Rebuild America Act of 2015 (S.268)

The folks at Beaver County Reds are pushing U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (S-VT) for president and his so-called Rebuild America Act (RAA) of 2015.  On his Facebook page, BCR leader Carl Davidson wrote, “THIS IS WHAT THE GOP NEOLIBERALS WANT US TO IGNORE.  Time to get serious about Bernie Sander’s $1 Trillion Infrastructure Bill that will also put a lot of people to work.”  If you don’t know what the term “neoliberal” means, don’t worry.  It’s one of those terms that tends to be user-defined and/or context-specific and thus is meaningless unless the author explains what he means.  When someone uses terms like this outside of a classroom, I find it’s usually to snow his audience and/or blur the discussion.

I’m not an expert at reading/interpreting legislation, so keep that in mind as you read the following.  Here’s what comrade Sanders and the folks at BCR “WANT US TO IGNORE” about the RAA.

First, surprise!  The “$1 Trillion Infrastructure Bill” appears to add up to $2,000,000,000,000 ($2 trillion)!  There is $1,550,000,000,000 ($1.55 trillion) over five years ($310 billion per year for fiscal years 2015 through 2019) plus another $450 billion for the following three years ($150 billion per year).  From what I can tell, half of the $2 trillion comes from federal spending and the other half comes from state/local spending.  A project gets federal funding only when matched by state/local funding.

Second, as of this writing, you won’t be surprised to learn the RAA ducks the issue of funding.  That is, nowhere in its text does the RAA say from where the federal dollars should come.  For each category of spending, the RAA simply mandates the spending be “out of funds of the Treasury not otherwise appropriated.”  Since federal budgets are perennially in deficit, all “funds of the Treasury [are] otherwise appropriated.”  Likewise, state/local governments don’t have “funds … not otherwise appropriated.”  Therefore, the RAA requires more deficit spending and/or more taxes at all levels of government.  On the political circuit, comrade Sanders will likely say the funding should come from new taxes on boogeymen like “the 1%,” Wall Street, evil business, and so on.  Under no circumstances will comrade Sanders concede the funding would come from you and me.  The RAA is just what we need, some combination of $2 trillion of new debt and taxes.

Third, as follows from the first two items, the RAA spends federal tax dollars on state and local projects.  Only state/local taxpayers should pay for state/local projects.  Doing otherwise fosters wasteful spending via the erroneous notion that someone else is paying for a project.  The RAA also spends tax dollars on what are private responsibilities, such as the electricity infrastructure and broadband Internet service.

Fourth, though we’re told the RAA “will also put a lot of people to work,” it provides no estimate of additional employment, not even a typical made-up figure.

Fifth, RAA creates another “a wholly owned Government corporation”, the National Infrastructure Bank (NIB).  “The Bank shall have a Board of Directors consisting of 5 members appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.”  One of our biggest problems is we have too many government entities that can write their own rules and regulations without involving the governor/president and the legislature.  We don’t need another.

Finally, at least when it comes to roads and bridges, we could have the needed funding if “some people” didn’t get greedy.  I believe while many (most?) drivers would support more taxes/tolls for bridge/road maintenance, they oppose most plans because some of the increased taxes/tolls would be used to give even more subsidies to government-run, taxpayer-funded mass transit systems.  The same holds true for placing tolls on limited-access highways, like interstates.  I-80 is an example.  You may recall the U.S. DOT likely would have approved tolling I-80 as long as the tolls would have been used only for the “care and feeding” of I-80 as required by federal law.  That wasn’t enough for PA, however.  The Governor (Rendell), General Assembly, and others wanted I-80 tolls to be used to transfer wealth from I-80 drivers to users of other roads and government-owned and -run bus systems like BCTA and PAT.  This is what happens with PA Turnpike tolls, possible only because the Turnpike predated its designation as part of I-76.

I’ve written previously I’m all for placing tolls on all limited access highways where practical.  We’d use the toll revenue collected for a road or bridge only for the “care and feeding” of that road or bridge, however.  For example, tolls collected on the Monaca-Rochester Bridge could not be used for the Vanport Bridge.  This isn’t farfetched.  Those of us old enough to remember will recall the Monaca-East Rochester Bridge was tolled from its opening in 1959 until 1973.  As was the case with I-80, however, too many politicians would want tolls to be used to transfer wealth to users of other bridges/roads and government-owned and run bus systems like BCTA and PAT.  I have nothing against mass transit customers, but why should I have to help pay for their ticket?  They don’t help pay for my car, gasoline, insurance, etc.

As for our lock and dam system, logically the vast majority of funding should come from user fees and/or taxes paid by commercial and recreational users of the rivers as well as river towns protected by the system.  What happens now (at least as of 2013) is maintenance funds come about 50% from the Army Corps of Engineers (that is, federal taxpayers via a budget approved by Congress) and 50% from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund (about $100 million/year funded by a 20-cents-per-gallon tax on diesel fuel used by the barge industry).

As I’ve written previously, here’s a radical – and probably “mean-spirited” – idea.  Whether we live in urban, suburban, or rural areas, why don’t we all just pay our own way for education, law enforcement, transportation, et cetera?  As individuals we must be willing to pay for our individual life and lifestyle choices out of our own pockets.  Nothing good comes from trying to pick another taxpayer’s pocket.