PDA

View Full Version : Texas Sen. Hutchinson introduces bill to opt out of Federal Highway Trust Fund




Knightskye
04-30-2009, 12:40 AM
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/133172.html


A key rationale for devolution is that the funding approach developed to build the Interstate system is now obsolete. That approach transfers large sums from larger and fast-growing states to smaller and slower-growing states. And states like Texas end up subsidizing other states. That is exactly backwards of what a real user-fee system would do—which is to generate and spend large sums in the places with huge problems of congestion and insufficient highway capacity. A side benefit of devolution would be the elimination of tons of pork, as members of Congress would no longer be able to earmark pet projects that are political winners but economic losers.

Baby steps toward secession. :)

AuH2O
04-30-2009, 12:44 AM
I think it would do a lot of good for the movement to get behind a bill that RP did not introduce.

If the mainstream saw us coming out in droves for good policy from someone other that Dr. Paul, it would be a lot harder for them to discount or write off.

idiom
04-30-2009, 12:48 AM
Perhaps the C4L should highlight 'approved' bills or something. Then we would have a nice tidy list to bang on about.

Kotin
04-30-2009, 01:02 AM
good idea, hutch..


still despise you, though.

revolutionary8
04-30-2009, 01:07 AM
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/133172.html



Baby steps toward secession. :)
KBH?
You have got to be kidding me. Surely you mean baby steps towards complete tyranny through a global currency in conjunction with toll roads and a police state.

That bitch isn't getting out of anything, she is stepping in to a new pair of supportive panty hose. Menopause, here we come.

I hesitate to even click the link for fear that I might despise CATO even more than I already do.
Perhaps a kind soul will be honest enough to tell me whether or not the coast is clear.

He Who Pawns
04-30-2009, 07:26 AM
Win.

Dustancostine
04-30-2009, 07:43 AM
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/133172.html



Baby steps toward secession. :)

While this bill looks good, you know that it is just posturing for the Governors race. She wants to make it look like she is trying to get Texas to be able to keep its own money so that it doesn't have to build the TTC, which Perry was for. It is a way for her to tell people she is trying to do something about the TTC.

But this is from her website on private property:

www.texansforkay.com/issues


"Private property rights in Texas should be constitutionally protected. Those rights are the foundation of this great state. Our leadership in Austin should make sure these rights are balanced with creating an infrastructure to make sure Texans are always on the move."

What I would like to know if anyone here can tell me how we are supposed to "balance" our rights.

I guess Kay Bailout was just "balancing" our money when she gave it to the banks.

MikeStanart
04-30-2009, 07:52 AM
While this bill looks good, you know that it is just posturing for the Governors race. She wants to make it look like she is trying to get Texas to be able to keep its own money so that it doesn't have to build the TTC, which Perry was for. It is a way for her to tell people she is trying to do something about the TTC.

But this is from her website on private property:

www.texansforkay.com/issues



What I would like to know if anyone here can tell me how we are supposed to "balance" our rights.

I guess Kay Bailout was just "balancing" our money when she gave it to the banks.

Exactly! She's taking a page from Perry's book by pandering to the conservatives. Fact of the matter is; she voted for the bailouts, that was the nail in her coffin.

acptulsa
04-30-2009, 07:55 AM
Please support Sen. Hutchinson's S903. I think we've had enough of the federal government taking our money and reapportioning it (minus their cut) to the states according to our states' willingness to jump through their hoops. This is an excellent place to start. I do not wish for your Yankee colleagues to continue to be enabled to shove another 55 mph speed limit down our Western throats.

Sen. Coburn, you talk the libertarian game most eloquently, but your votes too often tell (just as eloquently) another story. I need no response, sir. Your vote will be all I need to know.

Thank you for your attention.



And Inhofe just got a variation on the theme, too.

Cowlesy
04-30-2009, 08:01 AM
While this bill looks good, you know that it is just posturing for the Governors race. She wants to make it look like she is trying to get Texas to be able to keep its own money so that it doesn't have to build the TTC, which Perry was for. It is a way for her to tell people she is trying to do something about the TTC.

But this is from her website on private property:

www.texansforkay.com/issues



What I would like to know if anyone here can tell me how we are supposed to "balance" our rights.

I guess Kay Bailout was just "balancing" our money when she gave it to the banks.

Kay Bailout --- love it.

Just posturing for the Governor race as you said.

werdd
04-30-2009, 08:09 AM
Exactly! She's taking a page from Perry's book by pandering to the conservatives. Fact of the matter is; she voted for the bailouts, that was the nail in her coffin.

Exactly, both of our senators need to go. What happened to texas being the frontier? Now we just vote in any scrub with an R next to their name. IMO Texas needs to be looking at Alabama, and their republican senators. If a Shelby or Sessions would run in Texas, they would win the primary.

rp4prez
04-30-2009, 08:48 AM
You guys read this part of the blog right?


The downside is that the Interstate system is critically important to interstate commerce, and the federal government has a constitutional responsibility to ensure that states do not erect barriers to interstate commerce....But this doesn’t have to be an either/or proposition. Congress could enact standards for the Interstate system as a condition of approving devolution—things like nationally inter-operable electronic toll collection, pavement quality, bridge clearance heights, etc.—that states would be required to adhere to.

Thoughts?

acptulsa
04-30-2009, 10:01 AM
You guys read this part of the blog right?

Thoughts?

Probably the only way to get it passed. These types of restrictions were designed into the Interstate system from the start. They are, ostensibly, what makes it so vital to national defense.

Imperial
04-30-2009, 02:37 PM
Between Perry's Secession and this bill, we may be able to reclaim Texas before the 2010 election. :)

Of course, I think in Texas we will be largely irrelevant in the governor's race in 2010 by splitting between posturing Perry, Medina, and Friedman. Oh well.

Knightskye
05-02-2009, 07:52 PM
KBH?
You have got to be kidding me. Surely you mean baby steps towards complete tyranny through a global currency in conjunction with toll roads and a police state.

... this bill is a step toward a police state how?


I hesitate to even click the link for fear that I might despise CATO even more than I already do.

It's not CATO. :p


Perhaps a kind soul will be honest enough to tell me whether or not the coast is clear.

Here are parts of the article:


The Reason Foundation's Bob Poole cheers proposed legislation from Texas's Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison to allow keep its own gas tax money and opt out of the federal Highway Trust Fund, using its own money for its own road infrastructure needs. Some reasons:


But there are some potential hazards to devolution as well on "e pluribus unum" grounds, Poole notes:

Fair and balanced. :)

Scribbler de Stebbing
05-02-2009, 08:39 PM
Even if it's posturing, as it likely is, it's great to see Perry and Hutchinson racing to the side of liberty. It means y'all have been having an influence.

Reward good behavior, and you'll get more of it. Support their bills when they're right.

RSLudlum
05-02-2009, 09:02 PM
You guys read this part of the blog right?


the Interstate system is critically important to interstate commerce, and the federal government has a constitutional responsibility to ensure that states do not erect barriers to interstate commerce

Thoughts?

Outright Hamiltonian speak. According to Hamilton in a letter to George Washington, "interstate commerce" includes all commerce within the states bc. such commerce ultimately affects commerce across state lines, therefore the federal government has a 'right' to regulate all commerce in each individual state. But according to the statement (in the above quote), there seems to be an inferrence that the federal gov't doesn't 'erect barriers' itself. A tactic used all the time by the federal gov't is threatening to withold highway funds if a state doesn't enact certain laws/programs. Now tell me is that not in itself a 'barrier to interstate commerce"?

Knightskye
05-04-2009, 11:18 PM
Now tell me is that not in itself a 'barrier to interstate commerce"?

Definitely. You can't truck something from one state to another if you don't have a highway. :D

acptulsa
06-25-2009, 06:39 AM
Dear Mr. Platt,

Thank you for your email regarding the Highway Fairness and Reform Act of 2009 (S. 903). It is good to hear from you, and I appreciate you taking the time to share your concern with me.

As you know S. 903 would enable states to opt out of the Federal Highway Program funding formula and, instead, use only federal revenue generated from the gasoline tax to address their transportation infrastructure needs. As it stands, federal transportation funds are earmarked by legislators, which distributes money to select states disproportionately and often to things that are not as necessary as other projects - just as you mentioned. Currently, S. 903 has been referred to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. I will keep your thoughts in mind should this bill come before me on the Senate floor, and I will most likely support it.

Like you, I believe transportation needs are best addressed on the state and local levels. States and localities are better equipped to evaluate and determine local transportation needs - like highway funding and speed limit decisions - than federal bureaucrats and members of Congress.

I am in favor of granting states more control of their transportation trust fund monies to use for infrastructure needs. There is a critical lack of prioritization in Congress. For example, during the consideration of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (H.R. 1 also known as the stimulus), I tried to direct more of the money towards transportation infrastructure projects. I offered several amendments to remove wasteful spending from the stimulus. One of these would have eliminated provisions within the bill that would fund casinos, aquariums, zoos, museums, golf courses and swimming pools. These provisions would do little to stimulate the economy yet disproportionally fund local projects. You can find more details by visiting my website: <a href="http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=LatestNews.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=3d97fd6d-802a-23ad-4656-8435b17a3a0d&Issue_id">http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=LatestNews.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=3d97fd6d-802a-23ad-4656-8435b17a3a0d&Issue_id</a>.

I understand we may disagree in some areas. I am not a libertarian but a conservative Republican who believes in our Constitution and the principles of our Founding Fathers - including a Republic form of government, a limited federal government, and individual responsibility. I strive to uphold the Constitution in all aspects of public law. I invite you to view my voting record by clicking on the following web link: http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=LegislationIssues.VotingRecor d.

Thank you again for contacting me on this topic. I look forward to hearing from you in the future.

Sincerely, A
Tom A. Coburn, M.D.
United States Senator