Congressional Budget Committees have finally filled in the numbers in the 2010 budget resolutions, and sent the bills to the floors of the respective houses for debate. Although budget resolutions lack the detailed breakdown of spending that appears in appropriation bills with their attached earmarks, we can see in the differences between the House and Senate budget resolution proposals a dangerous trend for heavy civil construction over the next five years.
Both committee resolution proposals have essentially the same numbers for 2009 spending authority and actual outlays, since they include the appropriations already made in the stimulus legislation. However, the Senate version lags way behind the House version in every year 2010 through 2014 with respect to the spending Senators expect to authorize for road, bridge, railway, transit and waterway construction projects. The Senate version of the resolution cuts down the spending authority provided in the House bill by $12.9 billion for 2010, by $13.7 billion for 2011, by $14.1 billion for 2012, by $15.1 billion for 2013 and by $16.1 billion for 2014. These cuts represent a total slashing of over $72.1 billion from surface transport construction over the next five years.
Of course, as the legislative process works its way forward, the final result will likely fall somewhere between the present House and Senate versions, but it is frightening that more than $72 billion in construction appropriations is now at risk in the legislative arena.
Part of the reason for this is the way revenue has traditionally been raised to fund these transportation construction projects. In the last half century, road, transit, rail and waterway construction was primarily funded by cents per gallon taxes on the fuels burned by cars, busses, trucks, trains, ships and tugboats. For a long time, gallons of fuel burned was functionally equivalent to miles of road, rail, or water traveled, and the tax was a fair way of supporting infrastructure construction for transportation. Additional taxes, such as prorated truck license fees and highway tolls on express superhighways, also provided money for construction, maintenance and repair of transport infrastructure.
As fuel efficiency advanced, pushed by economic factors as well as government mandates, however, fuel taxes raised less and less money per mile traveled for infrastructure, and our transportation facilities began to suffer the effects of deferred maintenance. Now we face an era of shrinking revenues at the same time we have to do something about the accumulated maintenance and construction deficit.
Some congressional leaders and certain state governors have proposed taxing drivers on the basis of miles traveled, rather than just raising fuel taxes, as a way out of this mess. However, a whole new layer of bureaucracy would be required to assess and collect such a mileage tax, and public opposition to the idea is strong. President Obama at one point suggested the idea of breaking the "trust" status of the highway trust fund and instead funding transport infrastructure construction and maintenance out of general revenue, but so far that concept has not gained any traction. The fact remains that unless a new revenue source is found for supporting our transport infrastructure spending, increasing fuel efficiency and increasing the use of hybrid and electric cars will starve our road, waterway and rail systems to death. Any suggestions?
Both committee resolution proposals have essentially the same numbers for 2009 spending authority and actual outlays, since they include the appropriations already made in the stimulus legislation. However, the Senate version lags way behind the House version in every year 2010 through 2014 with respect to the spending Senators expect to authorize for road, bridge, railway, transit and waterway construction projects. The Senate version of the resolution cuts down the spending authority provided in the House bill by $12.9 billion for 2010, by $13.7 billion for 2011, by $14.1 billion for 2012, by $15.1 billion for 2013 and by $16.1 billion for 2014. These cuts represent a total slashing of over $72.1 billion from surface transport construction over the next five years.
Of course, as the legislative process works its way forward, the final result will likely fall somewhere between the present House and Senate versions, but it is frightening that more than $72 billion in construction appropriations is now at risk in the legislative arena.
Part of the reason for this is the way revenue has traditionally been raised to fund these transportation construction projects. In the last half century, road, transit, rail and waterway construction was primarily funded by cents per gallon taxes on the fuels burned by cars, busses, trucks, trains, ships and tugboats. For a long time, gallons of fuel burned was functionally equivalent to miles of road, rail, or water traveled, and the tax was a fair way of supporting infrastructure construction for transportation. Additional taxes, such as prorated truck license fees and highway tolls on express superhighways, also provided money for construction, maintenance and repair of transport infrastructure.
As fuel efficiency advanced, pushed by economic factors as well as government mandates, however, fuel taxes raised less and less money per mile traveled for infrastructure, and our transportation facilities began to suffer the effects of deferred maintenance. Now we face an era of shrinking revenues at the same time we have to do something about the accumulated maintenance and construction deficit.
Some congressional leaders and certain state governors have proposed taxing drivers on the basis of miles traveled, rather than just raising fuel taxes, as a way out of this mess. However, a whole new layer of bureaucracy would be required to assess and collect such a mileage tax, and public opposition to the idea is strong. President Obama at one point suggested the idea of breaking the "trust" status of the highway trust fund and instead funding transport infrastructure construction and maintenance out of general revenue, but so far that concept has not gained any traction. The fact remains that unless a new revenue source is found for supporting our transport infrastructure spending, increasing fuel efficiency and increasing the use of hybrid and electric cars will starve our road, waterway and rail systems to death. Any suggestions?
