As always, Ken Orski's astute observations and analyses of the federal budgeting process are invaluable.
Whatever Ken's ideological proclivities, his descriptions are singularly objective, reasonable and balanced. As much as we would wish for there to be an absolute and unambiguous termination of high-speed rail funding from Washington, that prospect is still far from clear, even among the Republican House majority.
However, I'd rather hear the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, unvarnished. Ken tells us what ought to happen regarding expansive infrastructure projects such as HSR, not what will happen.
We've said many times that while we cannot rely on our local or even state political machinery to bring the HSR project to termination, we therefore look to the House majority to take control of this program at the federal level and terminate it, cutting off funding for the California project in the process.
I'm not looking for safety nets; I'm looking for us not to jump in the first place.
Vol. 22, No. 17
June 17, 2011
Adjusting to Fiscal and Political Realities
While we do not know the exact level of funding the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee will propose in its draft legislation expected to be released in the second week of July, we do know it is going to be far less than the current (FY 2010) funding of $41 billion for highways and $11 billion for transit. What will be the consequences?
That the Federal Government "must learn to live within its means" has become the fiscal conservatives’ elliptical way of stating their opposition to deficit financing. This principle found its way into the House T&I Committee’s "Views and Estimates for Fiscal Year 2012" report and has been reaffirmed since in countless statements and briefings by congressional sources.
The practical implications of this policy for the federal-aid transportation program are unambiguous: federal spending in FY 2012 and beyond will be limited to tax receipts flowing into the Highway Trust Fund. Those revenues (plus interest) will amount to an estimated $36.9 billion in 2011 according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)— $31.8 billion will be credited to the Highway Account and $5.1 billion to the Transit Account.
Over the next ten years, CBO estimates these revenues will grow at an average rate of a little more than one percent per year, largely reflecting expected growth in motor fuel consumption. ("The Highway Trust Fund and Paying for Highways," testimony of Joseph Kile, Asst. Director of CBO, before the Senate Finance Committee, May 17, 2011).
Thus, over a six-year period, 2012-2017, tax receipts credited to the Highway Trust Fund (plus interest) could be expected to amount to approximately $230 billion— about the same sum as the 5-year SAFETEA-LU authorization of $238.5 billion.
Limiting future spending to tax revenues flowing into the Highway Trust Fund will cause a significant drop from the current funding level. However, current spending has been inflated by a massive injection of stimulus funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009— a total of $48 billion ($27.5 billion for highways, $6.8 billion for transit and $8 billion for high-speed rail). The stimulus almost doubled the annual amount of funding available for transportation, making baseline comparisons misleading.
A more accurate measure would be to compare the expected FY 2012 funding with pre-stimulus funding levels. In this comparison, the highway program would suffer a drop of 17% — from an average of $38.6 billion/year during SAFETEA-LU (FY 2005-2009) to $32 billion/year in FY 2012 and slightly more in subsequent years. (SAFETEA-LU data from
www.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/safetea-lu_authorizations.pdf , 4/6/2006) (Adding the estimated unspent HTF funds remaining at the end of Fiscal Year 2011, would enable the annual highway allocation to be raised to $36 billion — a drop of only seven percent from the SAFETEA-LU level).
Such reduction, while not insignificant, would not be catastrophic. The cut in spending could be absorbed by streamlining and narrowing the scope of the federal-aid program. Its primary mission would need to be refocused on traditional "core" highway and transit programs and on keeping existing transportation assets in a state of good repair. Discretionary awards such as the TIGER and high-speed rail grants would have to be eliminated.
Proposals for major infrastructure funding (such as envisioned through an Infrastructure Bank) would have to be dropped. So would programs that are deemed of little national significance or that do not serve the national need — such as various "transportation enhancements," set-asides, and "livability" projects that cater to narrow constituencies. Most of these Trust Fund "hitchikers," as Sen. James Inhofe calls them, will have to be handed off to state and local governments.
Will states and local governments be willing and able to pick up the slack? Some will, others may not. Many states and localities have been willing to approve significant transportation improvement programs– provided the objectives are clearly spelled out. In fact, voters approved 77 percent of local transportation ballot measures in 2010, according to the Center for Transportation Excellence.
While the above prospect may sound alarming when set against the current inflated spending levels distorted by the stimulus spike, many fiscal conservatives view it as an opportunity to return the federal-aid program to its original roots. Greater spending discipline would refocus the federal mission on legitimate federal objectives, restore the program’s lost meaning and sense of purpose, and give states and localities more voice and responsibility in managing their transportation future.
Let us also not forget that the federal contribution constitutes only about 25% of the nation's total surface transportation budget (40% of the capital budget). The rest is provided by state and local governments. The nation would still be spending more than $150 billion/year to preserve and improve our highways, bridges and transit systems— $50 billion short of the level recommended by the National Transportation Policy and Revenue Commission, but still a respectable level of funding.
What about major new infrastructure investments? Undoubtedly, they will be necessary in the long run because of the need to replace aging facilities and to accommodate future growth in population. But major capital expenditures can be, and will need to be deferred for a few years ---until after the recession has ended, the economy has started growing again and the federal budget deficit has been reined in. At that more distant moment in time, perhaps toward the end of this decade, the nation might be able to resume investing in new infrastructure and embark on a new series of "bold endeavors" — major capital additions to the nation’s highways, bridges and rail systems. For now, prudence, good judgment and the compelling need to rein in the budget deficit, dictate that government should live within its means. And that means spending no more than what we pay into the Trust Fund.