In Part V, we mentioned some problems in deciding how to fund future highway spending. Normally, fuel taxes make up the biggest portion for budgets and spending. Yet, fuel taxes have been decreasing since 2007. So, the never-ending problem remains: do you raise taxes or cut spending or both?
There is another aspect in deciding how to fund spending. There is the controversy between federal or state responsibility. Who should possess the bulk of the responsibility for our highways and byways?
Today, the House Republicans are proposing a spending program of about $260 billion over the next 4 ½ years. There are portions of the bill which will certainly face opposition such as giving the states greater power than the feds over how the money will be spent.
There is also a gap between projected fuel tax receipts and proposed expenditures. Part of the solution provided by the House Republicans is to expand oil and natural gas drilling.
There is such a backlog of needed repairs and maintenance in addition to maintaining current needs that something bold is needed. New revenue sources seem to be a logical option. Rather than pushing for higher taxes, House Repubs plan on sustaining the highway fund by proposing these new revenue sources.
It is further estimated that for each $1 billion in transportation related spending about 30,000 jobs are supported. You do the math. $260 billion times 30K is about 8 million jobs that are supported over a four year period.
The Democrats are working on their own version of a highway bill for spending $109 billion over the next two years. But the Dems have not given any details as of yet.
Part VII will be the final part and we will look more specifically at freight brokers.
Comments