Everyone knows that if you take the bacon off a greasy cheeseburger, it’s still packed with tons of calories and saturated fat. So why do members of Congress think cutting pork from the 2012 Highway Bill should suddenly make it appetizing to fiscal conservatives?
The Highway Bill — the last one expires at the end of March — traditionally uses gas tax receipts to fund highway construction and maintenance, but it also finances “enhancement projects” like bike paths, transportation museums, and the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere.” Just over the past seven years, reckless spending on pork projects like these have caused the federal government to bail out the Highway Trust Fund three times to the tune of nearly $30 billion, according to the Heritage Foundation.
GOP leaders are claiming that fiscal conservatives should support the current bill because it does away with these projects. They’re even including expanded oil drilling as a sweetener to the deal, even though it has nothing to do with the Highway Trust Fund. But the bill is still a huge waste of money. It doesn’t cut any spending. It still requires higher-than-market wages that are a sop to labor unions. Worst of all, it perpetuates a system based on central planning from Washington.
The Highway Trust Fund collects federal gas tax receipts, and through the Highway Bill, forces states to fight each other in order to get the money back in the form of infrastructure projects. This results in what are called “donor” and “donee” states. Some states get less than what they sent to D.C. in the form of taxes, while others get more.
For example, states like Mississippi, South Carolina, California and Michigan all receive less than 100 percent of their contribution, according to a GAO report issued in late 2011. States like New York and Oregon receive more than 100 percent. Alaska led the pack, getting a whopping 428.9 percent rate of return on federal gas tax dollars. So why should taxpayers in South Carolina and Michigan continue to fund Alaskan roads?
And once both donor and donee states receive their money, why should all of that spending come with bureaucratic strings attached?
The 50 states each have different transportation needs. Some need greater access to rural areas, while others may need more urban development. Some states may need to blow through mountains while others need to cross plains and rivers. True reform would devolve highway construction and maintenance back to the states and end or greatly reduce the federal gas tax.
This would allow the states to raise their own gas tax rates according to their own specific needs. It would also stop gas tax revenue in Michigan from funding highway projects in New York. If transportation funding reverted back to the states, the federal government’s role wouldn’t disappear, but it might become a smaller and more appropriate oversight role over the Interstate Highway System.
“Devolution” bills are currently being sponsored by Rep. Tom Graves of Georgia and Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina. When one takes an objective look at these bills compared to the current top-down system, it’s a no-brainer. Devolution brings more efficiency and accountability to the process, thus saving taxpayers more money. The status quo, even without earmarks, leaves power-hungry politicians and Washington bureaucrats in charge.
House Speaker John Boehner and other supporters of the 2012 Highway bill claim that devolution takes time, and that this Highway Bill is a step in the right direction. This is standard politician-speak for slowing down the reform agenda so that business-as-usual can resume sometime in the near future when nobody is looking.
The time for reform is now. Members of Congress committed to reducing the size and scope of the federal government shouldn’t vote for another Highway Bill unless it begins the devolution process back to the states.
Andy Roth is the Club for Growth’s vice president of government affairs.
