States Losing Earmarks for Highway Improvements

[PAHighways]

Legislators love to provide pet projects for their districts and highway projects are no different.  Take for example US Representative David McIntosh of Indiana who directed $375,000 in federal funding "to improve State Road 31" in Columbus, Indiana in the 1998 highway bill.

The only problem is that it isn't State Road 31, but US 31.  Due to that seemingly innocuous error, the project is wrapped in red tape and because the money was not used, the federal government has penalized Indiana almost dollar for dollar.  However, Indiana's $150.4 million in unused earmarks is a mere drop in the bucket compared to other states such as New York and California.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-01-04-earmarks_N.htm

[Scott5114]

See, this is why it's a good idea to know the difference

[realjd]

Just more proof that Congress is broken. Not that the representative (or more likely his staff) got the difference between a US highway and a state highway wrong, but the fact that a simple mistake like that locks the money up, it can't be reallocated or returned, and the fact that the federal government essentially has the power to set the budget items and priorities for a state-level organization at all.

[US71]

Just more proof that Congress is broken. Not that the representative (or more likely his staff) got the difference between a US highway and a state highway wrong, but the fact that a simple mistake like that locks the money up, it can't be reallocated or returned, and the fact that the federal government essentially has the power to set the budget items and priorities for a state-level organization at all.

And most earmarks are supposed to be off the table with the new Congress.

[Scott5114]

Really, I like the fact that it got the money locked up like that. If you're throwing around trillions of dollars like the government does, you should damn well learn to pay attention to what you're doing with it.

[6a]

The simplest solution is for this guy to know what the hell he's talking about.  In reality, though, it's these things that lead to 26 page brownie recipes.

[realjd]

Really, I like the fact that it got the money locked up like that. If you're throwing around trillions of dollars like the government does, you should damn well learn to pay attention to what you're doing with it.

It's wasteful. Either spend my tax dollars or give them back; don't let them stagnate unused.

[Scott5114]

Well, if you think about it, it sort of points out the fallacy of earmarks in general. This money can legally be used for State Road 15 and only State Road 15. When it turns out that there's no such thing as SR 15, well...

Legal code is a lot like computer code. It is uncompromisingly literal. If you could apply discretion to it, which would be the simple, "common sense" thing to do, you could easily resolve logical oversights like this. But, if you're applying discretion to laws, then you're doing it wrong.

[J N Winkler]

Legal code is a lot like computer code. It is uncompromisingly literal. If you could apply discretion to it, which would be the simple, "common sense" thing to do, you could easily resolve logical oversights like this. But, if you're applying discretion to laws, then you're doing it wrong.

Not quite.  It is possible to write laws to permit the reasonable exercise of administrative discretion, and--judging from the article--there have been attempts by USDOT and FHWA to encourage Congress to provide mechanisms for expedited administrative review and removal of earmarks which plainly make no sense (no possibility to spend because of impossible criteria, earmark has been overtaken by construction of the project with other funding, etc.).  One way to do this would be to give FHWA or USDOT the ability to introduce a general corrections bill to remove all earmarks judged obsolete, impossible, or otherwise unworkable during a given review cycle:  this corrections bill would be subject to a simple up-and-down vote similar to Senate confirmation of colonel appointments by list.  The real problem, as I see it, is the intransigence of appropriators who don't want to see newspaper stories saying "Earmark cancelled" even if the funds could not be spent because of impossible-to-meet criteria.

In the absence of clearing-the-deadwood legislation, it would be helpful just for FHWA to be given the power to declare certain earmarks provisionally unworkable (provided certain defined criteria were met) and to release the funds for other purposes, in anticipation of the earmarks being later repealed through an act of Congress.

[Alps]

Two quasi-related points.

One: The US courts do uphold reasonable interpretations.  For example, see the Alaskan senatorial election where the spirit of voter inclusiveness overrode the letter of the law on every appeal level.  My guess is that a good team of lawyers should be able to push the US 31 project through - but yes, there would be red tape.  It's pretty clear that there's only one Route 31 in Columbus, IN.

Two: Is this at all related to Republican efforts to untie highway spending from the Trust Fund and allow money to be spent elsewhere?

[vdeane]

Probably.  Republicans LOVE to force the letter of the law to be used when it benefits them.  We saw this in Alaska, and we also saw it in Florida (they challenged every single vote for Gore during the recount that wasn't 100% within the letter of the law even if it was an obvious vote for Gore).

[J N Winkler]

Have the Republicans been seriously proposing that hypothecation of highway revenues to highway purposes be ended?  That has traditionally been a Democrat (really a Pacific Coast Democrat) policy preference.

[golden eagle]

Just more proof that Congress is broken. Not that the representative (or more likely his staff) got the difference between a US highway and a state highway wrong, but the fact that a simple mistake like that locks the money up, it can't be reallocated or returned, and the fact that the federal government essentially has the power to set the budget items and priorities for a state-level organization at all.

And most earmarks are supposed to be off the table with the new Congress.

It's easy to be against it when running for office; much harder when you're actually in office. Plus, the issue with earmarks is that people love them when it benefits their districts, but put those same projects in another district, they rail against them.

[Alps]

Have the Republicans been seriously proposing that hypothecation of highway revenues to highway purposes be ended?  That has traditionally been a Democrat (really a Pacific Coast Democrat) policy preference.

Yes, ASCE has been updating us and apparently they're pressing ahead with that.