« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Good News on Highway Bill Front; More Issues Elsewhere

Our voices are finally being heard – sort of.  When we started voicing opposition to the highway bill there were few conservatives speaking out against it, and even fewer members of the House who were willing to oppose it.  Now, there is so much opposition to the bill that John Boehner was forced to delay the vote on the highway bill, which was previously scheduled for today:

Boehner (R-Ohio) told his conference Wednesday morning that it was “more important that we do it right than that we do it fast” in explaining his decision, a clear signal GOP leaders lack the votes to win approval of the package.

“Given the volume of amendments and the need for a full, fair, open and transparent process, we may not finish energy/infrastructure this week,” Boehner told his conference, according to a source in the room. “If we need more time to debate and consider amendments, that’s perfectly fine with me. It’s more important that we do it right than that we do it fast.”

The bottom line is that Boehner and McCarthy are lacking the votes.  They plan to suspend consideration of the bill until after next week’s President’s Day recess.

But there is another issue regarding the offsets of the bill.  CQ is reporting that “lawmakers needed time to examine their options for offsetting the bill’s cost, because a proposal involving federal employee pensions is also being used in a package (HR 3630) that would extend a Social Security payroll tax cut and other expiring provisions.”  According to media reports of the tentative ‘extenders’ deal, $15 billion in savings from pension reform will go towards the $50 billion deficit created by a 10-month extension of unemployment benefits and Medicare doc fix.  It’s sad that there is such a dearth of items they are willing to cut that they need to recycle the same offsets for multiple bills.

It’s also sad that they plan to pay for a new 10-month deficit with offsets over 10 years.  Additionally they will use $15 billion in proceeds from actions of radio spectrum licenses to wireless carriers.  Part of our opposition to the highway bill was that the proposed offsets would be used to create new deficits instead of paying for existing ones.  If there is a way for the government to receive more revenue from spectrum sales, then why are they waiting for the extenders package to do so?  They should already be using that revenue to pay off existing debt.  Also, using offsetting revenues for deficits violates the GOP CUTGO rule that requires all increases in spending to be offset by other spending cuts.

The entire rationale for cutting the payroll tax cut lose and passing a clean extension was so Republicans could negotiate hard on the spending part of the package.  It appears that they plan to offset the costs with weak payfors, while doing very little to reform the fundamental problems with unemployment benefits and Medicare.  We need to watch this carefully as the day progresses.

We must also watch the Senate action on their version of the highway bill, S. 1813, which is even worse than the House bill.  Rand Paul is blocking Reid’s unanimous consent to proceed with the bill.  Senator Paul is demanding that we stop sending foreign aid to Egypt, a country that is illegally detaining American citizens. Please call your senators and request that they stand with Rand Paul in blocking the highway bill, along with aid to Egypt.

Cross-posted from The Madison Project

COMMENTS

  • crbarker3

    The highway program has too long been Swine King, Lord of all Pork. Projects funded by it are the quintessence of pork. If we are going to use federal dollars for local projects — and there is some need for federal investment in interstate transportation systems and sometimes that means local systems — why don’t we only use matching funds. If these projects are so important to the local governments, why don’t they come up with 50% and use the federal monies as matching funds?

    I have a sneaking suspicion that some of these projects are not the most efficient use of local funds, and that the request for funding would decrease considerably if local communities or states were required to come up with 50% of the funding. Heck, if you made the states come up with 25% of the funding, a large portion of these projects would not be sought after.

    As long as the federal gas tax goes to Washington, we’ve created this monster trust fund that must be spent. OK to spend it, but do not enlarge it, and make sure that the funds are for projects that are really needed.

    • davesinsanantonio

      earmarks in such a bill, because earmarks do not get vetted as to need, efficiency, worth, or meeting constitutional requirements. Nor, do they have to compete with other projects for priority of spending. And, they may take funding away from a vital project elsewhere.

      No more earmarks, ever!!!

      • cwfoster

        and both wrong as well… here’s the rub. The Eisenhower Interstate Highway System was a federal prject foisted upon the States by… you guessed it, the Eisenhower administration. It was copying an idea implemented in germany by Hitler, for the same reason (hey even a stopped clock is right twice a day), to have the capability to move men and material from bases and manufacturing centers to any battlefield or port of embarkcation in a speedy and efficient manner. These are still valid concerns, and as a result, the feds SHOULD help maintain the system. However, the States are the ones usually actually doing the maintenance, and THEY know where the bad spots, and highest traffic areas are. The major urban centers were largely shaped after the 1960′s by the ‘bypass loops’ and radial spokes of the IHS by the shortened(?) commute times provided by the interstate highways. Therfore while it could be said that the cities put the most traffic on the highways, they wouldn’t have been built in the first place without the federal program. truth be known, the highways system has been used to blackmail the states as many or more times than anything else, Texas being forced to lower their speed limits to 55 MPH by the Carter administration or face losing all highway funding. But if we do have the States “pitch in” and put something on the table to offset the extra wear and tear on the quasi-military project by daily commuters, the States would provide priorities on where the repairs and upgrades are to be made (earmarks) based upon what THEY are willing to put up their money on, and a certain amount of federal tax dollars should be used to maintain those sectons that are less valued by the States, but required for the integrity of the overall transport system for strategic defense. Maybe a 40-40-20% split with 40% stae funding, 40% matching federal funds for the state prioritized projects, and the feds ponying up another 20% to upkeep the more remote sections. Just a thought.

  • hwgood

    …about the prospects for an acceptable ending to this. For all the rhetoric, I expect nothing more than another spelunking expedition into Republican Caves.

  • Patriot’s Tool Box

    As a road builder I have seen games played the public would be in the streets over if they knew the facts from a different view point.

    So there is no misunderstanding, there is no way to pay our debt down but to add a dollar a gallon tax on the fuel we buy. Laugh today but you will remember that statement when it happens. When gas prices go up a buck to a buck and a half midyear Washington will make the right noises for the citizens but will gladly enjoy the 25-35% increase in tax revenue without a referendum vote so we should expect only what occurs when the currency is devalued, more needed to buy the same amount.

    They have used the funds from the road tax fund to recruit voters with programs spending it at will on anything they want just as they did with the Social Security’s fund. Today with this payroll tax cut everyone is discussing few realize that is the funding for Social Security that has been cut so I doubt if they have that resource to siphon from but are definitely leaving markers.

    Here is a solution that is too simple but would clean up this misused corner of government waste. Return 85% of all road tax revenue to the state that collected it, period. Then take the remaining 15% and distribute it on a priority basis to the states that fall short due to a lack of fuel sold which probably occurs in Montana and North Dakota along with several others. We need their roads for trucking so we need to assist them. Keep the money from Washington because they will misappropriate it every time.

    There would be no reason for earmarks except from the states seeking a portion of the 15%. The fund needs to be locked except for road maintenance as should Social Security.

  • sharrondeer

    Many states have not increased the gas tax in many years, not even indexed for inflation. Maryland, for example, hasn’t raised it in 20 years! Given this, it’s hardly a surprise that there isn’t enough money in the fund.

    Returning the money to the states is a good idea if they’re not allowed to use it on other projects. States have a way of repurposing money to fill budget gaps.

  • rightland1111

    Did Lizzie know something we didn’t or is this wishful thinking?

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72976.html