October 2011 Archives

If you dismissed as a political stunt House Speaker John Boehner's suggestion to fund a highway bill with expanded drilling, as I did, you and I both missed a critical development in Republicans' thinking on transportation. House Republicans now believe that current federal spending levels for roads, bridges, and runways are an appropriate use taxpayer dollars. In practical terms, that means they will accept a six-year, $300 billion surface transportation measure as long as the spending is offset. Leaving the critical pay-for problem aside for the moment, Boehner's proposal signals two important things--it marks a departure from Republicans' standard "cut government" party line, and it offers the most specific statement to date from House GOP leaders on how infrastructure fits into their governing philosophy.

Boehner's remarks in September at the Economic Club of Washington were a deliberate concession, according to House Transportation Committee Chairman John Mica, R-Fla. Boehner's idea removed the "primary obstacle" to a six-year surface transportation bill--a proposed one-third cut to highway spending, Mica said last week. Democrats, as well as people in the business and transportation communities, found that cutback untenable.

The big problem, as we all know, is how to pay for highway and transit costs at current levels. Boehner's idea to use revenue from expanded domestic oil and gas drilling is not politically viable today. Few other options exist, as Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., is finding out in his attempt to come up with a mere $12 billion to fund a two-year highway bill. The six-year House bill, by contrast, is $75 billion to $100 billion short. The best way to read Boehner's proposal on drilling, then, is as a campaign promise for Republican voters (and more importantly, donors) who are angling for a sweep in next year's elections: Give us the Senate and the White House, and we'll give you drilling and a fully funded highway bill.

Is Boehner right that there is a "natural link" between new sources of domestic oil and a modern infrastructure? What separates the transportation and energy sectors, politically and policy-wise? Even if new domestic drilling doesn't happen, is it possible to draw on other revenue from the energy industry to pay for our highways? Where else can we find $100 billion? How seriously can we take Boehner's concession on highway spending levels if it doesn't come with a realistic offset?

7 responses: Ken Orski, Deron Lovaas, Robert L. Darbelnet, Emil H. Frankel, Carl Pope, Gabriel Roth, Jack Kinstlinger

President Obama's jobs bill may be going nowhere in Congress, but it is certainly being loud about it. Senate Democrats are refusing to let the political talking point go by scheduling floor votes on individual pieces of the measure for Republicans to shoot down. This week and next, the jobs debate will focus on infrastructure investment. Politically, it's a good move. People want potholes fixed and roads built, and polls show that they are generally willing to pay a little extra to make that happen.

(I wrote about the jobs and infrastructure message last week.)

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has given Republicans a ready excuse to vote against an infrastructure bill that, in less austere times, might be hard to oppose. To pay for the $50 billion in transportation spending and $10 billion infrastructure bank proposals, Reid has added a small tax for millionaires. Republicans oppose the millionaire tax on principle and will have no problem rejecting the bill for that reason alone.

All this will bluster will be happening on the Senate floor the week of Oct. 31, as the Environment and Public Works Committee is marking up a bipartisan two-year transportation bill. There will be fewer fireworks in the committee meeting than on the Senate floor, even though the committee's passage of the two-year bill will represent a more significant step toward updating the country's transportation funding system.

How does the recurring political theme of infrastructure and jobs play in to the debate over surface transportation funding? Where will the Democrats' infrastructure jobs campaign have more impact, in politics or policy? Are there broader economic themes that can surface as a result of this debate? Does the millionaire tax change the conversation?

4 responses: Ed Hamberger, Paul Yarossi, Rep. John Garamendi, D-CA, Greg Principato

No one will be happy to see Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood exit public life, but he isn't going away for a quite a while. Last week, the personable moderate Republican from Illinois said he would step down from the White House transportation post at the end of President Obama's first term and would not seek another public office. LaHood has flourished in the Obama administration while his own party has clashed with the White House over just about everything.

A lot can happen between now and the end of Obama's term. As it stands now, Congress is supposed to pass authorization bills for aviation and surface transportation in early 2012. Whether that actually happens remains to be seen, but LaHood will remain a pivotal figure in those conversations. LaHood also is one of the administration's most powerful advocates for infrastructure investment. He has spent much of his time in recent weeks calling on Congress to approve $50 billion for immediate investment in roads and bridges and another $10 billion for an infrastructure bank that would leverage private dollars for large transportation projects. Pleas with Congress are difficult, as the former House member LaHood knows. But he doesn't need Congress for one of his personal pet projects---hounding people to stop using cell phones while driving. The distracted driving campaign has garnered him praise from transportation and safety advocates alike.

We have one more year with LaHood. What can be accomplished in that time? How can LaHood be most effective in the surface transportation and aviation reauthorization conversations? Can LaHood use his connections with Republicans on Capitol Hill to broker a compromise with Democrats? What can the Transportation Department do on its own? If you could have one wish granted by the transportation secretary before he leaves his job, what would it be?

4 responses: Laura Barrett, Thomas W. Brahms, Peter J. Pantuso, Gabriel Roth

Congress has put off its fight over surface transportation funding until early next year, and for that we all can breathe a sigh of relief. Still, conservatives like Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., have made it clear that unresolved issues remain for lawmakers when they start discussing transportation policy in earnest. Coburn objected to the "transportation enhancement" funding in the stopgap funding extension as "an indefensible threat against public safety that forces states to prioritize bike paths over bridge repair," according to his spokesman. Coburn removed his objection after Democrats promised an opt-out provision. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee ranking member James Inhofe, R-Okla., also has criticized bike paths or walkway improvements as unnecessary recipients of federal dollars.

Bike paths are a perennial whipping boy in the transportation funding debates. Conservatives don't like setting aside money for bike paths or other enhancements because they feel those funds should go to roads. With tight budgets, roads and bridges should be top priority, critics say. At the very least, they say, the states should make the decisions about where the money goes. Bike defenders, like Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., point to the health, environmental, and safety benefits in promoting cycling and walking. Bike paths and walkways might also lead to jobs. Earlier this year, researchers at the University of Massachusetts found that bike paths and pedestrian trails generate more jobs than road work. For each $1 million spent for cycling projects, 11.4 jobs were created, the study found. Road-only projects, by contrast, created only 7.8 jobs per $1 million.

Should the federal government include bike paths and walkways in its national transportation scheme? Are states or cities more appropriate places to create and maintain alternatives to driving? How should government at any level regard cyclists and pedestrians? Are cycling/walking enthusiasts equipped to advocate to policymakers in Washington? How do such alternative forms of transport impact in the larger transportation debate?

6 responses: James Corless, Fawn Johnson, Greg Cohen, Jack Kinstlinger, Laura Barrett, Bill Lind