"I am proud to support the passage of the Surface Transportation Reauthorization and Reform Act. This multi-year, paid-for surface transportation reauthorization -- which makes meaningful reforms to process, safety, and innovation -- provides the long-term certainty that is essential for our nation's transportation infrastructure."
U.S. Rep. Steve Womack
The U.S. House of Representative finally passed a Surface Transportation Reauthorization and Reform Act (H.R. 3763) as an amendment to the DRIVE Act (H.R. 22). They're proud of it. The majority of us shouldn't be.
In typical same-old-same-old politics, the House used smoke and mirrors to produce a bill funded by reserves destined to the Federal Reserve for its rainy day fund, according to articles I read recently. The House could have taken the money from the $12 trillion the Fed pays to banks, but rather than making the bankers and big donors mad, they choose to pick on the Fed.
According to the Associated Press, banks currently receive a guaranteed 6 percent dividend on the stock they are required to buy in the 12 regional Federal Reserve banks. A provision in the Senate's highway bill would cut the dividend to 1.5 percent for banks with assets of more than $1 billion, raising $17 billion to spend on highway and transit programs over the coming three years.
Not surprisingly, big banks like Bank of America and Citigroup went into lobbying overdrive and killed the provision in the House, which instead tapped into the Fed's surplus fund, generated by profits on its investments, according to the AP. It's a gimmick because the Fed-related "savings" are gained simply by shifting a pot of money around in the budget, which has no impact on the deficit while the additional highway spending most certainly will.
I guess we all should be thankful House members didn't raise the federal gasoline tax. But -- wait a minute -- that's exactly what they should have done.
Citizens talk so much about how politicians are always robbing this or robbing that instead of just being straight forward about where it gets the funding to pay for projects. Then, those same citizens don't get upset when Congress pulls the funding shenanigans that it just got finished doing with the highway bill.
Unfortunately, this highway bill basically keeps the Federal Highway Trust Fund going. It doesn't address the crumbling infrastructure that the United States is facing -- miles and miles of roads need to built or rebuilt, not to mention the thousands of bridges that are bordering on being unsafe.
I don't have a feeling one way or the other about the Keystone Pipeline that President Obama said recently wouldn't be built under his administration.
I can see the need to build a pipeline to transport Canadian oil from its point of origin to the U.S. Gulf Coast. I guess that would be a better option for the environment thancontinually running train-car loads of oil through the center of many towns in the U.S. I also can understand the environmental impact if the pipeline breaks anywhere along its couple-of-thousand-mile route.
One thing I know is that the pipeline was not a long-term jobs bill like the proponents keep talking about. Sure the pipeline will create thousands of construction jobs in the short-term, but the pipeline company will not be employing a large number of workers to keep it running.
On the other hand, a better highway bill that pushed more infrastructure work would have been a strong jobs bill and, more importantly, it would make our roads, highways and bridges safer. After all, better roads and bridges and their ability to carry goods to and from markets creates and strengthens employment. And it should have been done in 2009-10 when so many were out of work.
So before we let the members of Congress break their arms patting themselves on the back over this highway bill, we should be asking more about the financial arrangements and what the real impact will be on the Federal Reserve and its ability to aid banks during the next recession.
As usual it's easier to raid someone else's reserves than to implement a worthy tax hike to adequately fund highways and bridges into the future. It's just business as usual in Washington.
------
I also found it interesting the political brouhaha created by the recent bipartisan debt and budget deal that President Obama signed into law. It seems to contain $3 billion in cuts to the federal crop insurance program by cutting some of the government subsidies to crop insurance companies and limiting profits for the companies. The crux of all that, according to farm-state lawmakers, is that it will leave farmers with fewer options if the cuts force more companies out of business.
Crying the most is Tea Party member and U.S. Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kan., who says the farmers in his district will be severely impacted. This coming from a guy who thinks the size of government is too big. I guess the axiom is true about who's ox is being gored.
Obviously, Huelskamp wants it both ways. And he may get it because The Associated Press reports that GOP leaders have promised that the crop insurance cuts will be restored next month. I wonder if the funds for that will come from the funds paid to bankers in the aforementioned article.
***
Throne is the managing editor of The Weekly Vista.
Community on 11/18/2015