OpinionEditorial
Editorial

What Congress should do to fix the Highway Trust Fund

EditorialsOpinionLaws and LegislationPoliticsHighway and Road TransportationU.S. CongressPension and Welfare
Congress has only itself to blame for the Highway Trust Fund mess

The House and Senate have put forth plans to temporarily fill the Highway Trust Fund, which is used to pay for road, bridge and public transit construction but is expected to go broke this summer. Though the details differ in the two proposals, the result is the same: Congress would buy another 10 months or so of solvency, after which the fund would be in the same bad position next year when the money again threatens to run out.

While a temporary fix is better than no fix, members of Congress shouldn't fool themselves. Neither proposal offers a viable solution to the problem.

When Congress created the Highway Trust Fund in 1956, it was designed to be a self-sufficient, user-supported fund. Users of the roads would pay gas taxes at the pump that would finance transportation infrastructure. The problem is, Congress hasn't increased the taxes on gas and diesel for two decades, while the cost to build and maintain the nation's network of roads and transit has gone up dramatically. Drivers still pay 18.4 cents a gallon for gasoline and 24.4 cents for diesel. In recent years, as the fund has proved insufficient to cover the government's costs, Congress has allocated general fund money to bridge the gap.

Now, rather than using common sense and gradually increasing the gas tax to return the fund to self-sufficiency, Congress has proposed a patchwork of money transfers and illusory revenue sources completely unrelated to transportation. The House bill would come up with about $10 billion by taking money currently dedicated to cleaning up leaky underground storage tanks, tapping various fees and allowing “pension smoothing,” under which companies can postpone pension payments. When companies defer pension contributions, which are tax deductible, they pay higher tax bills — until the companies have to make up all those deferred payments. So Congress is essentially borrowing against future revenue to keep the trust fund solvent now. The Senate proposal is similar, but it also seeks better compliance with tax laws to generate more money.

House and Senate members have described their proposals as stopgap measures to keep federal dollars flowing to transportation projects, many of which are already under construction, while Congress comes up with a long-term funding plan — presumably after the November election. But it's hard to imagine legislators being any more inclined to make difficult choices in six months than they are today. They would do better to bite the bullet now and raise the fuel tax.

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion

Copyright © 2014, Los Angeles Times
Related Content
EditorialsOpinionLaws and LegislationPoliticsHighway and Road TransportationU.S. CongressPension and Welfare
  • What 'war on women'?
    What 'war on women'?

    On Friday, the White House announced its “It's On Us” initiative aimed at combating sexual assaults on college campuses. I'm all in favor of combating sexual assault, but the first priority in combating a problem is understanding it.

  • Ashley Swearengin for state controller
    Ashley Swearengin for state controller

    Californians have been breathing a bit easier in recent months as the state government's finances have turned — slowly, like an ocean freighter — from disaster to solvency. But the work is hardly done, and diligence is called for to ensure the budget doesn't drift off...

  • Let's make a climate deal, California
    Let's make a climate deal, California

    It has been almost 25 years since the United States joined much of the world in Rio de Janeiro and tentatively agreed to do something to reduce the pollutants associated with global warming and other climate disruption. Since then, though, the U.S. has been a laggard in taking major action....

  • Why single out L.A. hotel workers for a wage boost?
    Why single out L.A. hotel workers for a wage boost?

    The Los Angeles City Council is, again, trying to rush through a proposal to establish a special $15.37-an-hour minimum wage just for hotel workers. A committee hearing has been scheduled for Tuesday and a full council vote is expected the following day, even though three reports from...

  • What about those other greenhouse gases?
    What about those other greenhouse gases?

    The U.N. Climate Summit that starts Tuesday is a precursor to the Paris climate conference scheduled for next year. No treaty will come out of the summit in New York, which is more of a brainstorming and cheerleading session.

  • The ugly surprise of out-of-network doctors and 'balance billing'
    The ugly surprise of out-of-network doctors and 'balance billing'

    The New York Times' Elisabeth Rosenthal offered an important lesson in healthcare economics over the weekend that's a must-read for anyone about to undergo a major medical procedure.

Comments
Loading