Federal highway system needs midlife correction

Federal highway system needs midlife correction
By: U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint

May 2nd, 2006 - The Greenville News

This year we celebrate the 50th birthday of our Interstate Highway System. When President Eisenhower envisioned a national system of interstate highways, his general's mind was understandably frustrated by the many weeks it took to travel from "sea to shining sea." Now, with an Interstate Highway System that is complete, it is hard to imagine life without this vital network that weaves America together into a seamless tapestry of commerce and vacation travel.

But now our federal highway program is facing a mid-life crisis, having fallen victim to special interest carve-outs which have left the program with scattered priorities that lack a clear, unified mission. Currently, gas taxes the federal government takes from the states -- funds that are supposedly designated for highway maintenance -- are instead used to fund a congressional earmark feeding-frenzy. From "bridges to nowhere" to bike paths and walking trails, fewer of these funds are actually being spent to build critical infrastructure and instead appear as pork-barrel spending for politicians' pet projects.

Congress has become addicted to this broken system and congressmen and senators are forced to play along or allow their states to lose out on vital funds. We decry run-away government spending, all the while basking in the kudos received while announcing that we've "brought home the bacon" as we travel the ribbon-cutting circuit. We consistently trump the on-the-ground assessments of community leaders, instead making cities and counties bend over backwards to find ways to target their funding requests to fit whatever new program Washington has determined is a top priority. And many communities spend even more money to hire expensive lobbyists, hoping to get some of their tax dollars back!

To further complicate the problem, many states continue to see their gas tax dollars go to fund roads in other regions due to outdated funding formulas. While we in South Carolina, as a "donor" state, had to fight to increase our rate of return from 78 cents to 92 cents for each gas tax dollar we sent to Washington, "donee" states, especially in the northern and western parts of the nation, continued to enjoy anywhere from a 100 to 600 percent return on the same money.

The current system that allows Congress to decide where to build neighborhood sidewalks and countless other local projects is failing taxpayers. I believe, however, that we can have a highway program that addresses infrastructure needs while returning dollars and decisions to the state and local communities where they belong.

Funding the up-keep of the Interstate Highway System is a clear constitutionally supported role that the federal government must maintain. It also makes perfect sense for Washington to continue to provide for roads on federally owned land, like in our national parks. However, the federal role should stop there. South Carolinians have the best understanding of needs in our state and our state officials are far better suited to address local infrastructure needs than bureaucrats or politicians in Washington.

That is why I have introduced a bill that turns back control of the majority of federal highway programs to individual states, starting in 2010 when the current highway program expires. My bill reduces the federal gas tax from 18.3 cents to 3.7 cents in order to fund only a limited number of programs that serve a clear national purpose. In return, states can adjust their state gas tax to prevent consumers from being unfairly penalized and keep most of the gas tax revenue currently being sent to Washington to pay for local priorities. This idea injects some common sense into the current pork-barrel process and eliminates the waste of both time and resources each state currently expends fighting with 49 others to get a back a fair share of their own money.

My bill also proposes new ways to finance roads and gives new authority to states that allows them to partner with other states to undertake major multi-state projects. There's no reason why a group of states shouldn't be able to find ways to work together to fund roads without interference from the federal government. The bottom line: this legislation would leave many regulatory decisions up to the states, allowing them to decide what works best within their borders as opposed to a Washington-knows-best solution that can't possibly account for local priorities.

It is high time we addressed our highway system's mid-life crisis. We must take a hard look at what is working, and more importantly, what is not. The current program doesn't make sense for the nation and it doesn't make sense for states where, pardon the pun, the rubber actually meets the road. Only by stopping Washington's micromanagement of these critical infrastructure dollars will we be able to guarantee a legacy of continued economic growth and opportunity for the next 50 years.

http://demint.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=372&Month=5&Year=2006