RedState: Highway bill compromise 'a massive increase in federal gluttony'


RedState and other conservative groups had called for Congress to limit highway spending to the amount of money that is brought in by the 18.4 cents-per-gallon tax on gasoline that is traditionally used to fill the coffers of the Highway Trust Fund, which is about $36 billion per year. The compromise reached Wednesday by the House and Senate would spend nearly $60 billion on transportation projects over the next two years.

Supporters of the new transportation bill argued that the gas tax did not generate enough money to pay for road and transit projects that were needed because of increased fuel efficiency of modern automobiles. They also cited a Congressional Budget Office projection that the Highway Trust Fund would go bankrupt in 2013 without Congress providing additional revenue.

Erickson argued in his blog post that the federal deficit was a bigger deal than the projected shortfall in transportation funding.

"We’re at $16 trillion in debt and as the sun rises this morning we are reminded of two things: the Republicans are not serious about paying down the debt and many outside conservative groups will politely avert their eyes arguing that we must fight Barack ObamaBarack Hussein ObamaTrump hits Biden as 'disrespectful' to Obama Is America ready to return to the Obama-Biden foreign policy? Trump's debate performance was too little, too late MORE, not stop the Republican’s complicity in bankrupting our nation," he wrote. "So much for credibility in the argument on spending."

The anti-tax group Club for Growth also said Thursday that it was opposed to the transportation bill compromise, sending an alert to its members calling for lawmakers to vote against the deal and promising to hold votes in against them before November's election.

"The Club urges all members of Congress to vote against this bill," the alert said. "This will be a key vote on the Club's 2012 congressional scorecard."

Republicans on the 47-member conference committee have defended the highway bill compromise, arguing that is consistent with conservative fiscal principles.

"As with any compromise we didn’t get everything we wanted, but I believe we truly have a good bill – one conservatives can be proud to support," Sen. James InhofeJames (Jim) Mountain InhofeSexual assault case against Air Force general can proceed, judge rules House Democrat optimistic defense bill will block Trump's Germany withdrawal EPA gives Oklahoma authority over many tribal environmental issues MORE (R-Okla.) said in a statement after the agreement was officially announced.  

"We reduced the number of programs by two-thirds; eliminated or consolidated those that are duplicative or don’t serve a national transportation goal; got rid of numerous bureaucratic hurdles; we were able to slash the lengthy and often duplicative environmental review process from an average of 15 years down to 7; we found ways to increase the role of state and local governments while working to get the federal government out of the way at every opportunity; and we made sure that states were able to spend highway money on their highest priorities rather than being forced to address Washington’s priorities," he continued.

-This post was updated at 12:17 p.m.