Passenger Trains > Transportation bill passed by both houses

The House bill was passed by the Senate, and the President has said he'll sign it. The law will allow pension smoothing (a means to derive income by allowing companies to spread out payments to their pension plans), will not increase the gasoline tax, and will give the new legislature until May to do something. This legislature waited until there were just hours left in the legislative calendar.

More money to match state highway funding, mass transit, and airways.

WSJ:

>>For years, lawmakers have haggled over how to deal with annual shortfalls in highway funding. Those threaten to balloon because gas taxes haven't kept up with spending as drivers turn to more fuel-efficient cars. The federal gas tax of 18.4 cents a gallon, which helps finance the trust fund, has remained unchanged since 1993.

A group of senators had sought to force Congress to tackle the funding problem later this year and for weeks had tried to amend the House bill to authorize only $8.1 billion of spending. But even after a 66-31 Senate vote to amend the House-passed bill, House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) insisted on the original House measure, with its longer funding horizon. <<


subscription site

Does this bill provide states, such as North Carolina, with flexibility to invest in rail instead of highways?

Andy

In case someone is wondering which bill we are talking about, it is HR 5021.

What in it for Amtrak??

railcity Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What in it for Amtrak??

Nothing, but it does amend the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act:

<<
SEC. 1103. DINGELL-JOHNSON SPORT FISH RESTORATION ACT.

Section 4 of the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 777c) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by striking `2014' and inserting `2015'; and
(2) in subsection (b)(1)(A) in the first sentence by striking `2014' and inserting `2015'.
>>

I think Amtrak will be taken care of elsewhere.

This is just a bill about mostly the Highway Trust Fund which would have run out of money this month. This bill keeps it funded through 1 May 2015. The rest will likely be taken care of elsewhere either comprehensively, or as is more likely now, with last minute continuing resolutions.

Using pension-smoothing as a means to fund this, however temporarily (wanna see how temporary it really turns out to be?) is yet more example of kicking the can down the road and using fiscal gimcrackery to carry the burden.

I have heard or read absolutely zero support from commentators of any political stripe for such a move. As Lackawanna484 pointed out in a previous post in a well-turned phrase that has become a personal favorite, "these guys would suspend the law of gravity if they could". Instead of working out a solid funding mechanism, something Congress in the past did regularly on a bipartisan basis for transportation needs, they once again put on the anti-gravity boots and then flew off to take care of REAL business back home -- getting re-elected.

I am glad that something was done, and important transportation projects will continue to be funded. But the sheer irresponsibility of it all just beggars the imagination. No wonder that....no, that's enough. (At least I used the word "transportation" twice, and so technically did not violate the Prime Directive).

MC
Columbia, Missouri

ironmtn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Using pension-smoothing as a means to fund this,
> however temporarily (wanna see how temporary it
> really turns out to be?) is yet more example of
> kicking the can down the road and using fiscal
> gimcrackery to carry the burden.
>
> I have heard or read absolutely zero support from
> commentators of any political stripe for such a
> move. As Lackawanna484 pointed out in a previous
> post in a well-turned phrase that has become a
> personal favorite, "these guys would suspend the
> law of gravity if they could". Instead of working
> out a solid funding mechanism, something Congress
> in the past did regularly on a bipartisan basis
> for transportation needs, they once again put on
> the anti-gravity boots and then flew off to take
> care of REAL business back home -- getting
> re-elected.
>
> I am glad that something was done, and important
> transportation projects will continue to be
> funded. But the sheer irresponsibility of it all
> just beggars the imagination. No wonder
> that....no, that's enough. (At least I used the
> word "transportation" twice, and so technically
> did not violate the Prime Directive).
>
> MC
> Columbia, Missouri


NPR had a short piece about the gridlock in both Houses of the Congress this morning. One is paralyzed by a Speaker who can't get a significant number of his own members to vote for legislation he wants, the other house is paralyzed by a Majority Leader who won't bring sensitive votes to the floor for fear of exposing his members to election year criticism.

Rail and transportation funding isn't any different. Many of the same people who say "why not raise the gas tax" and give some of that to Amtrak are the first people to argue that taxes are too high...

I did not hear the NPR piece this morning. I may try to locate it on their site. But I did hear a piece driving home from work the day the pension-smoothing solution emerged into public awareness about a week or so ago. NPR shook its head, and then I heard other commentators in subsequent days, and of various political stripes, do the same. I have yet to encounter anyone who thinks it's a good or responsible solution.

I can't agree more on your analysis. Boehner has a fractious House to deal with. I think he actually plays a pretty good inside game, but he has fewer tools than Speakers have had in the past to bring them in line. There's little wiggle room in the budget for funding pet projects; the internet has enabled direct fundraising to a level never before possible (thus taking away some degree of dependence on party money); and the earmark process, long the pork barrel of choice for dispensing goodies in return for votes, is now greatly constrained.

Harry Reid has his majority, but if he didn't and had to deal with what Boehner does, I don't think he could do it either. You read commentary that he plays a strong inside game and is skilled at wielding the whip and counting the votes, and that his milquetoast manner belies his real skill. I am not so sure that's not just all a lot of spin. He seems to have a lot of trouble making deals and getting them to stick. And he seems incapable of finding a way to go on offense and transcend the fear of damaging a weak Obama. A really good leader would know his to do that.

The gridlock is dangerous for another reason. It creates the classic historical vacuum and the open seams that well-focused outside interests can exploit. And they are. The radical environmentalists are scoring points, for example (and as we previously discussed) on oil transportation by rail. Their sensationalism and emotionalism is winning hearts and minds. We worried last week about whether the rail industry would speak to that more publicly. But I am equally worried that the gridlock in Washington is also sacrificing ground to the radical enviros. (There, I satisfied the Prime Directive with some rail content. But in doing that, I'll note too that for me, the oil by rail debate is much more than a token).

Yup, it's a mess.

MC
Columbia, Missouri