Will Federal Highway Construction Dollars Ever Come Back?

One of the many political issues in Congress which presently suffers from a dearth of press coverage amid the toxic debates over Medicare cuts, tax increases, budget slashing and the deficit ceiling, is the question of long term reauthorization of the Federal Highway Trust Fund. However, work on the Highway Trust Fund issue does continue in Washington. Joseph Kile, CBO’s Assistant Director for Microeconomic Studies, testified recently before Max Baucus’ Senate Committee on Finance about the status of the Highway Trust Fund. The picture Kile painted was not a particularly pretty one.

In his Finance Committee testimony, Kile outlined four potential scenarios for long term Highway Trust Fund reauthorization legislation: 1) funding highway projects for which benefits exceed costs; 2) spending enough to maintain highway performance; 3) maintaining current spending levels adjusted for inflation; or 4) limiting spending to revenues raised by existing motor fuel taxes.

Option 1) Funding projects where benefits exceed costs.

This option would involve significant increases from current spending levels, estimated at $209 billion per year from federal, state and local governments. If the current proportion of federal funding is maintained, this would mean Federal Highway Trust Fund annual expenditures would increase from the current level of $45 billion per year up to $94 billion per year. A somewhat less generous approach would involve setting a minimum threshold for the cost/benefit ratio. If federal funding were restricted to those projects for which benefits exceed costs by at least 20%, total government funding from federal state and local governments would drop to $188 billion per year, with the Federal Highway Trust Fund share decreasing to $84.5 billion per year. If the funding threshold were increased to 150% of costs, project funding would drop to $165 billion per year, and the federal share would drop to $74.2 billion per year.

Option 2) Spending at levels to maintain current highway performance.

Spending levels designed to merely preserve current average travel delays and pavement quality on federal highways would require all levels of government to spend a combined $127 billion per year, with the Federal Highway Trust Fund share approximating $57 billion, an increase of $12 billion above current Trust Fund spending levels.

Option 3) Maintaining current spending levels adjusted for inflation.

Current Highway Trust Fund spending levels of $45 billion per year, adjusted for inflation in construction costs, will exceed the revenues produced by current federal motor fuel taxes by $2.5 billion in fiscal 2011, and by $3.2 billion in 2012. Since the Highway Trust Fund is not permitted to go into a deficit position, even the modest option of maintaining current spending levels will require either annual make up appropriations from general revenues, an increase in federal motor fuel taxes, or additional user fees in the form of tolls or vehicle miles traveled taxes.

Option 4) Limiting spending to revenue from existing motor fuel taxes.

Limiting Highway Trust Fund spending to an amount equal to revenues produced by existing federal motor fuel taxes would result in an immediate reduction in federal highway expenditures from the current $45 billion per year down to about $30 billion per year. Funding at this level would increase deferred road maintenance and reduce new road and transit construction, resulting in accelerated crumbling of an already overstressed national transportation infrastructure.

Which Way Is Congress Headed?

Even if the Republican dominated House of Representatives would pass significant motor fuel tax increases together with new tolls or vehicle miles traveled taxes, the nearly universal inability of state and local governments to raise revenues to produce the required additional matching funds makes it very unlikely that we will see the federal transportation dollars represented by either option 1) or option 2) enacted in a long term Highway Trust Fund reauthorization measure in the foreseeable future. For the same reason, option 3) is less than likely since it would also require more state and local matching appropriations, though not quite at the astronomical levels represented by options 1) and 2). Even should a vehicle miles traveled tax be enacted to supplement revenue from motor fuel levies, the long lead time for adoption of the in vehicle metering technology required to assess and collect the new tax, together with the anticipated privacy objections to letting the federal government have a detailed GPS record of everyone’s minute by minute vehicle travel movements, will likely delay options 1), 2), and 3) for many years to come.

This makes option 4), an immediate one third reduction in Federal Highway Trust Fund expenditures, seem to be the most likely result in any long term Highway Trust Fund reauthorization measure coming out of the 112th Congress. Of course, the fifth alternative, unmentioned in Kile’s Committee testimony, is that Congress continues to limp along with quarterly or semi-annual highway trust fund reauthorizations, as it has for the last few years, awaiting a game changing House election for the enactment of any long term reauthorization legislation. So, will federal highway construction dollars ever come back? As I see it, not any time soon.

Congress Takes A Machete To The Construction Industry

Voters, politicians and pundits from both ends of the political spectrum are busy praising the fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution agreed to in Congress last week to avoid a shutdown of the federal government. If you ever wore a hard hat, you should be weeping and gnashing your teeth!

The hastily slapped together last second agreement slashed $28 billion from funding levels for fiscal year 2010. Over $17.1 billion of those cuts come directly at the expense of the construction segment of the American economy. This bill is a construction job killer as deadly as though the Congressional intent was to permanently demobilize that entire sector of American productivity. Now that the detailed list of $28 billion in cuts has been released, it is clear that $17,187,000,000.00, or 61.38%, are at the expense of the construction industry.


It seems there was not a single staffer in the legislative or the executive branches of our national government in Washington who was assigned to look at the issue of the impact this politically expedient compromise would have on various facets of either the American economy or the recovery which is still in its infancy. While the focus of the conversation was on politically divisive “issue riders” which nearly brought Washington D. C. to a grinding halt, and whether the burden of federal debt reduction should be fastened onto the shoulders of the poor, who fear program reductions, or the rich, who fear tax increases, nobody was looking at the impact this bill will have on the unemployed middle class construction worker, whose hopes of returning to work any time soon are dashed month after month by the folks wearing neckties in the halls of Congress, who were assured of a paycheck even had the government shutdown materialized.

Whatever your political leanings, it would be difficult to fashion a cogent argument for placing well over half the burden of federal budget cuts on a single segment of American industry which represents only about 5% of our domestic economy.

Biggert Continues Her Assault On The Construction Industry

Continuing her direct attack against any potential for recovery of new housing construction in America any time soon, 13th District Republican Representative Judy Biggert succeeded this morning in securing House passage of the fourth in a series of separate bills she cosponsored, terminating programs which provide relief to homeowners plagued by the economic crisis. Biggert is a cosponsor of HR 830, the FHA Refinance Program Termination Act, and HR 836, the Emergency Mortgage Relief Termination Act, passed by the House and sent to the Senate Banking Committee March 14, as well as HR 861, the Neighborhood Stabilization Program Termination Act, passed in the House March 17 and sent to the Senate Banking Committee. This morning the House also passed HR 839, the Home Affordable Modification Program Termination Act, cosponsored by Biggert, which will go to the same Senate Banking Committee.

Under Biggert’s leadership, the House has now succeeded in pushing through bills to completely gut all the programs in the Obama Administration stimulus legislation which gave some hope of stabilizing the tottering housing market, and stemming the bleeding in the housing start statistics so critical to recovery of jobs and activity in the construction industry. The fate of these critical programs is now in the hands of the 10 Republican, 12 Democrat Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs. The Democratic members are Chairman Tim Johnson of South Dakota, and Senators Jack Reed of Rhode Island, Charles Schumer of New York, Robert Mendez of New Jersey, Daniel Akaka of Hawaii, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Jon Tester of Montana, Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, Mark Warner of Virginia, Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Michael Bennet of Colorado and Kay Hagan of North Carolina. Republicans serving on the committee include Ranking Member Richard Shelby of Alabama, and Senators Mark Crapo of Idaho, Bob Corker of Tennessee, Jim DeMint of South Carolina, David Vitter of Louisiana, Mike Johanns of Nebraska, Patrick Tooney of Pennsylvania, Mark Kirk of Illinois, Jerry Moran of Kansas, and Roger Wicker of Mississippi.

While pundits predict all four bills will die in the Senate, or be vetoed by President Obama in the unlikely event they do pass, it is incumbent on every voter whose economic progress depends in any way on recovery of the construction segment of our economy to get in touch with the members of the Senate Banking Committee and let them know how important it is to construction companies and construction workers to see that this destructive legislation never reaches the Senate floor.

U. S. House Deals Construction A One/Two Punch

Last week the U. S. House of Representatives passed, and sent across the capitol to the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, two unheralded pieces of legislation which represent direct attacks on the potential for economic recovery in the construction industry and the U. S. housing market: HR 830, passed March 14, would terminate the FHA Refinance Program; and HR 861, passed March 17, would terminate the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. The two programs on the Republican Party death list were part of the stimulus package of legislation aimed at assisting homeowners, whose house values fell below the principal balances on their home mortgages, refinance their loans, and assisting neighborhoods with large numbers of foreclosed homes avoid the urban blight associated with a situation where many homes in the same area stand vacant and unmaintained.

The fate of these two programs is now in the hands of the 10 Republican, 12 Democrat Senate Committee. The Democratic members are Chairman Tim Johnson of South Dakota, and Senators Jack Reed of Rhode Island, Charles Schumer of New York, Robert Mendez of New Jersey, Daniel Akaka of Hawaii, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Jon Tester of Montana, Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, Mark Warner of Virginia, Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Michael Bennet of Colorado and Kay Hagan of North Carolina. Republicans serving on the committee include Ranking Member Richard Shelby of Alabama, and Senators Mark Crapo of Idaho, Bob Corker of Tennessee, Jim DeMint of South Carolina, David Vitter of Louisiana, Mike Johanns of Nebraska, Patrick Tooney of Pennsylvania, Mark Kirk of Illinois, Jerry Moran of Kansas, and Roger Wicker of Mississippi.

Termination of these two federal programs will be like a knee to the groin of an already prostrate residential construction industry in the United States. Without the economic support from the federal dollars these two significant programs provide, housing starts, already on a steep slalom down the mountain, will just turn their tips into the fall line. Seems like the Republican Senators and Congressmen favoring these bills, who already own their homes, want to destroy the American Dream for anyone in the middle class who still rents housing. If your business depends on housing construction for any part of its revenue, you should write your elected representatives on the Senate Banking Committee and point out the folly passage of either one of these proposed laws would represent.

Goldilocks And The Obama Budget

Today the Obama administration sent the House a $3.73 trillion budget proposal which would give the United States a first ever four consecutive year run of trillion plus deficits. Like Goldilocks and the beds in the three bears’ house, Congressional Republicans characterize the administration’s proposed spending cuts as too soft, Congressional Democrats say they are too hard, and the Obama White House says they are just right. By the time appropriations legislation passes through the Capitol, however, it won’t likely look like a bed at all. The White House proposal falls far short of Obama’s blue ribbon deficit commission’s recommendations for a $4 trillion deficit reduction.

The Obama budget proposal goes nowhere near the entitlement “third rail” of electoral politics. And, it contains a mixed bag of the bitter and the sweet for the construction sector of our economy. On the positive side, Obama proposes doubling the nation’s share of clean energy electric power by 2035; building high speed internet connections to reach 98% of American homes and businesses; $328 billion in additional funding for transportation infrastructure construction, from sources other than motor fuel taxes; and dropping cap and trade taxes on greenhouse gas emissions. In the negative ledger column, the budget would eliminate home mortgage interest deductions for households with income more than $250,000; $1 billion reduction in grants for airport construction; and another billion dollars cut from water treatment and other infrastructure construction programs.

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R. Wis.) is expected to unveil an alternative budget in April that will take a meat axe to entitlement spending. House Budget Committee Ranking Member Chris Van Hollen (D. Md.) defended the administration’s proposal: “Compared to the slash and burn Republican approach, [the administration’s] budget positions the president as offering a responsible approach to deficit reduction.

Housing Boom’s Walls of Jericho

The housing boom during the first half of the last decade added over 10 million apartments, condominiums and homes to the U. S. housing stock. Now, however, just as the construction industry’s economic recovery is choking on the glut of foreclosed and unsold housing units, the prospect of any recovery for housing construction is further dampened by the tumbling of the walls of Jericho hastily erected and poorly fabricated during the overbuilt, easy money years of 2000 through 2005.

Three of Illinois’ most active home builders – Pulte, D. R. Horton and Lennar – are currently plagued by the financial fallout from a doubling of the rate of defects per new housing unit during 2000 through 2005, compared to the immediately previous six year period, according to estimates from the International Association of Certified Home Inspectors. Adding these woes to the ongoing multistate litigation over problems resulting from use of corrosive Chinese drywall products means the home building sector of the economy is facing a liability headache so tall even Superman couldn’t leap it in a single bound.

Pulte and D. R. Horton are the nation’s two largest home builders. In the third quarter, Pulte recorded a one time expense of $272.2 million – 25% of Pulte’s third quarter revenue – for increased reserves to cover losses for warranty repairs on homes built over the past 10 years. Similarly, Horton states its net liabilities for construction defect claims as of September 30, 2010, at $319.8 million, more than doubling the liability reserve Horton stated on September 30, 2003. Pulte CEO Richard J. Dugas told securities analysts that the huge increase in defects reserves “was completely unforeseen.” The housing sector issues, and corporate accounting for burgeoning liabilities, bother Towers Watson actuary Ron Kozlowski. “Their liabilities are underfunded,” Kozlowski contends. He remarks that home builders “have their heads in the sand.”

Meanwhile, 13 customers who bought new homes from Lennar in Hutto Parke, a subdivision of an old cotton plantation 30 minutes outside Austin, Texas, are suing for fractured foundations, drooping ceilings and sagging fences because, they contend, the homes were put up on unstable soil. Lennar has already settled claims by 221 of the 443 homebuyers in Hutto Parke.

In today’s liability insurance market of ever tightening claims made policy forms, little if any of these claims asserted against housing contractors will be covered by any sort of insurance, and the builders will have to dig deep into shareholder pockets to pay the resulting attorney fees and costs of litigation, as well as the customer recoveries against them. As if the housing sector didn’t have enough problems getting out of the starting blocks and running the high hurdles toward economic recovery.

Illinois Tax Hikes Driving Business Investment Out Of State

Knowledgeable observers predicted early in this legislative session that a major hike in state taxes would drive business investment out of state, and developments in neighboring states are already proving them correct. For example, 112 commercial and industrial construction projects worth $8.9 billion are already underway in 2011 just across the lake in Michigan.

The electric power industry in Michigan leads the way with 37 projects totaling $5.2 billion, representing 58% of new industrial construction investment in Michigan for 2011. The largest single power industry project in Michigan is the 765 KV Lower Peninsula Transmission Line, a 700 mile overhead extra high voltage transmission line extending into Ohio. American Electric Power Company will commence construction of this project this summer.

General industrial manufacturing construction, including auto industry plant expansions, accounts for 20 projects worth $1.4 billion, followed by 21 pharmaceutical and biotechnology investments totaling $467 million.

Illinois could have benefited greatly from the jobs created by this construction investment, as well as the new jobs in the completed or expanded facilities. Our state economy desperately needs new high tech jobs, but the income tax increase enacted by our legislature and signed by our governor is driving the money, construction jobs and manufacturing jobs across the lake.