WASHINGTON — A coalition of organizations opposed to legislation that
would take transportation trust funds "off budget" today sent a letter
to Congress warning that such a move would eliminate any effective
means of controlling transportation spending in the future.
The proposal to take the four trust funds off-budget, included
in the "ISTEA" reauthorization bill, would pave the way for
transportation spending levels far above those set by the 1997
bipartisan budget agreement.
WASHINGTON — A coalition of organizations opposed to legislation that
would take transportation trust funds "off budget" today sent a letter
to Congress warning that such a move would eliminate any effective
means of controlling transportation spending in the future.
The proposal to take the four trust funds off-budget, included
in the "ISTEA" reauthorization bill, would pave the way for
transportation spending levels far above those set by the 1997
bipartisan budget agreement.
If approved by Congress and signed by the president, the bill would
exempt transportation spending from the annual appropriations process,
as well as the strict discretionary spending caps other programs are
subject to. In effect, transportation spending would become an
entitlement.
"All parts of the budget should be on the table when Congress
is making tough budget-cutting choices," the letter states. "No set of
programs or interest groups should be exempt from consideration,
including transportation."
Attached is the full text of the letter, along with a list of the signatories.
March 23, 1998
Dear Representative:
We strongly oppose the provision in the ISTEA reauthorization bill to move the four transportation trust funds off budget.
Our organizations have different perspectives on fiscal policy
and different reasons for opposing this provision. Some of our groups
are concerned that it would seriously harm the prospects for
maintaining budget balance. Some worry that it would balkanize the
federal budget and further complicate, confuse, and weaken budget
processes. Some fear that it would result in deep cuts in domestic
discretionary programs beyond the 10 percent reduction already required
by the 1997 bipartisan budget deal. However, we are all agreed that
taking these trust funds off budget is extremely unwise and should not
be enacted.
All parts of the budget should be on the table when Congress is
making tough budget-cutting choices. No set of programs or interest
groups should be exempt from consideration, including transportation.
Once the transportation programs are off-budget, there will be no
effective way the budget process can control how much they spend.
One of the most deceptive myths about these trust funds is that
they pay for all related program expenditures. False! The earmarked
taxes bear little relationship to the actual use of or damage to the
nation’s infrastructure. Furthermore, trust fund spending has been
greatly supplemented by federal spending from general revenues for the
same purposes — more than $50 billion in general fund appropriations
since 1980.
Supporters of this provision erroneously claim that the
surpluses in these trust funds have been used to mask the deficit. This
is not true! The surpluses in the highway trust fund result from paper
interest earned and compounded on trust fund surpluses dating from
before 1980. In fact, from 1980 until 1997, total trust fund spending
exceeded total gas tax revenues by over $13 billion. In 13 of those 17
years, spending from the Highway Trust Fund has exceeded tax revenue.
Thus, if anything, the trust funds have increased the deficit, not
masked it.
The bill as a whole already increases transportation spending
by nearly 40% compared to the previous ISTEA authorization. If Congress
wants to increase transportation spending above levels allowed in the
1997 bipartisan budget agreement, it should muster the courage to make
tough choices to cut or control other spending year by year in light of
overall priorities. It should not permit this one-time end run around
the budget process to lock in not only a high priority for
transportation spending but also the necessity of major reductions in
other programs.
Some signers of this letter are deeply concerned that taking
transportation trust funds off budget could necessitate as much as $34
billion in reductions from other discretionary programs from 1999 to
2003, in addition to already planned reductions in such programs, if
the budget is to remain balanced. Some signers believe, further, this
would have serious consequences for other programs funded by the
general fund — including education, environmental protection, science
and technology, health research, assistance for poor children, law
enforcement, veterans? benefits, and investments in areas that could
lead to stronger economic growth.
There are 167 trust funds, and all of them are on-budget
currently except for Social Security. There is no compelling rationale
for transportation spending to be accorded special treatment not given
to other major functions of the federal government, and doing so would
severely damage the budget process.
We urge you to oppose any action to take transportation trust funds off budget.
Martha Phillips
Concord Coalition Citizens Council
Thomas H. Miller
Blinded Veterans Association
Michael Replogle
Environmental Defense Fund
Carol Cox Wait
Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget
Ralph De Gennaro
Taxpayers for Common Sense
Dave Hirsch
Friends of the Earth
Wenonah Hauter
Public Citizen
Amy Moritz Ridenour
National Center for Public Policy Research
Thomas A. Schatz
Council for Citizens Against Government Waste
