President
Bush has experienced more than his share of Churchillian moments
leading America in the war on terror. Now, with rising concern over
the growth in the size and scope of the federal government, his
first Churchillian moment on domestic policy appears close at
hand.
I'm referring to the oversized federal transportation bills now
rumbling through the House and Senate, and the president's
principled stand to restrain them.
It won't be easy. Highway spending is just one component of our $2
trillion federal budget, but it's probably the area with the
greatest waste. Highway bills are notorious for their pork-barrel
spending, since politicians love to use road-building projects to
"create" jobs and show voters they're "getting something done" in
their district.
Congress is considering three competing proposals. President Bush's
plan would boost highway spending by a generous 21 percent.
Weighing in at $257 billion over six years, the president's plan
(known as SAFETEA) is no bargain; it would waste tens of billions
of dollars. But it's far better than what has been proposed in the
House and the Senate.
The president wants to tie future surface transportation spending
to the fuel-tax revenues generated by the gas tax of 18.4 cents per
gallon. That means his program would spend about $20 billion more
than it receives in dedicated taxes. But SAFETEA also would
introduce some much-needed reforms.
For the first time, many interstate highways would be able to use
tolls. New capacity would be created through toll-express lanes.
Plus, the bill would allow partnerships with private-sector
investors and new forms of tax-exempt financing. These tools would
bring in tens of billions of dollars, which then could be targeted
to America's most congested roads.
The Senate proposal tips the scales at $318 billion over the six
years. That's about $80 billion more than federal fuel taxes are
estimated to provide over that period.
On the plus side, the Senate proposal does include innovative tools
similar to the president's, such as allowing additional tolls on
interstates under certain conditions and building lanes financed by
tolls.
The House transportation bill, by contrast, crushes the scales at
an astounding $375 billion. Worse, it completely lacks
innovation.
Put forward by Rep. Don Young, Alaska Republican, and ranking
member James Oberstar, Minnesota Democrat, this proposal would cost
taxpayers $119 billion more than SAFETEA. Its sponsors would make
up the difference by raising the federal fuel tax 43 percent
between now and 2009.
This isn't some arcane debate over transportation policy. If the
big spenders prevail, you can forget about Congress adopting the
president's budget plan (which would all but freeze most
discretionary spending), cutting programs slated for elimination in
the president's budget, passing a budget reform bill that favors
taxpayers, or confronting the burgeoning entitlement programs that
will hobble future generations of taxpayers.
It's critical that President Bush draw a firm line on spending.
Congress seems incapable of resisting the urge to spend taxpayers'
money. By vetoing a bloated transportation bill, Mr. Bush would
prove he intends to get federal spending under control.
Now for that Churchillian moment: In a letter to Senate Majority
Leader Bill Frist, two Cabinet secretaries, Treasury's John Snow
and Transportation's Norm Mineta, set forth a clear veto threat on
the highway legislation. They laid out three criteria that would
allow the president to sign such legislation:
Transportation spending shouldn't rely on "an increase in the gas
tax or other federal taxes."
The federal government should resist the temptation to use creative
financing techniques to pay for new highways, such as "bonding or
other mechanisms that conceal the true cost to federal
taxpayers."
Highway spending should be paid for from the highway trust fund,
not the general fund.
Some on Capitol Hill have read these words to mean some ways to
enhance federal revenues are still OK and won't call forth the veto
pen.
Wrong. The president's position doesn't allow for any "fuzzy"
congressional math. Here's hoping the spirit of one of the great
British prime ministers has seeped into the veins of our leaders at
both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, and that they'll remember it's
the taxpayers who occupy the most prominent position at this
negotiating table.
First appeared in the Washington Times