An article in the Salt Lake Tribune (Sept. 7, 2011) entitled “Highway bill holdup in D.C. could cost Utah 8,910 jobs”, and a subsequent editorial has me asking, what is the rest of the story? As the sage said, “when in doubt, follow the money.” So that is what I did. Here, in my opinion, is “The Rest of the Story.”
The holdup is the re-authorization of the Surface Transportation Bill, which in essence is the mechanism for taking Federal monies and using the money to pay for roads and public transportation throughout the United States. Here in Utah, this money is used for new construction and rebuilding of highways and interstates, and partial funding of TRAX and other public transportation. At risk currently are (among others) the completion of the I-15 rebuild in Utah County, the completion of the Mountain View Corridor, and the payment of work already done on other projects; including the Front-Runner system, the Mid-Jordan and West Valley TRAX lines, all of which are currently in operation. Additionally, UTA depends on $50 million in annual appropriations to fund the operation of TRAX and Front-Runner, which was approved by previous congressional actions. The President has asked for a clean extension of the Bill, (including holding the Federal tax on fuel at 18.4 cents per gallon) which has been done 7 times over the past 2 years. This would give the “SuperCommittee” time to debate how and what government spending to reduce, and revenues to increase, in order to bring our Federal Budget into balance.
So, what’s the problem? The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, chaired by John Mica (R-FL) has proposed, rather then extend the bill as requested, that a new $230 billion, 6 year extension be enacted. This would cut, by 30% annually, the amounts authorized for the program. It would also eliminate any funding for mass transit. While we may disagree about the “value” of mass transit, it cannot be argued that we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and reduce our pollution levels; both of which are addressed in part by the use of mass transit. Why would we not want to achieve these goals, which are promoted by both sides of the aisle?
The answer, again, is money. Not the spending of Federal money, but the donations to campaign funds of various politicians. Here’s the outline. (My figures are from the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org.), and are taken from the Federal Election Commission data available as of August 8, 2011.)
This House Committee consists of 33 Republicans and 26 Democrats. The fundraising of the members of this Committee follows: The Republicans collected $83,152,420 dollars from various donors; the Democrats collected $122,177,917. OK, so?
So, if you look at the industry groups that would be affected by either an increase in gas taxes, or a reduction in fuel consumption, you are drawn to three major industry groups: Agribusiness, Energy, and Transportation (as broken down by FEC data).
On the Democrats side: of the $122,177,917 in donations (yes, that is $122 MILLION) these three sectors donated $16,256,076, or 13.31% of the money raised.
The Republicans on the committee, although they raised less in total donations, fared better: the three sectors donated $21,756,523, or 26.16% of the total raised, to the members of this committee. These three industries, which have a lot at stake if the fuel tax is raised, or fuel consumption declines, made their case to the Republicans of the committee, who responded to the donations.
This brief discussion of the effects of political posturing does not begin to address the social-economic results of non-extension of the Bill; the jobs that will be lost, the businesses that will suffer the “ripple effect” of the unemployment, and the increased monies needed to fund unemployment benefits to those who will lose their jobs. It does not discuss in detail the roads and bridges that will not be repaired, nor the increase in cost to the public of mass transit.
It does bring me to some conclusions: we need aggressive campaign finance reform; we should require our politicians to be responsive to the needs of the public, not of the corporate donors; and we must have a reasoned, sound, and bi-partisan discussion of the Federal budget. All of the above having been said, I hope that the voters will let their Congressmen know how they feel about the extension of the Surface Transportation Program, as requested by the President of the United States.
Thank you for reading; if you wish to see the data I collected, email me and I will provide it. As always, comments and responses are welcome, please post them here!