Here we go again. Republicans talk incessantly about the need to cut the deficit, yet they are once again proposing a policy that will actually augment the deficit. On March 31, authorization for transportation spending, along with its accompanying revenue source – the federal gasoline tax – is set to expire. Republicans in the House and a bipartisan group in the Senate have introduced dueling proposals to fund long-term transportation projects, in lieu of the short-term bills that have been enacted since 2007. Unfortunately, the Republican House bill is not much better than the Senate bill. One need not be a staunch conservative to appreciate how inane it is to collect gasoline taxes from all 50 states into one pool, only to be doled out randomly for every state’s personal transportation project. Ever since the Interstate Highway System was completed almost 20 years ago, there has been no rational purpose for the current top-down federal control over transportation. Successive congresses have diverted as much as 38% of the gas tax revenue to mass transit projects and wasteful endeavors for specific states. The net result is that some states are donors (contribute more), while other states are recipients (receive more in funding than they contribute). We need to abolish the federal gas tax, and devolve all responsibility and taxes for transportation projects to the states. The two bills percolating through Congress will double down on failed policies, add to the debt, perpetuate inefficiencies in highway construction, continue to encumber traffic, and preclude any devolution of responsibility to the states. The Senate bill, S. 1813 , funds transportation at $109 billion over two-years, $54.5 billion per year. The House bill, despite accolades from Republican leadership, is only slightly smaller than the Senate version. The House bill, HR 7 , will authorize $260 billion over 5 years, $52 billion per year. Both bills continue to divert about 20% of the gas tax revenue to fund liberal mass transit projects. But here’s the kicker: according to CBO, the Highway Trust Fund will only take in $187 billion in revenue over 5 years. Both bills rely on using all unspent funds in the trust fund, totaling about $20 billion. We will still incur a $30-50 billion deficit over 5 years, and at least $136 billion over 10 years. Remember we already bailout out the trust fund in 2008 with general fund revenues to the tune of $35 billion. But, fear not, Republicans plan to attach three bills authorizing drilling in ANWR, offshore, and in the western states. They pledge to use the revenue from the royalties to offset the deficit engendered by general fund transfers to the Highway Trust Fund. The problem is that these proposals are dead on arrival with the Democrats. Once we agree to the premise of higher transportation spending, and the Democrats jettison the drilling royalties, we will be left with a deficit once again. This position mirrors the cycle of capitulation with the budget bills. Democrats propose some profligate legislative budget bill. Conservatives advocate that we uproot the entire premise by drawing a line in the sand on the principles that got us elected. Republican leaders eschew conservative principles and acquiesce to the premise that the Democrat budget is a priority too big to fail. They telegraph the message to Democrats that they will never let the budget bill fail, but promise to make them pay for it with reforms or other spending offsets. Democrats balk at the offsets. Finally, we are left agreeing to the spending without the offsets. Moreover, if we run a perennial deficit in the trust fund, we will be permanently exposed to future hikes in the gas tax. The Chamber of Commerce and Big Labor are already joining in an unholy alliance to support a gas tax hike. We must defeat the 847-page highway bill , and call upon Congress to devolve transportation authority to the states . At the very least, they should stick with the original House proposal to peg the cost of transportation spending to revenues from the gas tax. Why are we negotiating with ourselves again? Cross-posted from The Madison Project
The rest is here:
Defeat The Highway Bill
As part of their ongoing “jobs agenda,” House Republicans will unveil this week and soon consider the American Energy & Infrastructure Act (AEIA) to reauthorize transportation spending for five years. The “highway bill” promises a host of reforms (consolidating programs and streamlining red tape) and includes increased oil and gas exploration. But unfortunately these reforms are meant to distract from the overall size of the program, and the fact that such spending will require a massive bailout from federal taxpayers. [Before getting into the proposal, let’s first reflect on something. What does it say about a Republican Majority when their number one priority heading into an election year is to pass a massive federal infrastructure bill? I know Republicans are split on the issue, and that many burn all of their anti-Keynes stimulus talking points to give transportation spending a special dispensation as a government “job creator.” But really? This is what they want to fight on and draw stark differences with the other party? That is depressing.] Proponents of federal infrastructure spending have long maintained its legitimacy based on the fact that it is user financed by drivers who pay gas taxes. Good driving years generate enough revenue for generous spending on roads and bridges, and bad driving years require such spending to be ratcheted back. The problem is that the last highway bill—the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Act (SAFETEA)—increased spending levels far above what the trust fund could support ( and 31% over previous levels ). Of course, Congress refused to scale back the spending and instead infused the programs with money from general taxpayers. These bailouts of the highway trust fund occurred in 2008 ($8 billion), 2009 ($7 billion), and 2010 ($19.5 billion). This is confirmed by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service : Historically, the trust fund-based revenue collection system was a reliably growing source of funding for surface transportation, as the trust funds collected more than was expended to implement the program defined by Congress. This situation has changed under SAFETEA, as spending on highways and transit has exceeded both highway and mass transit account revenues on a regular basis. And under current law, if Congress does not reduce the spending, another billion dollar bailout will likely be needed right before the election. According to numerous press reports and the marketing material released already , the GOP bill will set the “long term reauthorization at current funding levels” and “revenues from additional oil and gas production will help fund programs” (emphasis added). Obviously, increased energy exploration is a good thing, but using the revenues generated to pay for existing unaffordable transportation obligations when we are running trillion-dollar deficits each year is insanity. Furthermore, it is unlikely that the energy revenues will come anywhere close to being able to cover a $59 billion shortfall over five years. That means other offsets and gimmicks will be needed or a massive straight-up bailout from taxpayers. All of us want better roads and bridges, but conservatives have long championed devolving the highway program to the states to collect and spend gas tax revenues as they see fit without heavy federal micromanaging. Both regularizing the recent taxpayer bailouts and relying on offsets elsewhere in the federal government will ensure that conservatives will never be able to devolve these programs and that the federal government will never get out of the federal highway business. It is great that Republicans are proposing to consolidate programs, but rationalizing transportation policy while growing government at an unaffordable pace harms the country. In short, it may be the difference between Chinese communism and Soviet communism, but it’s still communism. Furthermore, the claims that federal highway spending creates millions of jobs are dubious. These claims are typically based on economic models that ignore that a billion spent on highway projects is a billion that needs to be borrowed or taxed from the private sector, thereby destroying jobs somewhere else. During the last reauthorization of the highway bill, Heritage’s Ron Utt looked at the available research on the subject and concluded that, “such claims…are highly questionable given the mixed findings of decades of independent academic studies on the relationship between federal spending programs and job creation.” One last point. The GOP highway bill, which will violate the House-passed Ryan budget, is arguably another violation of the Republican Pledge to America, that specifically pledged to “end the practice of packaging unpopular bills with ‘must pass’ legislation to circumvent the will of the American people. Instead, we will advance major legislation one issue at a time.” Now Republicans will argue that “must pass” meant only appropriations bills, but the sentiment behind that component in the Pledge was to guard Congressmen from being pressured to support overwhelmingly bad policy (a highway bailout) that includes some long-sought conservative victories (increased energy drilling). Remember, the old Republican majority had a habit of packaging items like a minimum wage increase and ANWR together or health savings account reforms with a prescription drug expansion, and thus the Pledge included the line of advancing major issues one at a time. I fear a bums rush in the next few weeks. Republicans love them some highway spending. The last highway bill, with the 31% increase in spending, passed by a vote of 412-8 and 91-4 . Speaker Boehner has made this “jobs bill” a priority of his Speakership, and many conservatives are tired of fighting their Leadership. Who wants to oppose a bill that fixes potholes and increases energy drilling? But not fighting bills like this is exactly how our country got in its current fiscal situation. Conservatives in the House need to rise up and fight this legislation, and they need to fight hard.
View post:
House Conservatives Need to Block the Coming Highway Bailout
He apparently was able to say this with a straight face. Via RCP: Carney: Without Obama Jobs Proposal No One Would Be Talking About Jobs Question: “On the President invoking God. A House Republican aide said the “In God We Trust” [bill] were procedural matters [that took] less than 20 minutes or so. Again, this
See the original post here:
Carney: Without Obama’s Jobs Plan No One Would Be Discussing Jobs…
In the post below , we look at Three Little Words that we should perhaps use to begin more of our sentences. Here are three other words, that perhaps should end more of those sentences: “Pay it forward.” Click here to view the embedded video. “Don’t be afraid; pay it forward.” It’s almost the perfect one-sentence summary of the Gospel. And here are a few more words, from both my mom and Saint Bernadette Soubirous, the visionary of Lourdes: “God is never outdone in generosity.” This is true . I know this to be true in my life. When times have been tough, and it felt a little scary to help someone else out from my own depleted funds, I trusted it: God is never outdone in generosity .” You share what you have , you always get back what you need . Always. Always. Always : When you are feeling afraid, an action denoting trust always makes you feel less fearful and more powerful, whether it is praying for another or writing a check for $20.00 that you suspect you may need, yourself, down the road. It is an action that helps one get in touch with the wider world, and with feelings of selflessness, engagement and wisdom. It’s like shoring up for hard times – filling the corn cribs, so to speak – for the famine on the horizon. And, after you’ve made a donation, find someone who needs your prayers, and pray for them. Even if you really can’t afford to give so much as a dime to charity, you can always pray. Prayer is a subversive liberty; it is freedom because no one can touch it, monitor it or forbid it. Or tax it, spend it or waste it. So pray for someone, or some group. Commit to it . You will feel better. I promise, you will. Don’t be afraid. Don’t be afraid to help someone else out, even if it feels scary . God is never outdone in generosity. Even if you’re not sure you believe it right now, choose to trust it. With trust, comes power, but not as the world understands it. See the rest here: Three More Little Words
Follow this link:
Three More Little Words
I stopped doing this in the middle of 2010, once it became clear that the real question of 2010 was how many hits to the head with the snake the Democrats were going to take before it was all over. As the answer was “a lot,” I feel that this was a wise prioritization of my time. But it’s a new cycle, so let’s look at the numbers – both the latest ones , and May’s . Short version: Republicans are scoring better in nine out of ten topics that Rasmussen charts, and there’s a ten point lead on the economy. Which, not incidentally, is the most burning issue for Americans these days. July 2011 May 2011 Issue Dem GOP Diff Dem GOP Diff Shift Economy 35% 45% (10) 42% 46% (4) (6) Health Care 43% 46% (3) 43% 42% 1 (4) Education 42% 38% 4 42% 35% 7 (3) Iraq 37% 41% (4) 40% 42% (2) (2) Immigration 33% 47% (14) 39% 43% (4) (10) Social Security 40% 42% (2) 40% 39% 1 (3) Afghanistan 37% 42% (5) 40% 42% (2) (3) Government Ethics 35% 38% (3) 39% 35% 4 (7) National Security 37% 45% (8) 39% 47% (8) (0) Taxes 40% 46% (6) 41% 42% (1) (5) What’s really interesting, though, is the way that Democrats did consistently worse on pretty much every front; and if I was a Democratic adviser and I had any time to spare from worrying about the economy numbers I’d be worrying about the immigration ones. Admittedly, it’s still sixteen months before the election; only… people said things like that a lot in the 2010 election cycle, too. A trend can develop out this early; back in 2009 this was about the time where people really started taking seriously the idea that the GOP could actually maybe be in a position where they could delicately hint at the possibility that they could, you know, retake the House or something in less than forty years. And, with the partial exception of taxes, the numbers then aren’t notably better for Democrats than the numbers now . Moe Lane ( crosspost )
See the original post:
Crunching the July 2011 Rasmussen trust numbers.
