The Highway Bill: A Road to Cave City

Last week, several House committees favorably reported the $260 billion 5-year House GOP highway bill to the full body. This 846-page behemoth is now headed to a floor vote sometime next week.

Simply put, conservatives oppose the House leadership’s highway bill (H.R. 7) because it continues the failed top-down federal approach to transportation spending, while precluding devolution to the states for at least another five years. Moreover, it eschews the pay-as-you-go funding mechanism of the Highway Trust Fund (eerily similar to the Social Security Trust Fund!) by permanently authorizing a higher level of spending than the fund’s corresponding revenue source; the federal gas tax.

Nevertheless, let’s disregard the policy concerns for a moment and focus on the political argument. Just as they did with the budget battles of 2011, GOP leadership is selling this bill as the best alternative, a virtuous improvement of past policies. And undoubtedly, on paper, the version that will be presented to conservative House members (as opposed to the final version after they cave) contains many good provisions: •It eliminates the mandate requiring states spend 10% of their transportation funds on transportation enhancements and bike lanes.

•While it continues to fund Mass Transit to the tune of $8.4 billion annually, this legislation bars gas tax revenue from being diverted in order to support public transportation. [Although, in fine print, the legislation will still fund public transportation projects with a one-time $40 billion appropriation transfer from an unknown source (general fund?) into a renamed account called the “Alternative Transportation Account.”]

•The deficit between the trust fund outlays and the gas tax revenue (anywhere from $30-60 billion over 5 years) will be offset, in part, with royalties from opening lands in Alaska, parts of the continental US, and offshore to oil and gas exploration.

•Yet again, there is a provision slipped into the bill that grants a permit to TransCanada Corp. for construction of the Keystone pipeline.

Republican leaders are using the aforementioned “sweeteners” to entice conservatives into supporting this “best we can do” legislation. Putting the federalism arguments aside, does anyone believe that Republican leaders will stick with their own bill when the going gets rough? All of these reforms are vociferously opposed by the Democrats. Not a single Democrat voted for the bill on a committee level. They regard the GOP leadership’s bill with as much contempt as they do the conservative bills – those that devolve transportation responsibilities to the states. They are simply not going to play ball, especially when they can terrify credulous Republicans with a shutdown deadline.

As the March 31 expiration date inches closer, and Democrats continue to balk at the GOP bill, does anyone really think Boehner and McConnell will stick with the bill and allow a shutdown? Of course not! Instead, they will cave on the offsetting revenue from ANWR (which is a non-starter with Democrats) and the cuts to mass transit and enhancement projects, leaving us with the higher levels of spending, but no offsetting revenues. There will be no Keystone pipeline. We will be left with the excrement sans the honey.

All House Republicans will accomplish by supporting this bill is legitimizing the premise of outspending the gas tax revenue. Once we agree that more federal spending – instead of efficient execution of federalism – is the best way to deal with our infrastructure challenges, we will be on the hook for more deficit spending once Democrats inevitably oppose the offsets. Sound a lot like the cycle of capitulation with the budget battles and extenders package? Well, it is.

Here is the ultimate riddle of the 112th Congress: why do GOP leaders jettison conservative legislation under the guise of political feasibility, yet push their own watered-down legislation that is, nonetheless, almost as offensive to the Democrats? Answer: because they never intend to stick with their ephemeral proposal; they intend to cave once they pocket the support from conservatives.

House Republicans must not fall for the honey trap of the highway bill reforms. It is a road to cave city, paved with the gravel of unprincipled Republicanism.

There is virtually no way one state would cripple itself by not maintaining it’s hi-ways, whether intra or inter state.

Let the money remain in a state, and let the state maintain it’s roads.

There are many inter-state roads which are not owned or run by The Government. They are maintained by the states, and they work.

Let us keep The Government power to that of mediating inter-State grievances, but keep their sticky paws out of the maintenance of the infrastructure.

The states could stage a revolt if enough of them would just decline to accept any federal highway money. The last time a state came close to saying no was during the time of the federal mandated 55 mph speed limit. The bureaucrats in DC went bananas at the thought they would have a state that opted out of being under their control.

It is time to say no to the slave master who is using our own money to put us under his thumb.

Some states like Pennsylvania and Virginia are SALIVATING at the thought of turning their (what are now) freeways into money machines (I-80 and I-81, specifically), bringing in 10 times the revenue levels needed to maintain the roads. All this extra money, of course, will come from out of state drivers and go into their general fund (the locals will pay reduced tolls, or no tolls).

So yes, it may sound great to the nerds at Cato and Heritage to send the highways back to states, with permission to force transponders into cars and toll captive drivers through the teeth to finance their welfare systems, but I don’t want to hear ANYONE complain about the price of lettuce doubling.

One of the few enumerated powers was the establisment of “post roads” which has been expanded to mean national highways. No where does it say anything about public transportation. IMO, this is another example of how far we have gone from having a constitution that keeps the government in check to removing those checks from the law of the land.

One power His Excellency seems to not wish to follow or expand upon is the direction about prosecution of piracy on the high seas. He avoids that one while finding other areas beyond the scope of the Constitution to push forth.

Typical of the GOP congressional leaders over the last sixty years, generally

They argue their own party’s position down, internally on their own, projecting what the Dims preferences will be, and pretending that a bargaining position with the Dims will be better if their GOP bill is already approaching what the Dims will agree to.

Is that how the Dims receive any GOP proposal?

No.

They see the GOP leaders are weak and already heading their way, so why simply go for the GOP leaders pre-figured “bi-partisan” approach, when actual negotiations and compromises can get even more of what the Dims want.

The Dims are and operate 100% as a take-all-you-can-get party.

The GOP acts as a “good ole boys club” just trying to make-nice with everyone as much as possible.

Eisenhower’s Interstate Highway sytem is complete, as much as any Federal effort need concern itself with.

Eliminate the Federal gasoline tax, and if there are any road-funds left in a federal account, send them, by some proportional breakdown, back to the states as a parting gift.

Any state that cannot maintain the public highways in its jurisdiction on its own has its own priorties messed up, and even that is not a good reason for getting money for itself from federal taxes.

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.