The White House sent to Congress Monday a nearly half-trillion-dollar proposal for a federal highway bill, but despite bipartisan calls for additional infrastructure spending, the effort is likely to be defeated.
When Republicans took control of both chambers in January, the White House identified a long-term funding plan for crumbling roads, railways and ports as one of the few areas where Obama could get something done legislatively.
Judging from GOP reaction to the unveiling of the six-year highway blueprint, Obama overestimated his ability to win over conservatives on his payment plan.
“It’s not going anywhere,” a House GOP leadership aide told the Washington Examiner.
As the House and Senate attempt to reconcile transportation spending plans — and with the Highway Trust Fund set to expire at the end of May — the lack of consensus of how to pay for a big-ticket item may prove insurmountable.
Obama would like to pay for his proposals by taxing corporate overseas profits that companies bring back to the United States.
Republicans would prefer a broader tax reform package, which then could be used to pay for repairs and investments.
The impasse speaks to the larger standoff over how to fund government priorities, with Obama urging lawmakers to resist austerity and spend more on federal fixes, arguing that such spending would jumpstart the economy.
Both camps certainly agree that the current approach to infrastructure funding isn’t working.
“All over the country, I hear the same account: The need to repair and expand our surface transportation system has never been greater, and yet federal transportation funding has never been in such short supply,” Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said Monday, unveiling the Obama blueprint. “This is an opportunity to break away from 10 years of flat funding, not to mention these past six years in which Congress has funded transportation by passing 32 short-term measures.”
With each passing day, it becomes more likely that Congress will pass the type of short-term funding bill that Obama abhors.
And some conservatives insist the president has only himself to blame.
“The appetite for the tax isn’t there,” said Michael Sargent of the Heritage Foundation’s Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies. “Everyone is all over the place on the issue right now. The amount of uncertainty from the short-term patches is hard to overcome.”
Sargent argued that it would make more sense for the White House to overhaul how the Highway Trust Fund allocates dollars, shifting more money to road maintenance and giving states greater authority to determine how the funds are spent.
It’s also not as simple as Republican versus Democrat. The issue largely swings on the state of infrastructure in an individual lawmaker’s district.
The 18.4-cents-per-gallon gas tax, which funds the majority of government transportation projects, has much less purchasing power with the rise of fuel-efficient vehicles. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the federal gas tax would need to increase by 10-15 cents a gallon to maintain the current pace of infrastructure spending.
Increasing the gas tax is a nonstarter with Republicans, meaning lawmakers will likely have to raid other areas of the federal budget to make up for the shortfall, barring a broader legislative solution.
Obama, especially since embarrassing defeats in the November midterms, has devoted a growing amount of time to infrastructure, looking to pressure Republicans to give him a rare legislative victory.
“I’d much rather have our problems than China’s problems — that I’m confident about. On the other hand, the one thing I will say is if they need to build some stuff, they can build it,” Obama told members of the Business Roundtable in December. “And over time, that wears away our advantage competitively. It’s embarrassing. You know, you drive down the roads and you look at what they’re able to do.”
When Congress returns from its two-week Easter recess, highway funding will certainly be among its top priorities. However, those most heavily involved in the infrastructure debate aren’t optimistic about striking a major compromise.
“I’d like to tell you I’m hopeful,” said one House Democratic staffer who works extensively on transportation issues. “But that would be a lie.”
