This chart was included as part of a brilliant blog post by our friends at TransitLabs, which analyses the various issues surrounding the perennial shortfalls that dog the highway trust fund (aka Gas tax). Highly recommend reading the entire blog titled “Why the Trust Fund Keeps Running Out” and explore the beautiful visualizations that accompany the story.
Image courtesy: Transitlabs
Today’s White House blog post documents the revival and resurgence of the American auto industry that was once believed to be on the verge of extinction. The whole story is explained in the following three simple gifs.
Image courtesy: Whitehouse.gov
Image Courtesy: Whitehouse.gov
Image Courtesy: Whitehouse.gov
This position is located in the Innovative Program Delivery office (HIN), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Washington, D.C. The Financial Analyst will serve as a member of the TIFIA Joint Program Office (JPO), one of five teams within HIN. The ideal candidate for this position will bring specialized experience in budget and accounting to apply the principles of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (FCRA), as interpreted through guidance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to manage the TIFIA program funds appropriated by Congress. Working with the budget and accounting staff from the FHWA and the Office of the Secretary, as well as outside technical advisors, you will prepare TIFIA’s annual budget submission, calculate the subsidy cost of each TIFIA transaction, prepare apportionments, collect payments from applicants and borrowers, and ensure that all financial events are recorded properly in the program accounts. This position is being filled at the GS-11, 12 or 13 level and is located in Washington, DC. Salary range is $62,467.00 to $115,742.00 per year, based upon qualifications.
This Financial Analyst vacancy announcement can be viewed at: FHWA.HIN-2013-0002: DEU-Open to all US Citizenshttps://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/331226200 and
FHWA.HIN-2013-0004: Government Employees only https://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/331227500.
In order to be considered, please follow specific application procedures on the announcements.
Application Cut-off: Given our continuing need for professionals in this field, we will routinely review applications and refer the top candidates for potential interviews multiple times during the open period of the announcement. The first cutoff for applications is close of business November 26, 2012, 2nd cut-off is December 26, 2012 and final review occurring after January 24, 2013 (closing date).
(Source: CSPAN via Youtube)
It is amazing how passionate this man is. While making a case for the Government to act swiftly, he took chastising the TSA to a new level for its latest nightmarish handling of the new security procedures. this easily qualifies as verbal beat down. TSA has done a poor job handling this public backlash. They ought to get a new PR/Social Media/Communications team to handle this boondoggle. Poor Michael Chertoff – the former Secretary of the Dept. of Homeland Security (DHS) got a bad bruising in this verbal tirade.
(Source: Huffingtonpost; The Washington Monthly)
Let me make this clear upfront that my intention is not to make a political statement with this post. I’m simply trying to find a reason and logic (possibly seek help from others to find these elements in our society). Today’s Huff post had this article
“…On Tuesday morning, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) told the Minneapolis Star Tribune that she wants to redefine exactly what an earmark is. Specifically, she said, transportation projects should not be placed under the umbrella. Advocating for transportation projects for ones district in my mind does not equate to an earmark,” said the Minnesota Republican. “I don’t believe that building roads and bridges and interchanges should be considered an earmark… There’s a big difference between funding a tea pot museum and a bridge over a vital waterway.” The Star-Tribune notes that Bachmann “did solicit some earmarks when she first came to Congress” but “has been outspoken in pushing House Republicans to continue an earmark moratorium enacted last year.” But transportation funds are vital for job creation. And it seems likely that the reality of having a major spigot cut off is a bit frightening to even the self-proclaimed fiscal conservatives on the Hill.
Isn’t that what the White House was trying to accomplish via the Stimulus package – revitalize our nation’s infrastructure with targeted spending? Why did they take so much flak and blame for out of control spending? If such selective exclusions are to be made for one sector (i.e., transportation), why not make it possible for other sectors (i.e., agriculture, education, etc.)? Does this mean Ms. Bachmann would be supportive of building a High-speed rail network, which is identified (and funded) by the White House as an important piece of the nation’s future growth strategy, if it is funded as an earmark? Are Earmarks are bad, unless they’re going to Ms. Bachmann’s district? Cutting spending is good, except for the “legitimate projects that have to be done.”Are we missing something here?
After rejecting criticism that it is taking on too much, the Obama administration has identified one area where ambitious reforms will have to wait: overhauling the nation’s aging, congested and carbon-emitting transportation system.
It became clear at a contentious Senate hearing yesterday that the half-trillion-dollar question is how to pay for the bill. The 18.4-cent federal gas tax has not been raised since 1993, and revenue from it falls increasingly short every year because of inflation and the shift to more fuel-efficient cars.
The White House and some of its Senate allies are letting it be known, though, that this is not a discussion they want to have now, in the middle of a recession and as Washington is consumed with battles over health care and energy. Also, polls show that Americans are growing anxious about government spending.
“President Obama does have a vision for transportation. It’s not something he’s going to ignore or turn a blind eye to at all,” Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood told skeptical senators yesterday. “The timing is where we part company.”
Rep. Peter A. DeFazio (D-Ore.) is proposing that if the White House and the Senate will not consider a higher gas tax, then the bill could be paid for with a new tax on oil speculators.
Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.) said: “President Obama said to us during the campaign that we must have the fierce urgency of now. And that’s what Mr. Oberstar has done.”
Boxer agreed but said a gas tax increase now is not feasible. “I would tell you if you go out to the people of America and say that’s the solution, I don’t think they will buy it,” she said. “They’re struggling right now.”
Click here to read the entire article.
Green transportation advocates are pressing Congress to refuse any new spending that’s not tied to reform of the existing system — a call that influential senators in both parties ruled out today.
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) joined Sen. Jim Inhofe (OK), the panel’s ranking GOPer, in endorsing another 18 months of the 2005 transportation bill.
The extension, Boxer said, should be “clean as it can be, clean as a whistle … not with these policy changes, because it will in fact jeopardize a quick passage of this extension.”
Boxer’s agreement to an extension free of policy reforms appears to be an acknowledgment that Inhofe and most other GOP senators would slow down approval of the short-term transportation measure. But she faced a lone critic today in Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH), who challenged Boxer to back down from her opposition to raising the federal gas tax during an economic recession.
Voinovich reminded the Californian that she “is always talking about the environment; [drafting a new transportation bill] is going to have a huge impact on greenhouse gas emissions.” He suggested that senators “look at” the House transportation bill offered by Rep. Jim Oberstar (D-MN) and pitch the American public on an increase in the gas tax, which has remained static since 1993.
In fact, recent polling supports Voinovich’s argument, not Boxer’s. A survey released earlier this year by the advocacy group Building America’s Future found that 81 percent of Americans would pay more in federal taxes to support infrastructure investments.
But the alignment of Boxer and Inhofe, as well as Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) — whose Finance Committee must agree on a revenue source for the next transportation bill — in favor of a clean 18-month extension is enough to doom the House effort to pass a bill this year.
Click here to read the entire story.
Getting business interests to work on methods for funding a long-term transportation bill can help shift the political climate, he told Streetsblog Capitol Hill today after Senate environment committee chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) vowed to continue searching for revenue raisers that can pay for massive new legislation.
“Right now, the president is frankly worried about health care, climate change, a lot of other things [and may have said] ‘see, I don’t need another thing on my plate,'” Voinovich said.
But, he added, the White House would likely come around if the private sector — which has “been heretofore reluctant … to step up” — is willing to shoulder some of the extra tax burden needed to pay for increased infrastructure investment.
The senator suggested pushing for a transportation funding extension shorter than 18 months, “to put the pressure on to get this thing done by next year.” In response, Basso would say only that “we’re supportive of the Oberstar [House] bill moving forward.”
Click here to read the entire article.
Congressman Peter DeFazio: Make Wall Street A**holes Foot The Bill For Infrastructure (The Infrastructurist)
Politicians agree that we need to invest in our transportation infrastructure, but ask any of them how we should pay for it and you’re likely to endure an uncomfortable silence. The problem is so bad that it seems to have derailed the new transportation bill until 2011.
There is at least one guy willing to offer a serious proposal though. Instead of taxing drivers more at the pump, says Peter DeFazio, why not make those finance guys that we all hate so much pay for it?
Specifically, the Democratic congressman from Oregon wants to impose a small tax–0.02%–on oil futures contracts.
From his office: “A transaction tax on crude oil securities will close the gap in funding a twenty-first century transportation system while lowering the price of oil. This is a win/win,” DeFazio said. “If we put off this transportation authorization, we will push off needed reform. Every day we wait people will sit in traffic instead of spending time with their families, every day people are not as safe as they could be because of our crumbling infrastructure, every day our economy suffers when our products sit in traffic jams. My proposal will not cost consumers one cent but will substantially increase our investment in our transportation infrastructure.”
The only trick will be selling it. That shouldn’t be hard with the right name. “The Oil Speculator Tax,” perhaps?
*We’re using “Wall Street” generically here, btw — a lot of oil trading occurs on Chicago Mercantile
Click here to read the entire article.
Today at a hearing on the reauthorization of the transportation bill, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) made it quite clear that Congressman James Oberstar’s (D-MN) proposed legislation won’t make it through the Senate over the next few months. Ms. Boxer’s testimony indicated that she’d push for a no-changes “clean” extension of SAFETEA-LU over the next 18 months, as proposed by Secretary of Transportation of Ray LaHood. More serious reforms will have to wait. This means fewer than hoped for funds for transit and high-speed rail, as well as no substantive improvements in the manner in which federal dollars are distributed.
Congress’ problems are two fold: it has too many other projects on the near horizon and it has no consensus, even along partisan lines, on how to fund a major expansion in transportation funding. Today’s fuel tax, which provides the primary source of revenue for the Trust Fund, is out of cash and cannot fund the nation’s transportation needs alone. A relatively simple extension of SAFETEA-LU, bolstered by an infusion of general fund dollars into the Highway Trust Fund, is the easiest answer.
Mr. Oberstar has been adamant in his desire to push forward the next transportation bill now, but this hearing made clear that the Senate is not going to play along. Ms. Boxer is chair of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, and her position will effectively block Mr. Oberstar’s bill even if that legislation passes in the House. Without the support of the White House, Mr. Oberstar is loosing ground. His inability to pinpoint a stable funding source is similarly problematic.
What hasn’t been suggested, but that which I will continue to bring up, is a simple abandonment of the idea that transportation must be sponsored by its “users.” We are all beneficiaries of a strong transportation network, and filling the Trust Fund mostly with general fund sources is a viable and long-term solution that would require none of the shenanigans that currently deteriorate efforts to raise the gas tax or impose a VMT. Whether now or in 18 months, we’re going to need something better than today’s non-proposals from Ms. Boxer.
Click here to read the entire article.
Over the past week or so, there has been a pretend drama in Washington about whether we’ll be getting a giant new transportation bill in 2009. The prospect is exiciting, of course, because in addition to $500 billion in loot that would be handed out, the bill would offers tantalizing opportunities for bureaucratic and policy reform.
On Monday, perhaps the most active and powerful Congressional player in these matters, Jim Oberstar, released his long-awaited draft version of the bill and, along with his committee-mates, vowed to push forward and get it passed into law by the end of September.
Oddly, that came on the heels of the Secretary of Transportation–a man who speaks for the president–requesting that it be kicked back to 2011 and that Congress craft an 18 month extension of the present legislation to cover the country’s needs in the meantime. Clash of the titans?
Now, at a hearing today in the Senate, Barbara Boxer pretty much closed the door on the idea the bill might happen this year. As chair of the Environment and Public Works committee, she would play a leading role in sheparding the bill through the upper house. And she’s saying unequivocally that the new bill will have to wait for 2011.
She gave a very clear reason: “It’s not because we [in the Senate] have a full plate”–dealing with healthcare, climate, and financial reforms–”it’s because we have no consensus on how to fund the new bill.”
“Oberstar wants to raise the gas tax,” she said, then noted it would have to go up by a dime just meet the current shortfall in the Highway Trust Fund. She took a spin through the math of how much it would have to go up to cover the new investment he proposed in the bill. And while she neither she or her witnesses stated an exact figure, it would probably be 25 cents or so more. (The tax now stands at 18 cents per gallon.)
Click here to read the entire article.
The executive director of an influential group representing top transportation officials from around the country told a Greater Baltimore Committee summit Thursday that it is time for the United States to “grow up” and increase the federal tax on gasoline and other motor fuels.
John Horsley, executive director of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, warned that without new revenue, the U.S. transportation infrastructure faces a grim future.
“We’re in the soup,” Horsley warned the gathering of Baltimore business leaders, transportation officials and civic activists.
Horsley, whose organization represents state transportation secretaries and other top officials, noted that the 18.4 cents per gallon federal gas tax has remained level since the early 1990s and that the national highway trust fund is heading for depletion in August.
Horsley noted that two recent bipartisan commissions created by Congress concluded that federal fuel taxes must increase. One backed a rise of 25 to 40 cents; the other urged an increase of 10 cents a gallon on gasoline and 15 cents on diesel.
Those recommendations were opposed by the Bush administration, and President Barack Obama has ruled out any increase in gas taxes during the recession.
But Horsley said Thursday that a 10-cent increase in the gas tax amounts to “less than 60 bucks” a year for the typical driver.
Without new revenue, Horsley said, Congress must transfer $5 billion to $7 billion to replenish the highway trust fund during the current fiscal year or watch as road projects grind to a halt. He said $8 billion to $10 billion would be needed for the fiscal year that begins in October.
Obama and others have called for passage of an 18-month stopgap funding measure, saying that Congress has its plate full with health care, energy and other issues.
Click here to read the entire article.
The proposed transportation bill calls for $450 billion in federal funding, which is a 57 percent increase over the $286.5 billion bill approved in 2005.
The following is an interview with Rep. John Mica (R., FL), ranking minority member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, about the recent developments of the transportation bill:
BLUEPRINT AMERICA: The current highway authorization expires at the end of September. So what exactly is expiring?
REP. JOHN MICA: Every six years Congress adopts a federal authorization for highways, which outlines transportation policy, projects, and funding distributions for the whole country.
BLUEPRINT AMERICA: Right now, however, the Obama Administration wants to delay authorization.
REP. MICA: We’re on the verge of a transportation meltdown. The Administration has proposed an 18-month extension of both the highway authorization bill and the highway trust fund. That will require, depending on how long it is extended, between $8 and $15 billion.
BLUEPRINT AMERICA: But, typically, the transportation bill is not authorized every six years – it’s generally extended.
REP. MICA: Right. I think the last time we tried to authorize it we had 13 extensions.
BLUEPRINT AMERICA: Are you opposed to this 18-month extension by the Obama Administration?
REP. MICA: Well, I think that it would be better to go ahead with the transportation bill Rep. (Jim) Oberstar has introduced. We have been working on the bill for some time.
Still, I think we take that bill as the starter. The problem you’ve got with an 18-month extension is that it puts many of the major infrastructure projects on hold. The 18-month extension is a job killer. It gives you a temporary relief with the highway trust fund, but because you don’t have projects approved and policy and funding mechanisms in place for the future, it ends up killing jobs and delaying decisions on projects across the country. For example, there are 6, 800 project requests in the House bill alone – all of these would go on hold.
Click here to read the entire interview.
(Source: U.S. GAO)
Image Courtesy: GAO
The air cargo industry contributed over $37 billion to the U.S. economy in 2008 and provides government, businesses, and individuals with quick delivery of goods. Although part of an aviation system with an extraordinary safety record, there have been over 400 air cargo accidents and over 900 incidents since 1997, raising concerns about cargo safety.
GAO’s congressionally requested study addresses:
(1) recent trends in air cargo safety,
2) factors that have contributed to air cargo accidents,
(3) federal government and industry efforts to improve air cargo safety and experts’ views on the effectiveness of these efforts, and
(4) experts’ views on further improving air cargo safety.
To perform the study, GAO analyzed agency data, surveyed a panel of experts, reviewed industry and government documents, and interviewed industry and government officials. GAO also conducted site visits to Alaska, Ohio, and Texas.
From 1997 through 2008, 443 accidents involving cargo-only carriers occurred, including 93 fatal accidents. Total accidents declined 63 percent from a high of 62 in 1997 to 23 in 2008. Small cargo carriers were involved in the vast majority of the accidents–79 percent of all accidents and 96 percent of fatal accidents. Although accident rates for large cargo carriers fluctuated during this period, they were comparable to accident rates for large passenger carriers in 2007.
GAO could not calculate accident rates based on operations or miles traveled for small carriers because the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) does not collect the necessary data. Although several factors contributed to these air cargo accidents, our review of National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) data found that pilot performance was identified as a probable cause for about 80 percent of fatal and about 53 percent of non-fatal cargo accidents.
Furthermore, GAO’s analysis of NTSB reports for the 93 fatal accidents, using an FAA flight-risk checklist, identified three or more risk factors in 63 of the accidents. Risk factors included low pilot experience, winter weather, and nighttime operations. Alaska’s challenging operating conditions and remotely located populations who rely on air cargo are also a contributing factor. Many federal efforts to improve air cargo safety focus on large carriers.
Air cargo experts that GAO surveyed ranked FAA’s voluntary disclosure programs–in which participating carriers voluntarily disclose safety events to FAA–as the most effective effort to improve air cargo, but two of the three main voluntary disclosure programs are used typically by large carriers. Several industry initiatives, however, focus on carriers with smaller aircraft, such as the Medallion Foundation, which has improved small aircraft safety in Alaska through training and safety audits.
The two actions experts cited most often to further improve air cargo safety were installing better technology on cargo aircraft to provide additional tools to pilots and collecting data to track small cargo carrier operations. Using flight risk checklists can also help pilots assess the accumulated risk factors associated with some cargo flights.
Recommendations:
Click here to read/download the entire report (60 Pages).
(Source: Associated Press, The Detroit News, Streetsblog & Jalopnik)
With the “Cash for Clunkers” bill successfully clearing the House floor, there is a lot of chatter about the fate of this bill in the Senate. The auto industry and Michigan lawmakers are pushing for quick Senate action on this legislation to boost auto sales, after the House overwhelmingly passed the bill Tuesday.
But it remains unclear when Senate supporters may overcome the objections of Senate appropriators and a group of senators who say the House proposal doesn’t do enough to improve fuel efficiency on the nation’s highways.
The House approved its version Tuesday, 298-199, with substantial Republican support despite the opposition of House leaders including Minority Leader John Boehner and whip Eric Cantor.
Sens. Debbie Stabenow, D-Lansing, and Sam Brownback, R-Kan., introduced a nearly identical bill in the Senate, but had to withdraw an attempt to get a floor vote last week.
Opposition came from members of the Senate Appropriations Committee, which objected to funding provisions of the bill, and from senators who want tougher fuel economy requirements.
Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., introduced a competing proposal on Monday. Feinstein’s proposal would require drivers to achieve a 25 percent fuel-efficiency increase before receiving a tax credit for ditching their clunkers. But Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D) is pushing for a trade-in tax credit that’s very similar to Sutton’s — truck owners would only have to increase their fuel efficiency by 2 miles per gallon to be eligible. The requirements for car trade-ins aren’t much better under the Stabenow and Sutton plans, with a mere4 mpg increase in fuel economy triggering the $3,500 tax credit. With Rep. Sutton’s plan winning the House approval this week, Stabenow’s Senate counterpart could potentially get a leg up over Feinstein’s.
While we await the Senate action, I put together a quick side by side comparision of the two bills (data from Associated Press).
Data Courtesy: Associated Press
Also, our friends at Jalopnik have compiled an awesome visual that simplifies the rs details of this “Cash for Clunkealong” with some great analysis about the worthiness of the program for buyers.
First of all, operable vehicles are required and there aren’t many people driving around with vehicles worth less than $1,500. Many old crappy cars, in fact, can still demand up to $2,500 on the open market. This means you’re going to get, max, $2000 for your trade-in. The least valuable qualifying cars, of course, are actually the more efficient compact vehicles, which makes getting the necessary 10 MPG improvement unlikely.
The second problem, stemming from the first, is quantifying the number of people who actually drive around in cars worth less than $2,500 and can actually afford a new car. Our instinct tells us there aren’t many people. This means people taking advantage of the program will, typically, have to be excited by the prospect of saving $1,000 or $2,000. These people should already have been swayed by intense discounting from automakers in recent months.
Image Courtesy: Jalopnik
Click here to read the entire article.
(Source: Autoblog & Detroit Free Press)
The U.S. House approved the “cash for clunkers” legislation earlier today, paving the way for consumers to snag up to $4,500 for trading in their older vehicles for new, more fuel efficient transport.
The bill, which passed 298-119, drew overwhelming support from automakers, local business groups and dealers who claimed the passage could boost sales – further aiding GM and Chrysler’s “reinvention” – during the economic downturn.
The House bill sets aside $4 billion to pay for electronic vouchers given to owners of older vehicles toward new models. With auto sales running at their lowest rate in four decades, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the bill could spur sales of about 625,000 vehicles; backers are hoping for 1 million.
The act “will shore up millions of jobs and stimulate local economies,” said Rep. Betty Sutton, D-Ohio. “It will improve our environment and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.”
The government’s interest in goosing the vehicle market extends to its ownership inGeneral Motors
Corp. and Chrysler LLC, both of which are counting on a healthier U.S. market in the coming years for survival.
“The auto industry is going through a tremendous restructuring,” said Rep. Sander Levin, D-Royal Oak. “If there is not increased demand, that restructuring cannot succeed.”
Under the plan, owners of cars and trucks that get less than 18 m.p.g. could get a voucher of $3,500 to $4,500 for a new vehicle, depending on the mileage of the new model.
(Source: Streetsblog & Rotor.com)
The House is poised this week to take up the so-called “cash for clunkers” bill, which aims to boost the slumping U.S. auto market by giving out tax credits of $3,500 and up to anyone who trades in a gas-guzzling car for a more efficient model.
With the Senate Majority Leader threatening to make Senators work five days a week to speed up work on legislative priorities, lawmakers expect to finish a war supplemental bill this week that would include a provision for cash for clunkers and then Congress will turn its attention to healthcare and climate change legislation.
House Democrats must settle the issue of whether to include in the war supplemental a provision that would give car buyers a voucher worth up to $4,500 for trading gas-guzzlers for more fuel-efficient vehicles. There is tremendous bipartisan support for this proposal, especially with the recent bankruptcy of General Motors.
The likely passage of Sutton’s bill this week could be bad news for a stronger “cash for clunkers” plan that’s being promoted by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), who displayed welcome candor last month in calling the Sutton plan “the auto industry’s version” of “cash for clunkers” and “unacceptable” to American drivers.
Feinstein’s proposal would require drivers to achieve a 25 percent fuel-efficiency increase before receiving a tax credit for ditching their clunkers. But Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D) is pushing for a trade-in tax credit that’s very similar to Sutton’s — truck owners would only have to increase their fuel efficiency by 2 miles per gallon to be eligible.
Feinstein’s proposal would require drivers to achieve a 25 percent fuel-efficiency increase before receiving a tax credit for ditching their clunkers. But Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D) is pushing for a trade-in tax credit that’s very similar to Sutton’s — truck owners would only have to increase their fuel efficiency by 2 miles per gallon to be eligible.
