Congress is so divided it can't even pass a highway bill anymore

[one...two...tree 2,762]

WASHINGTON — Providing money for highways and infrastructure historically has been one of Congress' easiest tasks. After all, it gives every lawmaker a chance to go home, stand in front of a bumpy highway and explain how he or she is making life better.

Not anymore.

When Congress returns to Washington in mid-April after a spring recess, it plans to resume one of the fiercest and most consequential battles of this year: funding highways and infrastructure.

The Senate and House of Representatives are engaged in the kind of ugly impasse that's grown common in recent years. They're engaged in what Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., called "infrastructure chicken."

Historically, Congress authorized road and infrastructure programs for several years at a time. Transportation planners could look ahead, set priorities and line up contractors. The last such comprehensive measure passed with strong bipartisan support in 2005. It expired four years later.

Since then, as bitter partisanship has become the legislative norm, Congress has been unable to craft a long-term plan. Short-term extensions have become routine. The latest expired March 31.

The Senate approved a two-year, $109 billion plan in mid-March with a strong bipartisan vote, but in the House, conservatives balked. As a result, Congress approved a last-minute 90-day extension, setting up a fresh fight that's likely to rage until the next deadline, June 30.

Back home, state transportation officials — already whipsawed by years of this gamesmanship — are watching nervously.

Transportation for America, a coalition of state and local agencies and interest groups, finds that the short-term extensions — and the unpredictability of the legislative process — is having an effect on projects.

"Most projects in progress will keep going," group spokesman David Goldberg said, "but agencies will scale back a bit, and hold off on major projects in the future, because they're not sure when reimbursement will come."

Projects most affected could include major highway reconstruction, new bridges and other "really big projects that cost multiple millions," said Jack Basso, the director of program finance and management at the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

The more profound impact is how much economic value is lost as a consequence of having ill-conditioned roads and infrastructure that makes it harder for people to get to work or for goods to reach their destination. "There is a practical effect," said Joshua Schank, the president and chief executive officer of the Eno Center for Transportation, a nonpartisan policy research group.

Equally worrisome to transportation planners is how partisan confrontation is affecting an area of public policy that traditionally has been more about how to divide the riches.

"Bridges and highways are not necessarily Republican or Democrat. Everybody needs them," said Tom Trotter, AFL-CIO legislative representative.

This sector now is suffering from the same forces that have plagued other issues in recent years: the ailing economy, the conservative drive to slash spending, the end of "earmarks" — the local projects that lawmakers would insert into legislation — and the growing partisan chasm.

Money for the highway trust fund is supposed to come largely from the 18.4 cent-a-gallon federal gasoline tax, and for decades that was sufficient. The tax was last increased in 1993.

But because the 2005 transportation law made big commitments, and the economic slump that began in 2007 hurt revenue collection, the fund is expected to exhaust its ability to pay its commitments sometime next year. Money from the Treasury's general fund has been used to make up shortfalls in recent years.

House Republican leaders proposed a five-year, $260 billion transportation plan that would include revenue from fees from new domestic oil drilling, though more funding still would be needed.

Conservatives were unenthusiastic, raising questions not only about how the plan would be paid for but also about whether Washington should scale back its involvement in transportation.

The Senate bill, which did get bipartisan support, would fund programs at current levels, adjusted for inflation. It would be paid for through a series of taxes and fees, plus some other transportation-related cuts and adjustments.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., tried to curb some government regulation for infrastructure projects, including a bridge and raw-sewage plant in Kentucky.

"Do we really want to live in a country where we have to stop and count how many barnacles are on your bridge before you decide whether to rebuild the bridge?" he asked Senate colleagues. "We'll rebuild the bridge anyway, but we spend a year's time or more wasted on these studies that in the end we're going to rebuild the bridge." His bid to scale back regulatory requirements was defeated.

Many Democrats worry that not enough is being done to make infrastructure safer and more modern, and they say the federal role must remain strong.

"If one has great roads in their state and the next-door neighbor has not paved any roads, they are kind of stuck. That is why we have a national highway program," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., the chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

The fractious debate promises more gridlock and down-to-the-wire politics — and probably little long-term relief.

"We have to have a long-deferred, extremely difficult conversation about how we pay for our infrastructure needs," said Goldberg, of the transportation coalition. "The gas tax is probably not the answer, but these are big, thorny issues, and no one is willing to take this up in an election year."

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/04/05/144318/congress-is-so-divided-it-cant.html

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/04/05/144318/congress-is-so-divided-it-cant.html#storylink=cpy

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

How is it different from when DEMs controlled both houses of congress, had Obama in the White House and could not pass a budget? Could not pass health care? Could not pass environmental legislation?

United Congress = Nothing

Divided Congress = Nothing

See the pattern here? The solution is to reduce or eliminate the role of congress in as much as possible. The solution is NOT expecting more from a body that has proven it will not produce anything.

Start with FAIR TAX to eliminate politics in the revenue source for our government.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

If states would get to keep their higway funds to begin with and never even send them to the Feds, this would be a non-issue...

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Buy Ammo!

[Leatherneck 693]

The less legislation they pass -- the better off we are.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The less legislation they pass -- the better off we are.

Yeah, who needs infrastructure? If your family happens to be driving on an old overpass that is in badly need of repair, and your car drops 30 feet onto concrete below, it will be your fault for choosing to drive on it, right?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

If your family happens to be driving on an old overpass that is in badly need of repair, and your car drops 30 feet onto concrete below, it will be your fault for choosing to drive on it, right?

I see you're getting a hang of it. It's all about personal responsibility - except in health care. There we love leeches and free riders. ** gubmint.

Edited April 16, 2012 by Mr. Big Dog

[Leatherneck 693]

Yeah, who needs infrastructure? If your family happens to be driving on an old overpass that is in badly need of repair, and your car drops 30 feet onto concrete below, it will be your fault for choosing to drive on it, right?

If the congresscritters focused only on the enumerated things they're supposed to be doing -- we wouldn't need the federal government to steal money through taxation, then pass it around to the states with strings attached. Is it your position that if not for the federal government, the state governments are too damn stupid to maintain road and bridge infrastructure within their borders?

Yes, your love and faith in big daddy federal government has no limit.

[unlockingsky 94]

this is the best chance for everyone to drum up constituents. because they are all playing heroes and pointing fingers at the villains. in reality they are just pointing fingers at each other. how childish.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

If the congresscritters focused only on the enumerated things they're supposed to be doing -- we wouldn't need the federal government to steal money through taxation, then pass it around to the states with strings attached. Is it your position that if not for the federal government, the state governments are too damn stupid to maintain road and bridge infrastructure within their borders?

Yes, your love and faith in big daddy federal government has no limit.

The Founding Fathers had enough common sense to understand the need for a strong enough Federal Government (see Commerce Clause - U.S. Constitution) to build the highways, railroads and other transportation avenues, all of which you have personally benefited from in one way or another. You can thank Big Daddy Gubmint for making it possible for you to drive coast to coast, or take a train, or fly. Perhaps you'd rather go back to stagecoaches and horses.

[Leatherneck 693]

The Founding Fathers had enough common sense to understand the need for a strong enough Federal Government (see Commerce Clause - U.S. Constitution) to build the highways, railroads and other transportation avenues, all of which you have personally benefited from in one way or another. You can thank Big Daddy Gubmint for making it possible for you to drive coast to coast, or take a train, or fly. Perhaps you'd rather go back to stagecoaches and horses.

I am not surprised that a big governmemt liberal does not understand the commerce clause - it is the means in which liberals have justified everything from the regulating of wheat on private land to the health care monster. Hey Mr. BIG government guy, trains existed and planes flew long before the big governmemt types got involved. You just can't fathom life or folks making it minus the heavy hand of the big government you love so much. Small government does not mean the return to horses and the like, I know, it's massive government for you or the sky will fall.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Steven has smoke coming out of his ears! This is going to be a long post...

Edited April 17, 2012 by ☼

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I am not surprised that a big governmemt liberal does not understand the commerce clause - it is the means in which liberals have justified everything from the regulating of wheat on private land to the health care monster. Hey Mr. BIG government guy, trains existed and planes flew long before the big governmemt types got involved. You just can't fathom life or folks making it minus the heavy hand of the big government you love so much. Small government does not mean the return to horses and the like, I know, it's massive government for you or the sky will fall.

Your attempt to make a false dichotomy from recognizing the role of Federal Gov't with interstate commerce as loving government is both amusing and childish. Try to stick with the merits of the argument.

As for the railroads - what land do you think most of the track is built on? And how do you think the railroad companies were able to build on that land? And with what money? Your ignorance of history is astounding.

1826–1850

During this period, Americans watched closely the development of railways in England. The main competition came from canals, many of which were in operation under state ownership, and from privately owned steamboats plying the nation's vast river system. The state of Massachusetts in 1829 prepared an elaborate plan. Government support, most especially the detailing of officers from the Army Corps of Engineers - the nation's only repository of civil engineering expertise - was crucial in assisting private enterprise in building nearly all the country's railroads. Army Engineer officers surveyed and selected routes, planned, designed, and constructed rights of way, track, and structures, and introduced the Army's system of reports and accountability to the railroad companies. More than one in ten of the 1,058 graduates from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point between 1802 and 1866 became corporate presidents, chief engineers, treasurers, superintendents and general managers of railroad companies. ^[5]

The Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways (commonly known as the Interstate Highway System, Interstate Freeway System or the Interstate) is a network of limited-access roads including freeways, highways, and expressways forming part of the National Highway System of the United States of America. The system, which is named for President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who championed its formation, connects 209 of the 237 cities having a population of 50,000 or more. Construction was authorized by the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 and the original portion was completed 35 years later. The network has since been extended and as of 2006 it had a total length of 46,876 miles (75,440 km).^[2] About one-third of all miles driven in the country use the Interstate system (2003 figures).^[3] The cost of construction has been estimated at $425 billion (in 2006 dollars), making it the largest public works project in history.

Most of the world's airports are owned by local, regional, or national government bodies who then lease the airport to private corporations who oversee the airport's operation. For example, BAA Limited (BAA) operates seven of the commercial airports in the United Kingdom, as well as several other airports outside of the UK. Germany's Frankfurt Airport is managed by the quasi-private firm Fraport. While in India GMR Group operates, through joint ventures, Indira Gandhi International Airport and Rajiv Gandhi International Airport. Bengaluru International Airport and Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport are controlled by GVK Group. The rest of India's airports are managed by the Airports Authority of India.

In the United States commercial airports are generally operated directly by government entities or government-created airport authorities (also known as port authorities), such as the Los Angeles World Airports authority that oversees several airports in the Greater Los Angeles area, including Los Angeles International Airport.

In Canada, the federal authority, Transport Canada, divested itself of all but the remotest airports in 1999/2000. Now most airports in Canada are owned and operated by individual legal authorities or are municipally owned.

[mawilson 2,133]

In Canada, the federal authority, Transport Canada, divested itself of all but the remotest airports in 1999/2000. Now most airports in Canada are owned and operated by individual legal authorities or are municipally owned.

Imagine that! In Canada airports are not federally owned! How did they ever manage to fly a plane without Federal Government?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Imagine that! In Canada airports are not federally owned!

So what? It's the same in the US - airports are typically owned and run locally. What's the big deal?