How much federal highway $$$ does Texas get?
The Hutchison campaign’s Joe Pounder criticized Perry yesterday for getting his facts mixed up over how much Texas gets from the feds from the federal gasoline tax money it sends to Washington. Here’s what Pounder wrote:
Rick Perry and his campaign are confused. They are so eager to launch negative attacks that they will say just about anything. Yesterday, Rick Perry said that Texas gets 94 cents back for every transportation dollar it sends to Washington. Today, his campaign says its only 78 cents. Candidate-campaign communication problem? Bottom line: The Perry campaign will never let facts get in their way of going negative.
YESTERDAY: Rick Perry Said That Texas Gets 94 CENTS Back For Every Transportation Dollar It Sends To Washington. PERRY: “For every dollar we send to Washington D.C., we only get 94 cents back. So we’re a major donor to all the other states.”
First, let me hasten to say that I don’t regard this as anything more than a tempest in a teapot. Second, here’s what I think the number is: 92 cents. Here’s why: When he was still in power, Tom DeLay held up a federal highway bill with the demand that Texas’s share be raised from 86 cents out of every dollar to 92.5 cents. He won. I just looked it up on the TM archives in the 2006 story I wrote about DeLay’s decision to leave elective office. It may have changed since then, but in 06, the story was fact-checked.
UPDATE:
Thanks to TxDOT chair Deirdre Delisi for this report:
The 92.5% guarantee [Texas] has under the current surface transportation bill only applies to the highway funding formula, which doesn’t equate to 100% of federal gas tax dollars Texas sends to DC. Here’s how the math breaks down. For ever $1 we send, 85% goes to highways and 15% goes to transit. Of the 85% that goes to highways, only 85% goes towards the funding formula; the other 15% goes to discretionary spending. So the 92.5% only applies to 85% of 85% of 100%, which roughly equals 67-68 cents. It all means very little when, in the end, DC passes a bill it 1) can’t fund and 2) takes the funding it does have for other purposes, resulting in almost $2 billion in recissions for Texas. All together, adding up the formula dollars, discretionary spending and transit, Texas gets about 78 cents back on the dollar, a far cry from 92 cents on the dollar.
* * * *
I assume, perhaps without foundation, that other states are in the same boat. In any event, it is pretty clear that the federal mice are nibbling at the state’s cheese.
Tagged: federal highway bill, kay bailey hutchison, transportation
David Siegel says:
What is the point of calculating how many pennies Texas gets back of each federal gasoline tax dollar collected here? If every state were guaranteed to get back a full dollar, then what would be the point of having a national government?
Reply »
Anonymous says:
here is exactly what the Perry campaign said, just look at the release:
“Texas continues to be short-changed by the federal government when it comes to transportation funding. There is a general perception that for every federal gas tax dollar Texa s sends to Washington, our state gets 92 cents back. But that guaranteed rate of return only pertains to the main highway formula funding that Texas receives and does not include discretionary funding, transit, or some Congressional earmarks.
In reality, for every dollar Texas sends to Washington, we are returned approximately 70 cents for highways and another 8 cents for transit – with the remaining 22 cents going to other states to address their transportation issues.”
The point they are making is correct: when you factor in discretionary funds Texas only gets 78 cents back total for every dollar. That is the whole picture, rather than just the highway formula fund. Last I checked Texas was 51st out of 50 states when you include DC — not exactly a source of pride for KBH
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
October 3rd, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Good information. The Hutchison campaign should not have criticized Perry without knowing the correct number.
Texas generally does not do well in federal funding formulas, never has. Even Lloyd Benstsen couldn’t change it when he was chairman of Senate Finance. The northeastern states saw to it that the funding formulas were based on things favorable to them, such as the number of public housing units in the 1980 census. It makes no sense to say Perry doesn’t have his facts straight when you can find out.
Texas historically has not sought funds for mass transit. Remember that DeLay blocked funding for Houston Metro for a time.
Reply »
John Garza says:
The 92% minimum guarantee only applies to the formula highway funds. Two other pots of money, he discretionary (earmarks) and transit funds, do not have a minimum guarantee. Our poor rate of return in both discretionary and transit drags down Texas overall rate of return to about 85 cents. If you count all the federal gas taxes sent to DC and count all that come back to Texas we get 85 cents back for every dollar we send to DC.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Yes, a tempest in a teapot for sure — “At the moment, the campaigns’ primary weapons are press releases, most of which quote breathless, bombastic spokespersons who are anything but big names.” — Whiskeydent, see http://www.dogcanyon.org/2009/10/02/rick-v-kay-or-godzilla-and-mothra-on-the-mall/
Reply »
The Breakfast Klub, Houston says:
Looks like the Hutchison camp has egg on its face yet again. Unfortunately for those of us who care about good public policy, the press don’t have the intelligence and/or bandwidth to sift through Team Kay’s intentionally-confusing misdirections. Perry made a credible hit, and nobody picked it up because Hutchison came back with some fuzzy math designed to cast a cloud over the attack.
Not that Perry’s camp doesn’t do it sometimes, too, but I get the sense that KBH’s camp is specifically trying to confuse reporters on issues over the past few weeks– and it’s working.
Eventually, when you tell enough fibs, it catches up to you. This Joe Pounder guy seems to be the prime culprit. He seems to be straining his credibility quite early in this race.
Reply »
truth hurts says:
Are we a state in the United States or are we not? Are we in or are we out? The question isn’t whether we put in more than we get. The question is whether the policy is justified. It shouldn’t be assumed that it isn’t. For instance, did our cheap crap from Wal-Mart arrive via interstate highway? Via a state that may have needed subsidized funding for our national highways system? Otherwise our cheap crap would have been more expensive, having had to travel over crumbling, slow, unsubsidized roads?
How many layers of utter stupidity constitute Texas politics? Many.
Reply »
CollinWatcher says:
Two issues here: first I’m not inclined to pay more attention to the Farm Bureau since I consider them to be a large (and successful) insurance company, rather than the true voice of farmers and ranchers.
Second, I consider how much money Texas gains versus what we give to be relevant. Of course, we are a large state and a “donor” state, but I think that when you’ve called yourself a successful Senator, bragged about your sub committee chairmanship, toured the state numerous times (including Collin County) and participated in ribbon cuttings on federal funds, then yes, you are, in fact, responsible for the fact that every year Texas gives money to smaller states who have traffic and transportation issues that are only a fraction of what we have in the Metroplex.
And the issue is relevant for another reason: KBH is now wired in the ways of Washington — which means, she uses the power of her office to beg, borrow and steal as much money in the federal government and return it to Texas.
That’s what’s wrong with Washington. I believe I’m right when I’m saying that the only two Congressmen who don’t take earmarks are Hensarling and McCaul (and Ron Paul isn’t on that list, you might ask?).
To me these guys are heros, able to work in D.C. without being captured by the spend all, borrow more culture. I suspect this is what Perry is tapping into. KBH has used her Appropriator credentials numerous times, but, as Perry as shown — when you aren’t successful getting a fair deal, that street goes both ways.
Reply »
General Sam Houston says:
What is relevent is whether Texas government is well managed. The news this week is not how much on the dollar Texas gets back — but that TxDot again had to return to the feds a huge sum (several hundred million dollars?) that it didn’t plan for and spend timely. Another major show of incompetence on TxDot’s part.
If Deidre DeLisi spent more time supervising TxDot — and less time in Twittering battles and responding to blogs like Burka’s — then Texas would be better off.
Though, to her credit, I notice that since Mackoviak called her out on it a month or so ago, she’s cut back on the Twittering on government time. Somebody obviously put the clamps on her.
Again — this talk of how much Texas gets back is a diversion. If Texas doesn’t manage and spend the funds it does get, who cares whether it’s 92 cents or 94 cents?
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
October 5th, 2009 at 9:47 am
Dear Joe Pounder, are you really saying all 50 DOTs are mismanaged, since every single state had to return money? Is that how desperate you are to blame others for Washington’s, and by definition Hutchison’s, failure? Pathetic. You’re not even good at your job.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
“The federal mice are nibbling at the state’s cheese.”
Burka, you crack me up.
Reply »
Bill says:
It is a national transportation system, isn’t it?
Reply »
Jeff says:
Less populous and slow-growing states generally get more back than they put in. How else do you think we built interstates across Wyoming?
Large and fast growing sunbelt states, though, do end up on the short end of the stick
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs06/pdf/fe221.pdf
Reply »
Sam says:
Has anyone noted that this page carries the wrong date? It’s listed as October 3, 2009 … should be January 16, 2010.
Reply »