Starts; removing requirements that gas taxes be spent on non-highway projects; and streamlining transportation planning.
You have to just fill up a form, provide the buy cialis no prescription credit card num in a slot and submit. It tastes good and gives better way of buy cialis http://www.heritageihc.com/buy4037.html making intimate moments. It is important for the couple online cialis http://www.heritageihc.com/articles/18/ to recognize and work in a joint effort with another authority (a gynecologist in instances of barrenness). In simple words, the medicine could be used to meet many different marketing strategies to grow cialis buy online your business. This is supposed to be a compromise? The Democrats don’t care about raising revenues; they just want to spend the money on things (earmarks, transit slush funds) that will mostly be excluded from Boehner’s bill. Environmentalists who support the Democrats will scream with outrage by any plan to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Aside from its political futility, the plan to dedicate oil & gas royalties to highways makes no sense. Those royalties should be used to reduce the federal debt, not fund pork barrel. Besides, highways don’t need the money: they are in better shape than ever, and if Congress would stop diverting highway user fees to non-highway projects there would be no funding shortfall. Dedicating oil & gas revenues to highways would just create another wasteful pork-barrel program, and it would only be a matter of time before Democrats started diverting some of those funds to transit boondoggles.
In short, unless Boehner suddenly agrees to allow Democrats to divert more royalties and highway user fees to non-highway programs, his plan is not likely to resolve the gridlock that has already delayed reauthorization for more than two years. Gridlock is not a good thing, as the current bill mandates lots of wasteful spending. But gridlock could be better than a bill that the Senate would pass, which would continue to spend more than revenues and divert large shares of highway user fees to non-highway programs.
The best that can be hoped for is that Tea Party candidates make a strong showing in the 2012 election so that Congress in 2013 puts taxpayers ahead of pork and gives up on the idea of slush funds from any source or for any form of transportation.
Wow. My head is spinning. Never have a read a post on the Antiplanner where I whole hardheartedly agree and completely disagree with aspects of each paragraph. I’m not really sure where to start.
“This is supposed to be a compromise?”
Compromise is dead in congress. I think the general populace is closer to consensus on many (non-wedge) issues than the culture worriers would like to admit, but there is little hope for congress to recognize this particularly if “Tea Party candidates make a strong showing in the 2012 election.” Compromise is a dirty word in the Tea Party.
“The Democrats don’t care about raising revenues…”
WTF? This is the crux of the gridlock on every level in congress. Democrats want to raise revenue through tax hikes and republicans don’t. This is covered in every newspaper, every cable news program, conservative talk radio, NPR, CSPAN, the blogs etc, etc, etc. Where are you pulling this observation from?
“Dedicating oil & gas revenues to highways would just create another wasteful pork-barrel program, and it would only be a matter of time before Democrats started diverting some of those funds to transit boondoggles.”
It can’t be said any better.
“Those royalties should be used to reduce the federal debt, not fund pork barrel.”
Bingo! Watching congress debate you almost forget that the US deficit and debt is what this is all about. Or better yet, that IS what it’s all about to “us,” to congress it’s a game of winning and losing.