« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Obama Makes the Case for State Control of Surface Transportation

Abolishing the federal gas tax will spawn real innovation in road construction.

Earlier today, Barack Obama decried the gridlock that has prevented Congress from passing a long-term surface transportation bill (highway bill) as unacceptable and inexcusable.  He also asserted that we must formulate a policy in which funding would be directed to those districts that need it the most, instead of politically motivated pork, such as the bridge to nowhere (which he supported in the Senate).  Well, unknowingly, Obama has made a strong case for transferring surface transportation funding, and its accompanying revenue source; the gasoline tax, back to the states.

The Highway Trust Fund was established in 1956 to fund the Interstate Highway System.  The fund, which is administered by the DOT’s Federal Highway Administration, has been purveyed by the federal gasoline tax, which now stands at 18.4 cents per gallon (24.4 for diesel fuel).  Beginning in 1983, Congress began siphoning off some of the gas tax revenue for the great liberal sacred cow; the urban mass transit system.  Today, mass transit receives $10.2 billion in annual appropriations.  Additionally, funding is misallocated for all sorts of local pork projects, such as bike paths and roadside flowers.

This inevitable cycle of federal government mission creep has led to the depletion of the Highway Trust Fund in recent years.  Much like the so-called Social Security Trust Fund, Congress is forced to fund its assortment of profligate and superfluous transportation projects with general fund revenues because gasoline tax revenues are insufficient.  In 2008, the trust fund was completely depleted, impelling Congress to replenish the fund with an additional $35 billion over the past few years.

Despite the fact that the Interstate Highway System was completed in 1992, the federal government continues to control surface transportation, spending more extravagantly every few years.  Historically, highway funding has been allocated in 6-year surface transportation bills.  This has allowed states to plan more efficiently, and prioritize their road projects over the long-term.  The last surface transportation bill expired September 30, 2009, when Democrats controlled all branches of government.  Instead of responsibly passing another long-term highway bill, they passed several short-term extensions, locking in the grandiose $50 billion in annual transportation spending.  Republicans proposed a more austere 6-year bill as soon as they assumed control of the House, yet Obama and the Democrats have held it hostage.  They passed another short-term stopgap bill, set to expire on September 30.  Accordingly, Obama might want to look in the mirror and say “unacceptable and inexcusable.”

In addition to engendering a culture of waste, corruption, and incompetence, Democrats’ short-term extravagant ditch-digging money bombs, in conjunction with the Stimulus bill, have spawned superfluous road-paving projects.  I just traveled extensively along the Richmond-Boston I-95 corridor, and it’s not a pretty scene.  Frankly, it’s hard to ascertain the purpose of most of the construction projects, other than to create unbearable traffic juggernauts.  In their alacrity to gobble up the short-term money before it runs out, state and local governments tend to use the funds on small time and indivisible projects, such as incessant road repaving, instead of better planned long-term projects.

All of this inefficiency in transportation spending should provide Congress with the motivation to let the federal gasoline tax expire at the end of September, along with the Federal Highway Administration.  All responsibility for state road projects should be directed back to the states, so they can decide how much revenue in tolls and gas taxes are required to support their needs.  Let local citizens decide what they deem as transportation necessities.  The federal government should focus on vital maintenance of the Interstate Highway System and emergency transportation assistance.  Without the federal government’s monopoly over road construction, states will be able to partner with private companies to create private-sector solutions to transportation problems.  A federalist solution to transportation was one of Reagan’s pet projects in 1983.  Unfortunately, as was the case with most of his proposals, he was rebuffed by Congress.

Not surprisingly, instead of following his own advice, Obama is doubling down on his failed policies.  He said, “we need to reform the way transportation money is invested.  “We need to stop funding projects based on who’s district there in and instead fund them based on how much good they’re going to do. No more bridges to nowhere.”  Yet, instead of fostering such innovative and non-pork investments through the states, Obama is proposing a massive $556 billion federal transportation bill, twice the cost of the previous most expensive bill.  He is also proposing an increase in the federal gasoline tax, at the behest of an unholy alliance between Richard Trumka and the Chamber of Commerce.

In Obama’s unicorn world, doubling-down on the same maladroit policies, which failed to create jobs, and prolonged the recession, is considered innovation.

Obama, Big Labor, and even the Chamber, will never reform their failed ways.  However, congressional Republican can.  They must rise to the challenge and abolish the federal gas tax in favor of a federalist solution.  With so much new-found Reagan nostalgia on the part of Obama, maybe he’ll even go along with it.  Not!

COMMENTS

  • bobojake

    The citizens/voters/taxpayers have got nothing but a bucket of LIES from obama for going on 3 years. obamacrats like Carlson, smuck schumer, reid and pelosi are allowed to LIE LIE LIE to suport their Cheif LIAR obama and Brian Williams and the rest of the so called Journalist do nothing to find the facts just follow obamacrats talking points. It is time for obama to man up to the fact he is not compedent to run as lemonade stand and RESIGN, obiden can finish his term.

    • davesinsanantonio

      fire!

  • msctex

    I was misled by the headline.

  • plwinteregg

    just how screwed up this all is. I was elected as a representative in our city’s government two years ago. Shortly after being sworn in, someone from an agency I had never heard of began to bug me about meeting with me to go over federal highway programs. Since we’re a tiny rural town and I have a business to run, I didn’t make it a priority. Besides, how much could we have to do with federal highway dollars?

    After a few months, I finally made time to meet with her. It was depressing. Her sole (federal) job is to go to the various local officials and go through a PowerPoint explaining all of the federal highway fund incursions into our local affairs and how to navigate all of the regulations and grant writing to get the max federal dollars.

    The message was quite clear. You are dependent on the feds, You cannot move or breathe without the feds. You cannot possibly dream of accomplishing anything without the feds.

    And oh, by the way, every one of these programs and grants have strings attached. We don’t have a month go by that we aren’t forced to pass some policy resolution to satisfy past grant and federally funded project requirements.

    The number of layers (read: bureaucrats) and the amount of paperwork is beyond any description. Daniel is right. This needs to stop, and stop now.

    • http://redmeatconservative.blogspot.com/ Daniel Horowitz

      That is another aspect to this. All of the fed control over transportation has many anti-growth, liberty-killing strings attached. The DOT administers and enforces many enviro rules.

      • jkeith3213

        This is why control of transportation funding will never be returned to states. Every time a state has refused to pass a law the feds want such as 55 speed limits, .08 bac level, seatbelt laws, minimum purchase age for alcohol, etc, the feds threaten to withhold highway funding.
        They do the same with medicaid funding.

        All federal funding to states will always come an increasing number of hoops for states to jump through, its pretty much THE way for the fed gov to exercise control over states. That is why transportation control will not be returned to the states, even though it should be.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    Yeah well we had to pay off the unions and our cronies, Give us some more this time we will really spend it on infrastructure, Honest, No really honest this time!

  • skorrent1

    But I do remember that the Fed Interstate system was supposed to be built by the feds and maintained by the states. That was before the state pols understood what every good civil engineer knows: maintaining roads is both necessary and expensive (10% of cost per year is a good estimate). The states were soon howling for relief.

    Giving the states back responsibility, and the gas tax to fund it, is a good idea. It would also cut out the fed’s Davis-Bacon union bennie. If some states want to continue paying double-market wages through their DOT’s, that’s up to them. (It does encourage a lot of corruption, though.)

    • davesinsanantonio

      Just asking,

      • http://www.ajharaldson.com lakeworthcane

        Seeing as American “liberalism” is itself a corruption of the term–Americans who identify themselves as “liberal” are close-minded to ideas other than their own . . .

        Seeing as American “liberals” routinely suppress information and opposing viewpoints, and routinely slander their opponents with monikers like, “racist, sexist, homophobe,” and “fascist” . . .

        Seeing as the American “liberal” orthodoxy requires that its proponents routinely fall back on dogma and propaganda that not only exclude but defy explanation, such as “hope and change,” and “green jobs” . . .

        Seeing as American “liberalism” isn’t about true “liberalism” at all but is merely a front for despotic power-grabbing and legalized armed robbery, ie taking money from those who earned it and giving it to those who didn’t . . .

        Seeing as American “liberals” decry the “hatred” they see in all who disagree with them but energize themselves with hatred for and feelings of moral and intellectual superiority over those who disagree with them . . .

        Yeah, I’d have to agree: just about everything American “liberals” do–at least when it comes to politics–doesn’t merely “encourage” corruption but is, in fact, corrupt.

  • travis690

    I appreciate that you read my posts, since this expands very well upon the same proposal I made in another forum

    I am not certain you read my article, but it is a good thing that the anti-federal position is so eloquently being stated on this subject. After all, since it is the individual states that usually undertake the actual construction on these projects that are funded at the federal level, it would be an excellent idea if the funding devolved to the states. This will do a great thing toward eliminating the cross-border subsidies that certain states enjoy from their neighbors that may actually contribute more to the federal pool than they take out.