« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Today House Republicans Are Set To Approve Barack Obama’s Latest Stimulus Plan

Call your Congressman today at 202-224-3121 and tell him to oppose H.R. 7, the American Energy & Infrastructure Jobs Act.

It is sad that we have gotten here, but House Republicans, including conservative stalwarts like Jim Jordan of Ohio, are set to pass Barack Obama’s latest stimulus plan. Except they are calling it John Boehner’s “Highway Bill.” Consider, however that Barack Obama’s budget, unveiled yesterday, calls for much of the same infrastructure spending the House Republicans want.

There is a reason the Heritage Action for America, Club for Growth, Competitive Enterprise Institute, and other conservative organizations are opposed to this spending spree. It is not conservative. It should not be Republican. It is Barack Obama style spending. Call your Congressman today at 202-224-3121 and tell him to oppose H.R. 7, the American Energy & Infrastructure Jobs Act.

Last week, when I pointed this out, I handed the front page over to Brendan Buck, Speaker Boehner’s Press Secretary, to rebut my claims. I would say he more than proved that this is, in fact, Barack Obama’s latest stimulus scheme hiding behind John Boehner’s name.

Consider first that this highway bill “expands domestic energy production and puts in place a long-term plan for America’s infrastructure that is controlled by the states and completely paid for –without raising the gas tax.” Why would a highway bill focus on energy production? Well, first because it is called a sweetener designed to woo conservatives to vote for it. Second because “the gas tax does not generate enough revenue to meet all the infrastructure needs in America.”

There you have it. Instead of opening up American land to energy production and using that energy production to pay down the national debt, we will instead jack up highway spending, bankrupt the highway trust fund as a result, and then use the energy taxes to offset the project funding. Oh, and even better, the House GOP has an accounting “score” that claims they won’t bankrupt the Highway Trust Fund. How’s that? Well, just like how Democrats took all the major budget busting provisions out of Obamacare and put them in separate legislation so it looked like Obamacare actually decreased the deficit, House Republicans have decided to take mass transit funding and pay for it out of the general fund of taxpayer dollars instead of paying for it out of the Highway Trust Fund. So it makes it look like the Highway Trust Fund won’t go bankrupt!

Accounting gimmicks — they’re not just for socializing the American healthcare industry any more.

This is the key. As noted in the rebuttal to my original claims, “the gas tax does not generate enough revenue to meet all the infrastructure needs in America.” But rewind the clock to just last July when Congressman John Mica (R-FL HAFA Score 66%) passed a highway spending bill out of his committee that spent no more than what the gas tax raised. In other words, House Republicans have taken us from being able to spend as much as the gas tax raised to bankrupting the Highway Trust Fund and requiring domestic energy production fees to offset the spending binge.

This is what smaller government looks like to House Republicans.

Even worse, in the rebuttal we learn “Currently, only about two-thirds of federal highway dollars go back to the states for them to control. Under this bill, it will be 93%. What’s more, for the first time in three decades, ALL of the gas tax revenue – the user fee paid by every motorist on the highways – will go to core highway programs.”

The first question is if we can get to 93%, why not 100% and get Congress out of the business of dictating local and state highway projects? But more so, note that all of the gas tax revenue will go to core highway programs. All of it. And Congress will keep spending beyond all the gas tax revenue.

This is madness. This is Barack Obama style stimuli and Barack Obama style accounting. It reminds me of the unemployment chart showing where unemployment would be with and without Barack Obama’s stimulus plan. After the plan passed, unemployment was even higher than Obama said it would get without his stimulus plan.

The House Republicans are relying on five year estimates of revenues generated from energy production to hide just how bankrupt they will leave the Highway Trust Fund with this spending binge. And in five years, none of us will be surprised when reality comes in less than the estimates.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …regarding this legislation?

  • mikelindell2

    Romney- firmly against it until general election, where he’ll reveal he was firmly in favor of it all along.
    Santorum-favors it as long as all workers used have only been married once and have never used condoms.
    Newt-against it because he’s not an insincere, big gov’t hack.

  • repubnut

    If they approve this plan they should eliminate or take the money from another socialistic program!! Where are the Republicans that we elected to get our money spending under control.???

  • atillathehun

    What way out except a third party option that can never win an election?

  • jlsankot

    however, they are in the minority as of today. This is why we must all study our state races for House and Senate and vote for the most Conservative. And don’t vote for the person who SAYS he/she is the most Conservative—study their past to be assured of it.

  • http://twitter.com/TJexcite tjexcite

    They are giving gas to a pyromaniac. Obama will lose on the economy so help him show how bad it is when he gets what he wants.

    This is all election capitulation and can be used to show that he has no new ideas but spend money.

  • mikelindell2

    They are far too inarticulate and incompetent to ever execute it properly

  • betaylor322

    I find it VERY ironic, that while we’re urged to NOT drive (or drive w/ something called “The Leaf”) we are STILL expected to have our tax money fund a HIGHWAY BILL! Pleeezzzeeee!

  • Locked and Loaded

    And, it really makes me wonder which presidential candidate will carry Ohio.

    Boehner = Weak

  • romans12n2

    nt

  • earlgrey

    Maybe a stupid question, but I used to be in Blackburn’s district, but won’t anymore and I don’t know who is in my district.

  • abeldred

    Typical shuffling of the dollars. No earmarks? By it’s very nature, it is one big earmark. I guess the good news is that if the NY Times hates it, it will be DOA on Dingy Harry’s desk.

  • geoph

    Boehner as Speaker is a TEA Partier’s nightmare, and is only adding to the problem.
    No wonder apathy is running rampant this Primary season amongst Conservatives.

  • Juggernaut

    any surprise considering they’re all in bed with the GOP and choose to blackout coverage of a bill that affects taxpayers.

    The GOP seek to give us further taxation without representation.

  • sharrondeer

    Many highways and bridges are in desperate need of repair. Is the right attitude to let them continue to fall apart until another bridge collapses and then get hysterical because it wasn’t repaired?

    These are jobs of the right sort: good middle-class jobs creating real benefits for both individuals and companies. One of the main things that a company considers when deciding where to put a new factory is the infrastructure there. If the roads in one place can’t handle the trucks going in and out, the company will build somewhere else.

    So unless you think it’s OK to let our infrastructure continue to decay, how would you suggest paying for it? I suppose they could just raise the gas tax so that there would be more money available. (Cue screams from every driver .)

  • edintexas

    NT

  • edintexas

    The Republicans (and Party) wouldn’t know PR if it jumped up and bit them.

  • edintexas

    Unless Blackburn left and there was a special election/Governor’s appointment then it should still be Blackburn until the new Congress is elected and seated.

  • edintexas

    1. Eliminate the Federal Fuel Tax, Turn fuel taxing over to each state and then the state can determine where the money will go. Highly unlikely to ever happen, DC giving up money and power??

    2. Eliminate Davis-Bacon, which mandates that only union labor be used on “federal” projects. The savings in labor costs could provide more jobs and more renovation for the money. Also highly unlikely to happen as long as there are Democrats in Congress. Why any Republicans would refuse to vote to eliminate Davis-Bacon is beyond me. The amount of union funding for Republican campaigns is minuscule.

  • obxdiver

    Your comment seem to imply that the argument is that we should spend nothing on infrastructure. This is simply not the case. The point is the government “should live within its means” and spend no more than revenue allows.

    States need to be given the freedom to prioritize and spend money only where it is actually needed. By getting the money into the hands of those closer to the problems, maybe it would actually be put to better use.

    Think of it as a homeowner: When you are in debt over your head, you don’t spend everything you have and then borrow more to landscape the yard and pave the driveway while ignoring the caving roof which could be fixed with cash on hand.

    As far as the jobs you mention go… most infrastructure jobs funded by the government are temporary. Unless they are funded in perpetuity, as soon as the project is finished, the non-bureaucratic jobs disappear.

  • johnnyappleseed

    Give the money to the states and you can gaurantee they will use it on something besides roads and bridges
    Minnesota used their bridgemoney to build a sports complex, the following year the bridged caved in killing several people…just a reminder, state legislators are just OJT for congressman and senators.

    “The truth isn’t anything it just is”….anon.

  • sharrondeer

    Construction jobs are, by their nature, temporary. It doesn’t matter who is funding them. You don’t think of construction workers as not having real jobs, do you?

    As to who is running infrastructure projects, it all depends on what’s being built or repaired. If it’s a state highway, then the state should be in charge. If it’s a federal highway, then the federal government should be in charge. As far as I can tell, states will be in charge of the former.

  • sharrondeer

    I was going to put that in my reply, but I saw you had noted it already. This idea of “federal government bad, state government good” is pretty simplistic. Some states are notorious for their corruption, after all. And most states rely on tobacco taxes for their budget and little or none of it is used for anti-smoking measures.

  • earlgrey

    I did call her office today. I need to find out who my new Rep is. I think it is either fincher or cohen in TN. Difference is like night and day between those two.

  • seventen

    I have read that there are states that are changing districts in order to get their party more votes. Of course, this isn’t surprising. The Demorats will do any and Every thing to win this election. Guess you will have to call the local election office in your area. GOOD LUCK!

  • obxdiver

    The problem I see with Washington spending the money is you have representatives from forty nine other states making decisions on what needs to be done in your state. You end up with a Congressman from Alaska telling the people of Florida what roads and bridges they need to fix even though he has never stepped foot in Florida, as an example.

    Then you get into Presidential politics where money is directed towards states with the highest electoral vote count while smaller states get the shaft.

    And don’t forget the federal bureaucracy eating up the money before it ever gets to where it is needed. It cannot be made as a blanket statement, but on average, the lower down the ladder of government you go, ie. from federal to state, the more efficiently money is used.

    Sure, some states will not spend the money properly, but you cannot tell me Washington is so much better. It is up to we the people to hold them accountable for their spending. That is much easier to do on a state level than on the federal level.

  • dennis1111

    I think you got that right.

  • dennis1111

    And then vote for the conservative-Newt.

  • dennis1111

    Excessive. In a word that is what is out with the highway bill. We will go more into debt in order to pay for more. We pay a lot in gas taxes. If we wisely use that lot, we will have enough. Government spending is deficit spending. We really must stop deficit spending. This is a venue where conservatives exchange views. Surely we mostly agree, deficit spending must stop.

    All reasons we must spend more are just more reasons to forsake our future and our children’s future. You can’t keep spending more than you make. This is just putting more infllation on too much money printing. We will lose our liberty if we don’t stop now.We have already forked over most of our savings. Inflation will eat up the rest.

  • dennis1111

    Who pays is a very important question. If we are borrowing in order to build more road system than the gas taxes will provide, we are paying for too much. I would pay more gas tax if we could borrow less. The Fed
    should live within it’s means. Of course the jobs are important. Let’s stop over-regulation and support our private, free market. Get the bureaucrats out of the way and the market will raise production and consumer spending will follow from full employment.

    The burden on the system is compounded by debt. We suffer because the interest rate is so low it is unwise to lend. We can’t raise interest because the Fed is the biggest debtor. An increase in interest would stagger us with increased interest payments.

    For instance: Part of the downward pressure is the fear of lending money at low rates for long terms and moderate inflation. Who wants to do that. So banks don’t loan, houses appraise low, prices drop, this is deflationary-while real inflation rises. Debt has bad consequences-over and above the interest we pay.

  • lastgopinillinois

    any attempt at repealling Davis-Bacon.

    And he is GOP frontrunner in the primary right now !!!