WSJ: Highway Math -- Get your veto pen ready, Mr. President.

Wall Street Journal ^ | May 18, 2005 | Editorial

[OESY]

...The 89-11 Senate vote for a $295 billion highway bill exceeds the $284 billion limit that President Bush has said is acceptable. But more than that, it also defies the budget resolution that Congress adopted only last month....

It's bad enough that only nine Members voted against the House version of the highway bill in March, which makes us wonder if there's any political constituency for spending restraint. After all, the "yeas" included conservatives of the Republican Study Committee and Club for Growth variety, some of whom had won election as staunch budget hawks only months before. But at least the House measure, at $284 billion, stayed within the overly generous spending limits set by the White House.

President Bush has threatened to veto any highway bill in excess of that amount, but apparently Senate Republicans don't take his threat seriously. Senate Finance Chairman Chuck Grassley is claiming the extra $11 billion is "paid for" and won't add to the deficit. But Senator Judd Gregg told reporters last week that the higher figure is "quite simply, unequivocally, unquestionably, a budget buster." He was being kind. Even a cursory inspection of Senator Grassley's accounting reveals it to be positively Enronesque.

The highway trust fund, supported by federal gas taxes, is the main source of money for highway projects. To claim deficit "neutrality," the Senate bill mainly diverts general revenue funds into the highway trust, or shifts highway trust fund liabilities into some other fund. But either way, it constitutes deficit spending. The only proper way to "offset" something is to cut expenditures or increase revenues, and this bill by and large does neither. Moving gas guzzler tax proceeds from the general fund to the highway trust is gimmickry, plain and simple....

[OESY]

Hmmm. The bill exceeds the $284 billion limit by 3.9%. An easy fix in conference committee would be to knock 2% off all tranport-related projects and 5% off all non-transport boondoggles that otherwise could not be eliminated. This does not look like a close vote at 89-11 where deals are vital to the bill's passage, or am I missing something?

Nevertheless, kudos to the nine GOP Senators -- Sam Brownback, John Cornyn, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Jim DeMint, Lindsey Graham, Jon Kyl, John McCain, Judd Gregg and John Sununu -- who saw fit to vote against the bill. (They were joined by the two Wisconsin Democrats, Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold, who opposed the measure because they said it shortchanged their state.)

[Paleo Conservative]

Nevertheless, kudos to the nine GOP Senators -- Sam Brownback, John Cornyn, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Jim DeMint, Lindsey Graham, Jon Kyl, John McCain, Judd Gregg and John Sununu -- who saw fit to vote against the bill.

Looks like this highway bill like all highway bills shortchanges Texas. It's not just that only 9 GOP senators voted against it, it was both senators in 4 states (TX, AZ, SC, NH). Texans pay in billions of dollars in fuel excise taxes that go to other states to pay for their pork.

[gaspar]

Five will get you ten that Bush will not veto. It is incredible that one who will react to terrorism so strongly plays pussycat with the budget.

[Alberta's Child]

I agree with the basic premise of this article, but it's patently ridiculous (and downright hypocritical) for the same President who championed a $600+ billion Medicare prescription drug plan to exercise "fisal restraint" over a mere $11 billion in this highway bill.