A $286 Billion Highway Bill and No Money to Maintain Highways?

Last summer, Congress passed a $286 billion Highway and Public Transit Act that expires in 2009. A new report funded by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce states that the highway portion of the Federal Highway Trust Fund will reach a zero balance by 2008. The report concludes that revenues from all levels of government will be $500 billion short of the amount needed to maintain road and bridge conditions and traffic levels through 2015. The federal Highway Trust Fund is currently financed by the federal fuel tax. The study stated that, since 1993, the fuel tax has lost a third of its purchasing power. It suggests increasing the tax as a short term solution. Proposals for the long term are a vehicle fee for hybrid and alternative fuel vehicles and replacing the fuel tax with a mileage based tax.

The November 26, 2005 Associated Press report, “Highway fund running on empty,” does not specify whether the vehicle fee on hybrid and alternative fuel vehicles is a one time fee or an annual one. An annual vehicle fee would seem like moving the goal posts after people were encouraged by the government to purchase such vehicles. The recently passed energy bill offers a tax credit, (replacing the previous tax deduction), starting in 2006 for purchasing hybrid vehicles. Tax incentives may have been a factor in some peoples’ buying decisions. If they are to pay vehicle fees on the same cars, many will feel duped, especially if the vehicle fees are larger than the tax credits. Moreover, the federal government used tax incentives in an attempt to decrease our dependence on foreign oil. Wouldn’t a vehicle fee be a disincentive to do so?

The study commissioned by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce says it will take 10 to 15 years to develop mileage based revenue systems tailored to the needs of states and cities. Such a system would offer no incentive for people and businesses to purchase fuel efficient vehicles. Additionally, a mileage based system may place an unfair burden on businesses that provide on-site service or deliveries. Many such businesses purchase fuel efficient vehicles such as those with diesel engines to keep the cost of providing such services in check. A mileage based tax would also penalize those who do not live near their workplaces. Many environmentalists and anti-sprawl activists believe everyone should work near their residences. In Idyllic Village World, everyone could. In the real world, that isn’t always practical. Every industry can’t locate in every neighborhood. People live where they can afford housing and work where the jobs are. Many municipalities are zoned so that commercial and residential areas are not close to one another. Some employers are located in areas where homes are expensive and property taxes are high. Others are located in areas with poor quality public schools.

While unpalatable, an increase in the gas tax does provide an incentive for people to buy fuel efficient vehicles. In turn, that encourages manufacturers to invest in new technology to increase fuel efficiency. Increased fuel efficiency would improve our balance of trade by reducing dependency on imported oil and, additionally, would help improve air quality. However, are increased or additional taxes necessary?

Rather than increasing taxes, Congress should re-work last summer’s $286 billion highway bill. The bill was so filled with pork that Congress neglected appropriations for maintenance of infrastructure. Some projects financed by the bill included: $3 million for a river path in Springfield, OR; $2.7 million to renovate the Packard Museum in Warren, OH; $2.3 million for landscaping along the Ronald Reagan Freeway in California; $2 million to build an “intermodal center” at the Philadelphia Zoo; $2 million for a parking garage in San Antonio; and $1.2 million for improvements to the Blue Ridge Music Center in Virginia. The bill also included $230 million for a bridge from Ketchikan, AK to an island with 50 residents: Congress removed the “Bridge to Nowhere” from the list of protected projects, yet the $230 million remains part of Alaska’s portion of federal highway funds. These are state and local projects that should not be funded by the federal government. If Congress were to de-appropriate funds from these and other projects, those monies could be allocated to the federal Highway Trust Fund.

Although re-allocation would not cover the shortfall in highway funding through 2015, it would be a step in the right direction. It is unreasonable for the government to consider tax increases without first eliminating wasteful spending and funding for projects that are not federal responsibility. The loss of federal funding for state projects may lead to higher taxes in those states. However, the voters in those states have more influence over their state legislators than over Congress as to whether or not projects are funded. Pork projects may please their constituents, but members of Congress should consider what is in the nation’s best interests. Tax increases and a growing national debt affect their constituents, too. Next time Congress creates a highway bill, it should make highways the priority.

The bill was so filled with pork that Congress neglected appropriations for maintenance of infrastructure.
-----
This is what Washington has degenerated to -- just buying votes. That's all folks (said PORKy pig!)

The money in the Federal transportation trust fund is specifically allocated for capital projects, not maintenance and upkeep of our nation's roadways. Using money from the trust fund to maintain our highway system is going to require more than just a simple re-allocation of money from "pork-barrel" projects . . . it's going to require a complete redefinition of what the trust fund is intended for.

State and local governments have long been responsible for picking up the costs for roadway maintenance and repair. The fact that more and more of these governments are facing their own self-made fiscal problems is no reason to change this. Take a look at the standard pie chart of your typical state budget and see how little money is actually spent on infrastructure maintenance and repair.

Can someone Please tell me what happend to the hundreds of billions of dollars the Highway trustfund contained only a few short years ago. Where is the money?

Why is the federal government building and maintaining highways anyway? I would rather have Ohio have a $0.50/gallon gas tax than have the same tax split between the state and the feds, with some of the money skimmed off by the Department of Transportation and the rest sent to whichever state has the most effective/corrupt Congressmen.

Money doesn't become holy by baptizing it in the waters of the Potomac.

the "trust fund" is a democRAT ponzie scheme. Gas taxes are collected to be spent on roads and bridges etc. etc. they go only for the transportation needs of the government. The reason there are so many "pork" projects or set aside programs as pork is called is that when a state was given a check for millions or billions of dollars congress found out that the money went to the well conected in the state capital not in their district.

as to your question Republicans have been spending the money that is why you must drive through so much construction. By the way anyone that says that maintenance is not included has not seen a highway and bridge on Interstate 35 taken apart and rebuilt using Federal money.

Government at all levels spends most of their money on items that were never intended to be the responsibilities of government. Full time legislatures were never intended. Government was supposed to be run by "public servants" who would devote a small portion of their year governing at little or no pay. Our legislators have developed into the modern American Royalty.

Nam Vet

Big Brother Warning: One of the ways the U.S. Chamber of Commerce proposes to fund highway repair is to have a mileage tax.

Just as taxing of personal incomes has destroyed personal financial privacy, taxing of vehicle use by the mile will destroy any privacy we may have left about how we drive, and where we drive.

The reason is simple: anytime you allow a government body to levy a tax you must give it authority to audit any activity associated with that tax liability in order to enforce compliance.

A tax on vehicle use by the mile would be a giant leap of government destruction of our liberty and privacy. It is shameful that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce would even seriously propose such a tax. It should be shouted down for the horrible proposal it is.

By the way anyone that says that maintenance is not included has not seen a highway and bridge on Interstate 35 taken apart and rebuilt using Federal money.

There are a number of different things that can be funded through the Federal trust fund that aren't classified as "maintenance." These would include safety-related improvements and congestion mitigation measures that meet specific standards for improving air quality.

I hope the writer saves the article; sure would save time typing up new ones. Just "insert new bill name here" and the story is the same.

Our misrepresentatives are veeeeery busy spending our money for us. Thank goodness those smart men and women over there in DC are protecting me from my own economic decisions. Oh yeah, that's sarcasm.

Can someone Please tell me what happend to the hundreds of billions of dollars the Highway trustfund contained only a few short years ago. Where is the money?
-----
Probably went to feed, educate, medicate ILLEGAL ALIENS!!!

Congress removed the “Bridge to Nowhere” from the list of protected projects, yet the $230 million remains part of Alaska’s portion of federal highway funds.

I smell a bunch of big, fat Republican Rats.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.