Equipment World Digital Magazine
Issue link: https://read.dmtmag.com/i/473140
March 2015 | EquipmentWorld.com 78 W hen President Obama introduced his federal budget proposal in early February, construction in- dustry leaders expressed guarded optimism about his transportation infrastructure plan. It met several criteria infrastructure professionals have advocated for the past decade, including a six-year duration and substantial increases in funding levels. Just as important, the reaction to his reve- nue-raising proposals from Republican Con- gressional leaders was, pardon the double negative, not negative. In our Parliament of the Absurd, one party's "not negative" reac- tion to the other's proposal is the national equivalent of world peace. Obama's revenue plan calls for no in- crease in the fuel tax and a one-time tax levy on U.S. corporations' foreign profits. Industry sources report that the Republican leadership is mulling a range of funding solutions, including a "repatriation tax" such as the President's proposal. This may be the most promising sign yet that the country's roads and bridges and other infrastructure will finally get the investment needed to keep them efficient. If the warring parties somehow come together and pass a six-year transportation bill that secures increased federal funding for roads and bridges and other infrastruc- ture, we should celebrate it for the miracle it is. However, if it's based on a one-time revenue source, as the President is propos- ing, our celebration should be muted by the realization that this is not a long-term solution. This reality constrained the enthusiasm of construction industry leaders as they com- mented on the President's proposal. Peter Ruane, CEO of the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, praised the aggressiveness of the funding proposal but also called for the president and Con- gress to find "a permanent funding solution" for the nation's transportation networks. Bud Wright, executive director of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, praised the presi- dent's proposal as "setting the stage for a serious discussion about the next surface transportation bill," and, like Ruane, speci- fied the need to find "a long-term, sustain- able source of funding." Presumably, Ruane and Wright and other leaders are politely pointing out that Presi- dent Obama's proposal does not include a long-term funding solution. The best long-term funding solution would be the first increase in the federal fuel tax since the Bill Clinton administration. You wouldn't think a nickel-dime decision like that would make the brave leaders of the world's most self-celebrated democracy wet their pants, but it does. What's most ironic about our refusal to raise the fuel tax is that the states are doing it anyway, it's just a more patchwork proce- dure that creates border wars for retail fuel sales. The non-partisan Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy reports that six states raised fuel taxes in 2013, two more in 2014, and a dozen are "seriously considering gas tax increases in 2015." Why do states use fuel taxes to replace lost federal revenue for roads? Because the fuel tax is a user fee, the fairest, most logical way to pay for roads and bridges. You wouldn't think such a concept would frighten national leaders, but it does. final word | by Kirk Landers Dancing with the pols