Passing the Test

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.

Continue reading

Are Earmarks Necessary?

Represenative Michele Bachmann, a Republican from Minnesota, is against earmarks. But not when it comes to transportation. “Advocating for transportation projects for ones district in my mind does not equate to an earmark.”

Georgia Republican Representative Jack Kingston agrees. “How do you handle [transportation] without earmarks, since that’s a heavily earmarked bill?” he says.

I don’t think these people got the message last month. Here are a few pertinent points about transportation earmarks.

Continue reading

Getting Real About Transport Costs

The New Republic asks if our looming national debt will play a role in the coming transportation debate. The Antiplanner is counting on it.

“Ever-rising obligations outpaced gas tax collections and forced the federal government to twice infuse the highway trust fund with general fund revenues,” points out TNR. “In other words: Transportation no longer pays for itself.” Of course, those “ever-rising obligations” are entirely because Congress passed a bill in 2005 that authorized it to spend more than it was collecting in highway user fees (and 20 to 40 percent of that spending wasn’t on highways). And as for transportation no longer paying for itself, it never really did because it was too attractive as a form of pork barrel.

Continue reading