Moving to Chapter Two towards Federal transportation funding...
C. Kenneth Orski has a (somewhat) interesting article at Planetizen
HERE. It does clarify one thing for me:
Quote:
The (President's) proposed budget would fund infrastructure through a mandatory 14 percent tax on accumulated overseas earnings of U.S. companies (regardless of whether the earnings are repatriated or not).
The administration's proposal would bring in $238 billion which, combined with $240 billion from the Highway Trust Fund, would fund a $478 billion six-year surface transportation bill. At $80 billion a year, the program would be spending twice as much as under current law.
|
Orski goes on to make the case for states assuming more responsibility (than in the past). He lists 15 "Can Do" states that are moving to do this. He makes several assumptions that are premature at best. His Can Do states are (mostly) an example of states that are grappling with transportation funding. Proposals aren't the same as approved measures. He does at least add this one key point.
Quote:
|
That is not to say that states should bear the full burden of covering the funding shortfall. "Action at the state level must not be interpreted as an invitation for Congress to completely transfer the federal transportation program to state and local governments," testified Alabama Governor Robert Bentley on behalf of the National Governors Association at a January 28 Senate hearing on the transportation reauthorization
|
Keith Laing in another good article at The Hill highlights some of Secretary Foxx's good points
HERE.
Quote:
Foxx told members of the House Transportation Committee, “Our country is too great to allow our infrastructure to fall apart.”
“We must do something,” he said. “At a time when we should be building more, we’re building less. Instead of saying ‘build, build, build,’ Congress has been saying ‘stop.’ ”
Congress has approved only a series of temporary infrastructure funding patches since a 2005 transportation bill expired in 2009, including an $11 billion measure scheduled to expire in May.
Foxx said Wednesday that the patches do not provide enough money for states and local governments to finance badly needed long-range construction project...
|
It is so strange to have Republicans resisting infrastructure spending. Ever since they made earmarks a big campaign issue of fiscal responsibility (even though they were the cocktail du jour during GWB) they've struggled for a funding solution. Tea Party politics and rhetoric aside, I'm sure there is a growing appetite for more funding among most Republicans.
"Strange bedfellows"
Quote:
|
lawmakers like Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) rely on the idea of taxing overseas corporate revenue through a process known as “repatriation” to pay for a new round of road projects.
|
I read recently where Ohio and Kentucky are trying to pull together funding to build a new bridge over the Ohio river. They've yet to qualify for any Federal funding. It's a big clustermess due to the extensive reconfiguring of highways on each side of the bridge. Most states are struggling for transportation funding.
Some assume increasing the gas tax is off the table. I'd guess it may be the easy fall-back piece they will adopt. Foxx harkens back to the good ole days.
Quote:
|
“The system needs us to not budget to numbers, it needs us to budget to results,” he said. “The Highway Trust Fund balance is a number. It is not an outcome.”
|
I still think the chances look good.
Prev
Linear Mode
