A perfect storm of money waste forming in Washington

Last week at the Badger Blog Alliance, I discussed the need to repair our infrastructure and also how we taxpayers need to keep a close eye on Madison. The money quote from that post was this:

If public pressure and lobbying dove tail on this issue, we risk watching Madison throw a lot more money at the problems than will be necessary because they'll be able to please both constituents and donors by doing so.

It hasn't begun at the state level yet, but according this article, it is already ramping up in Washington.

The Minneapolis bridge disaster that suddenly is the symbol of the nation's crumbling infrastructure could tip the scales in favor of billions of dollars in higher gasoline taxes for repairs coast to coast.

There are 500 bridges around the country similar to the Minneapolis span, and "these are potential deathtraps," says Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, former chairman of the House Transportation Committee.

"We have to, as a Congress, grasp this problem. And yes, I would even suggest, fund this problem with a tax," he says. "May the sky not fall on me."

If the words came out of Don Young's mouth, then watch your pocket. Don Young loves to take your money and spend a hell of a lot of it currying favor with those who can benefit him.

One-quarter of the nation's bridges, including the one in Minneapolis, have been classified as structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. One-third of major roads are judged by federal transportation officials to be in poor or mediocre condition.

The media and politicians have been slapping structurally deficient bridges together with functionally obsolete bridges since the 35W bridge came down. They shouldn't be. Functionally obsolete bridges are not necessarily a priority right now because their classification means they do not meet current design standards, not that they are a risk of collapsing. The political class is going to keep them lumped together so they can double the amount of new money they take from you. Don't let them. The focus must be on the structurally deficient bridges.

Beyond the human tragedy of the Minnesota bridge collapse lie some daunting numbers: The cost of the backlog of needed repairs to roads and bridges is now $461 billion. Road conditions are a factor in one-third of the 40,000 traffic fatalities every year. Traffic congestion costs drivers $63 billion a year in wasted time and fuel costs.

There's no evidence to suggest that the Mississippi River disaster was a direct result of federal underspending. But there is wide agreement that the bridge is symptomatic of a national problem that Congress and the White House are going to have to address.

Don't let the big numbers fool you. We aren't going to solve our road infrastructure problems overnight, and we don't need to. But we do need to start raising there priority vis a vis new roads. Politicians and road builders will want you to believe that we need to pour hundreds of billions of new money into this problem right now. Don't believe it. This is a problem with priorities, not a problem with funding.

"It's a tragic wakeup call," said Matt Jeanneret, spokesman for the American Road and Transportation Builders Association. "This is gut check time for members of Congress for what they are going to do at the federal level."

The experts in this field are also the ones who stand to make the most out of gads of new Federal dollars flowing to roads and bridges. They are going to be lobbying your congressmen hard to do this, and they are going to get their way if the public lets them. Keep that in mind.

The last six-year highway and transit bill finally passed in 2005, two years late and, at $286 billion, almost $90 billion short of the $375 billion that transportation advocates said was needed to keep U.S. infrastructure from further deterioration.

Young and other Transportation Committee leaders wanted to pay for the larger sum by indexing for inflation the fuel tax that keeps the National Highway Trust Fund in money. That would have raised the tax, at 18.3 cents a gallon since 1993, by about a nickel.

President Bush rejected what he said was a tax hike and insisted that Congress accept a far smaller highway budget.

President Bush has proven that he is not a strict fiscal conservative. He's been more than willing to sign bloated budgets during his presidency. The way the 2005 budget is presented in the story, you'd think he is a heartless miser. The fact is the highway bills are typically packed with pork, and Young is one of the kings of pork. All that extra money that wasn't in the bill would not have solved infrastructure problems. It would have bought an awful lot of support for Young and other elected officials in Washington, though.

You are going to be sending a lot more of your hard earned money if you don't insist that congress find ways to more efficiently and prudently spend your gas taxes. Your congressmen are already paving the road for it. This is how they are spending it now:

The administration in turn has demanded that Congress show more discipline, citing thousands of special projects, or earmarks, in highway bills that don't reflect the real priorities. The best known among them was one that Young supported: $223 million for the "Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska. That provision eventually faltered, but about $24 billion — a little less than 8 percent of the total — in the last highway bill was still devoted to projects singled out by lawmakers for funding.

Special projects, earmarks...you know them better by the name pork. And come 2009, you'll be buying a lot of pork, and you'll be faced with the same old infrastructure problems.

The bridge collapse "is going to create a fundamental shift," Moretti said. The public would rather pay more taxes "than have to face the consequences of a crumbling infrastructure."

That's fair, as long as it is necessary spending and the public isn't fooled into spending more than is necessary. Unfortunately, the typical public response to something like this is to take the hit to the pocketbook and throw money at the problem. The reason that is bad is because when we do that, we increase our pork exponentially while never successfully solving the problems. Remember, congress is abundantly aware that voters get pissed when they are stuck in traffic because of a bridge being rebuilt, but they are very happy when a new road opens or a cool new bike trail is built. But that doesn't solve the problems, it just lightens your wallet and creates a wealth of new problems that will be even more expensive to fix down the road.