Transportation bill amendment would "make it much more difficult to privatize existing highways"

[ProSense]

Matt Sledge

Senate Transportation Bill Passes With Bipartisan Support

The Senate passed a two-year, $109 billion bipartisan transportation bill in a 74-22 vote Wednesday, handing Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) significant bragging rights in the race to pass election-year job-creation legislation. Now all eyes turn to the House of Representatives and Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), who has struggled to bring his own caucus to terms on a highway bill.

<...>

The Senate vote came after weeks of intense backroom discussion over how many amendments Senate Republicans could bring up, and failed attempts by Republicans to attach approval for the Keystone XL pipeline to the bill, but the final votes on Tuesday and Wednesday were largely drama-free. One surprising development was the passage on a 50-47 vote Tuesday of an amendment sponsored by Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) that would make it much more difficult to privatize existing highways and turn them into toll roads.

Truckers and the AAA have strongly opposed creating more toll roads. On the Senate floor, Bingaman said his amendment "would simply remove these privatized toll roads from consideration when we allocate highway funds."

Privatization watchdogs were enthusiastic. "I think it's a defeat for Wall Street interests that have counted on Congress being asleep at the wheel when it comes to their subsides for private projects," said Phineas Baxandall, federal tax and budget policy analyst at the consumer group U.S. PIRG. He credited rural Republicans and truckers for the amendment's narrow passage.

- more -

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/14/senate-transportation-bill-wall-street_n_1344848.html?ref=mostpopular

[Lawlbringer]

1. I am really anxious to see how this is spun

aside from the "big brother big gov't" thing that the right likes to throw at us.

[Cirque du So-What]

2. I am sick of that shit!

First of all, I don't believe states should have the right to privatize roads built with public funds - especially considering that federal money is always involved. Besides, states are leasing those roads for pennies on the dollar just to meet current budget shortfalls - in essence, they're selling the family jewels to finance a night on the town.

[freshwest]

8. +1 million

[TheWraith]

3. Kicked and recommended for the conspiracy theorists.

Who promoted this as privatization of all roads.

[joeybee12]

4. I don't get this either...toll roads are not

private...owned by the state....of course, you have the idiot Daniels in Indiana who sold the toll roads, but that's the exception rather than the rule.

[TheWraith]

5. Hush. You'll just confuse them with facts.

Government raising revenue to invest for the future in vital infrastructure = "corporate giveaway" privatizing highways for profit. Got it?

[ProSense]

6. Kick! n/t

[woo me with science]

7. We're talking about a system of toll plazas across our nation's highways.

That is a massive project and a massive corporate giveaway, even bigger than Rapiscan. And it will be regressive, restricting the options for the poor to move across this country, and providing Homeland Security with a ready-made infrastructure for what they have shown us they do best.

Someone is going to get very rich from this.

I will not argue further with you, Prosense, because you have shown over and over again that your support of policy has absolutely nothing to do with the merits of the policy itself, but rather whether or not a corporate Democrat is on board. And your attempt, already, to twist and deflect this argument from the corporate giveaway of the toll plaza project to whether or not our highways will be immediately privatized underscores that.

[ProSense]

10. .

[sudopod]

14. Are you trying to change minds, or do you just enjoy being rude on the internet?

Have you ever actually engaged in a conversation online with someone who didn't agree with you all the way?

God knows you can't treat people like this in your work-a-day life.

[ProSense]

15. I enjoy

"Are you trying to change minds, or do you just enjoy being rude on the internet?"

...laughing.

[sudopod]

16. God knows you can't treat people like this in your work-a-day life.

Have you ever actually engaged in a conversation online with someone who didn't agree with you all the way?

Serious question.

People like you are as much a mystery to me as the loony Apple fanatics.

[ProSense]

17. You know

God knows you can't treat people like this in your work-a-day life.

Have you ever actually engaged in a conversation online with someone who didn't agree with you all the way?

Serious question.

...I really don't care what you think, and your insistence on trying to characterize how I "treaat people" is purely a red herring. You want to believe bullshit conspiracy, go ahead. Leave me out of it.

Oh, and do look in the mirror.

[sudopod]

19. When was I ever mean to you?

and when did I promote a conspiracy theory? Maybe you're confusing me with someone else?

[sudopod]

18. You remind me of this right wing kook I know.

Great guy in real life, but you talk to him online and he becomes totally unhinged. Regardless of whatever you put into a conversation with him, he just repeats himself over and over while throwing insults. (Thank god facebook doesn't do smilies yet).

You clearly believe vastly different things than he does. We agree on more than we disagree. Yet, anytime someone tries to engage you, you just repeat yourself (example: Bullshit ) or become insulting.

Now, maybe your reward circuit is activiated by watching people get upset with this kind of behavior. Hell, my Dad's family positivley rolls in it. But it isn't helpful for fostering a discussion.

I liken it to teflon. You can throw anything you like at it, and all it does is sizzle and slide right off.

[ProSense]

20. Well,

it's interesting to know that you're friends with a "right wing kook" who is a "great guy in real life."

Thanks for sharing.

[sudopod]

22. I think of conservativism in general, and lots of their loony beliefs in particular,

as a sort of mind virus. Like with many diseases, people can be cured of it, but it takes time and patience. When I was younger, I was like that, but I fell in with a really good bunch of people, and slowly I learned how wrong I was, and the evil basis for that type of thought, spanning everything from the right to choose, to healthcare, to human (gay) rights. If you have some time to burn, I highly recommended reading up on the idea of mimetics. It isn't really an honest science yet; memes and their borders aren't easily quantifiable like the gene is for genetics, but it could be one day. As a working theory for why people believe weird things, it works pretty well. http://www.lucifer.com/virus/alt.memetics/ Also highly recommended is Micheal Shermer's book "Why People Believe Weird Things," which handles odd beliefs and their practitioners with understanding and dignity while showing how badly they are stuck.

These people really are victims, both of their culture and their biology.

The result of this is that the best bet to change someone's mind is to be close to them: a child, a co worker, a best friend. Dehumanizing memes don't stick as well with them. It's all well and good to hate those gay people in San Fran, or those Tutsis in the other neighborhood, but it's another when it's the child you raised, whose tears you wiped away, whose life story is also yours. The same goes when it's your best friend. You can get around those mental defenses that normally prevent wingers from even hearing what you have to say, much less thoughtfully consider it. Even then, the changes take time.

I think this song encapsulates this. It is about a woman named Anne Braden who participated in the Civil Rights movement in Mississippi, who faced many of these problems in a much more difficult and immediate way than you or me.

Are you so obsessed with political and ideological purity that you have cut out everyone in your life who is trapped in that dark place? It does not bode well for our future if our main tool is a cutting knife rather than an extended hand.

[ProSense]

26. Interesting, but

completely off topic of the OP. Still, it seems like you're working through some issues.

Good luck!

[sudopod]

27. See, right there. You refuse to ever engage anyone about anything.

That's not special, most of the internet is like that. Unfortunately, it terminates any meaningful discussion.

Fnord writ large.

[ProSense]

30. Oh

"See, right there. You refuse to ever engage anyone about anything."

...I'm sorry, but I don't feel like discussing your "right-wing kook" friend and the issues conservatives have. When I do, I'll start a thread about it, and not one about the transportation bill.

Hey, maybe you can start a thread and find some people willing to discuss your issues.

[sudopod]

32. I've tried.

The nature of the internet, unfortunately, is that unless it is provacative, like accusing the President of eating babies, or a troll, like anything Loz posts, it gets maybe ten responses. Worse, they tend to be supportive, which is edifying but not educational.

I'm only talking with you because you're such an institution around here.

[sudopod]

28. If you ever do want to explain how I'm doing it wrong, why this "one way broadcast" method is best

I'd be glad to hear it.

You can pick the forum, and I'll gladly go along.

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. Thanks, I had an inkling that memes were like that

Now, another book to read. One is in the mail already.

This one sounds fascinating as well.

[girl gone mad]

29. It's always easy to tell who is losing an argument on DU.

Just look for the

Last refuge of the feeble-minded.

[ProSense]

34. Wow,

It's always easy to tell who is losing an argument on DU.

Just look for the

Last refuge of the feeble-minded.

...that's deep. So you go around DU looking for to make this argument?

Really? I'm in awe of your logic.

[TheWraith]

11. So government revenue is now a "massive corporate giveaway"?

Hint: repeating something often enough does not actually make it true. By your logic, infrastructure spending in the stimulus was a "massive corporate giveaway" because SOMEWHERE, SOMEONE might have BENEFITED from it! GASP!

[sudopod]

13. Wouldn't it mean we won if this amendment sticks? nt

[TheWraith]

21. There would have to be a reality based goal in order to "win."

You can't defeat the magical corporate giveaway fairies, because they'll just wave their wands and turn something else into a "massive corporate giveaway." Next I bet it'll be Medicare, since you know all that does is feed the Medical Industrial Complex.

[sudopod]

23. Why do you have to be so demeaning whenever you open your mouth?

What purpose does it serve. Does it make you feel like a big man?

[ProSense]

24. Wait

"Why do you have to be so demeaning whenever you open your mouth?"

...this from someone who started a comment with: "You remind me of this right wing kook I know."

Seems to me you're using this line of criticism to obfuscate.

[sudopod]

25. The difference is that I wasn't trying to get a rise out of you.

I really, honestly want to know why you put so much effort into this internet stuff when you never actually talk to people. Most people on the internet (if not in real life) are on one-way broadcast mode. I want to know what anyone feels they get out of that. It must be something. Perhaps I shouldn't have talked so badly of my wrong-headed friend, and I wouldn't have in his presence, I'll grant you that.

Wraith, however, is just being a bully, for the reasons bullies behave that way. He isn't trying to change anyone's mind or understand anything.

[ProSense]

31. You should

The difference is that I wasn't trying to get a rise out of you.

I really, honestly want to know why you put so much effort into this internet stuff when you never actually talk to people. Most people on the internet (if not in real life) are on one-way broadcast mode. I want to know what anyone feels they get out of that. It must be something. Perhaps I shouldn't have talked so badly of my wrong-headed friend, and I wouldn't have in his presence, I'll grant you that.

...give up trying to psychoanalyze people you don't know.

[sudopod]

33. It's not pschoanalysis. It's just pointing out the obvious.

It doesn't take a weatherman to tell which way the wind is blowing, eh?

[girl gone mad]

36. You should

respond to the point the poster made rather than resorting to your usual dismissive derision.

[ProSense]

40. Here

"You should respond to the point the poster made rather than resorting to your usual dismissive derision."

...I'm losing the argument again.

[Zalatix]

46. I wonder what ProSense will say when another Congress MANDATES privatization?

All the infrastructure will be laid right there for corporations to make a killing.

Next we'll be hearing arguments that governments have never privatized toll roads...

[freshwest]

9. This is very much needed to stop these greedy bastards.

[sudopod]

12. LOL

Well there you go.

[girl gone mad]

35. So wait..

are tolls good or are they bad?

On another thread, Wraith is saying tolls are good. Here you quoting a source saying tolls would be bad. Which one is the party line?

Also, from the same article:

Another provision that was included in the bill, however, vastly expanded a federal loan program for new transportation projects that often involves so-called "public-private partnerships." Such arrangements often involve outsourcing the management of public infrastructure to Wall Street-backed private companies.

Sounds like privatizations are included in the bill.

[TheWraith]

37. Could you quote me saying that?

Because I didn't. I pointed out that spending on transportation and public infrastructure is beneficial to both the economy and the public, and that in this case highway tolls are a common means of directly charging for the use of that infrastructure from the people who use it most, rather than funding it indirectly. There's no moral sway as to whether highway tolls are good or bad, they're simply what's being used in this case.

[girl gone mad]

41. Your statements:

For gobsmacking reasons, some people seem to have come to the immediate conclusion that this is a massive conspiracy to destroy American freedom, by privatizing all roads and instituting a massive government program to track the movements of all Americans via toll booths. And no, this isn't something off Freeperville, it originated right here on DU.

I didn't think I'd have to say how ridiculous that is, but apparently I do. It's ridiculous in the extreme. Not only are the concerns ridiculous, but they run directly opposite to most of the premises that we ostensibly believe in, i.e. that investing in transportation infrastructure is good for the economy, good for the public interest, and good for the future. Leave the rants about how the Big Gubmint spending a few bucks to rebuild roads and make safer bridges is going to destroy America to the Glenn Beck wannabes.

Here Prosense is quoting directly from a source that says:

Truckers and the AAA have strongly opposed creating more toll roads. On the Senate floor, Bingaman said his amendment "would simply remove these privatized toll roads from consideration when we allocate highway funds."

Privatization watchdogs were enthusiastic. "I think it's a defeat for Wall Street interests that have counted on Congress being asleep at the wheel when it comes to their subsides for private projects," said Phineas Baxandall, federal tax and budget policy analyst at the consumer group U.S. PIRG. He credited rural Republicans and truckers for the amendment's narrow passage.

So are the truckers, AAA, Senator Bingaman and privatization watchdogs also extremely ridiculous, anti-American, etc. in their opposition to more toll roads?

[ProSense]

42. The issue

is privatized toll roads. There are a lot of publicly operated toll roads. The amendment seeks to deter the privatization of toll roads by recalculating subsidies to states.

Bingaman: Senate Approves Bill to Fund Highways, Bridges and Public Transit

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Jeff Bingaman today voted to approve (74-22) legislation that will send tens millions of dollars to New Mexico to keep our state's highways and public transit systems in top shape.

The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act or MAP-21 bill reauthorizes and funds the Department of Transportation's transportation programs for two years. It authorizes about $370 million for highway projects in New Mexico this year and $376 million for 2013.

Additionally, the bill authorizes $33 million for public transit projects in Albuquerque, Santa Fe, Las Cruces and Farmington, as well as other smaller communities throughout the state. And it doubles to $30 million the amount set aside for a Bingaman initiative that funds public transit in tribal communities throughout the country, and re-authorizes at $450 million the Indian Reservation Roads grant program.

"This bill makes a tremendous investment in our state, ensuring that our roads and highways are safe for commuters and the flow of commerce. It also invests in our state's public transit systems, which many New Mexicans rely heavily upon," Bingaman said.

The bill also contains an amendment Bingaman co-authored that reauthorizes for one year the Department of Agriculture's Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Program. The extension would mean $12.3 million for 22 counties in our state that rely economically on national forest lands. Additionally, the provision fully-funds the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program for an additional year. PILT compensates counties for federal land that cannot be a source of property taxes. On average, 32 New Mexico counties share about $35 million in PILT payments annually.

Bingaman was able to include an amendment to help municipalities to raise the capital they need to finance local infrastructure projects – including school and road construction, and to meet other ongoing needs.

Under current law, banks are incentivized to purchase municipal bonds only from municipalities that issue $10 million or less in debt each year. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which passed in 2009, incorporated a provision pushed by Bingaman to raise that limit to $30 million, but that measure was allowed to expire at the end of 2010. The Bingaman provision reinstates the $30 million limit from July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2013.

When the limit was $30 million, many municipalities across the country were able to place bonds directly at financial institutions, including community banks. When municipal governments work directly with community banks, they achieve considerable savings on interest and transaction costs.

"This proposal would allow more communities in our state to make the infrastructure investments they need, and in doing so will create good job opportunities for New Mexicans," Bingaman said.

Bingaman also had two other amendments adopted. The first amendment that was adopted during the Finance Committee's markup corrects tax code provisions that are driving exceedingly long leases of our nation's highways to private operators, while providing an unjustifiable taxpayer subsidy to these private operators.

The tax code provides favorable treatment in two ways to these long-term highway leases. First, the code allows the lessor to depreciate the cost of leased infrastructure assets over 15 years, even though the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) says the useful life is 45 years. To be eligible for this deduction, the lessor must have constructive ownership of the assets, which occurs when a lease is longer than the highway's "useful life;" this is one reason for the long lengths of these highway leases. Second, no matter how long the lease, the intangible "franchise right" to collect tolls can be amortized over 15 years – even though economic reality would dictate an amortization period equal to the lease length (i.e., 75 years for the Indiana Toll Road).

The Bingaman amendment modifies the tax treatment of these long-term highway leases to match the economic reality. First, the amendment requires the lessor to depreciate the cost of the existing highway infrastructure over 45 years, which is BEA's estimate of the useful life of the infrastructure. Second, the amendment requires the lessor to amortize the intangible "franchise right" to collect tolls over the entire length of the lease or 15 years, whichever is longer.

A separate Bingaman amendment removes certain privatized highways from consideration in apportioning Federal highway funding among the states. Specifically, the amendment eliminates the lane-miles and vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) for any "privatized" toll road as a factor in the formulae used to apportion federal highway funding. The definition of "privatized highways" under the measure includes any formerly publicly operated toll road that has been transferred to a private entity that controls the operation of the highway and ownership of the revenues collected.

When an existing toll road is privatized, all responsibility for maintaining the road, collecting tolls, paying the investors' profit, and so forth are taken on by the private entity. However, because such a privatized toll road continues to be a factor for federal formula funding for highways, the nation's highway users and taxpayers are essentially continuing to pay for the road despite the fact that a state has privatized it and no longer has any responsibility for operating or maintaining it. Drivers across the nation shouldn't be subsidizing any state that has chosen essentially to "sell off" an existing highway to the highest bidder.

As a result of this amendment, New Mexico and most other states would see an increase in their federal highway funds.

http://bingaman.senate.gov/news/20120314-01.cfm

[sudopod]

43. Yeah, more like this. :) nt

[ProSense]

39. These

So wait..

are tolls good or are they bad?

On another thread, Wraith is saying tolls are good. Here you quoting a source saying tolls would be bad. Which one is the party line?

Also, from the same article:


Another provision that was included in the bill, however, vastly expanded a federal loan program for new transportation projects that often involves so-called "public-private partnerships." Such arrangements often involve outsourcing the management of public infrastructure to Wall Street-backed private companies.


Sounds like privatizations are included in the bill.

...public-private partnerships have nothing to do with tolls. These are transportation projects and they have always involved public-private partnerships. This has nothing to do with privatization. It simply stating that the program funding is being expanded, that is the way these projects get funded. The federal government doesn't have a crew of workers going out to do infrastructure maintenance.

[BklnDem75]

44. K&R

[Zalatix]

45. ... until the next Congress decides that privatization is okay or necessary.

[ProSense]

47. Is this

"... until the next Congress decides that privatization is okay or necessary."

...an epiphany?

What do you think Congress should do to stop the next Congress? Pass a law?

[Zalatix]

48. They should have never opened the door in the first place.

More toll roads? Seriously? Like we don't pay enough as it is in gasoline taxes, statewide auto registration fees, and all that? Now we need to pay more?

This is one giant regressive tax on the poor. One that is already rotten at the core and will get MORE rotten with time.

I told you so. Remember that.

[ProSense]

49. Wait

"They should have never opened the door in the first place."

...when do you think the door was opened, this month? This is like every issue that's pushed over and over.

Still, you haven't explained what you think can be done to stop a "future Congress" from doing anything?