Last Monday, I predicted that if Glenn Youngkin won the Virginia governorship, Republicans in Congress would demand more cuts from the infrastructure bill. Nancy Pelosi apparently read my post, as she had the House hastily vote on the infrastructure bill just a few days after Youngkin’s victory. By passing the Senate bill unamended, Pelosi gave fiscal conservatives no opportunities to try to change the bill in conference. Before the Virginia election, Pelosi had been delaying a vote in order to pressure centrists to support the $3.5 trillion non-infrastructure bill, which will now be much harder to pass.

Passage of the infrastructure bill means tens of billions of dollars will be spent on needless and wasteful projects like this Seattle-area light-rail project. Photo by SounderBruce.

As passed, the infrastructure bill is really two bills: first, a reauthorization of federal spending on highways and transit; and second entirely new spending on highways, transit, Amtrak, electric vehicles, airports, ports, clean water, clean energy, and broadband. This entirely new spending is almost entirely unnecessary as the infrastructure crisis was mostly made up in order to get Congress do what it always does, which is throw money at problems. Continue reading →

The House of Representatives passed a transportation reauthorization bill called the INVEST Act, but it really should be called the SPEND Act. Spending money is only an investment if the spender expects to get something in return for the cost, and much of the money in the INVEST Act will produce no real returns.

The bill, which has yet to be approved by the Senate, represents the normal reauthorization of the Highway Trust Fund, meaning federal spending on highways and transit, which happens about every six years. Normally this mainly deals with how the gas taxes and other federal highway user fees are spent. But this year, the House has gone overboard, agreeing to spend $715 billion over five years, which more than twice as much money as the Highway Trust Fund is likely to collect.

Admittedly, part of that $715 billion includes $168 billion for water infrastructure, which has never previously been a part of a transportation reauthorization bill. It also includes $95 billion for Amtrak, which is also not from the Highway Trust Fund. Spending on highways and transit would total to $452 billion, which is still more than twice as much as is likely to be collected in highway user fees. The federal government collected less than $45 billion in user fees in 2019 and, since collections in 2020 and 2021 will be smaller, total revenues are likely to be less than $220 billion over the five years of the bill. Continue reading →

At first glance, a proposed $400 billion transportation bill from House Republicans appears to be more reasonable than President Biden’s $2.3 trillion infrastructure bill or even Senate Republicans’ $568 billion alternative infrastructure plan. In fact, the latter two plans are supposed to be on top of Congress’ periodic reauthorization of routine highway and transit spending, while the House Republican plan is supposed to be for that reauthorization.

As such, the Republican plan represents such a massive increase in spending over previous years that it is almost as if it was written by the Democrats. The 2015 “FAST Act” spent $305 billion over five years, or $61 billion a year. That in itself was too much because the Highway Trust Fund collected less than $212 billion in highway user fees during those five years, so an additional $93 billion came out of deficit spending.

Considering the pandemic, revenues over the next five years aren’t likely to be much greater. Yet House Democrats proposed last year to spend $495 billion over five years, a huge increase that would require a tripling of deficit spending over the previous five years. The Republican response is a $400 billion bill, which is still a doubling of deficit spending. Instead of being ashamed of this, Republicans bragged that they are proposing “the largest percentage increase for surface transportation programs in the last quarter-century.” Continue reading →