Appoint a committee, roads to follow
The following two paragraphs are the conclusion of an article that appeared in the Pasadena Citizen about an appearance by Kay Bailey Hutchison yesterday in which she discussed her transportation plan. The article appears on the Hutchison campaign web site:
When asked about paying for transportation improvements, she was less specific.
For financing rail improvement and other improvements, Hutchison said the first step is to examine where money is being spent now, then to look at other sources of revenue. The only concrete plan she presented for financing was to appoint a committee to evaluate current spending and identify potential savings and potential new revenue sources.
* * * *
How can she run for governor against Rick Perry, using transportation as her major issue, and not be prepared with an answer that at least shows a grasp of the problem? Indeed, she could watch a video that is on her web site and hear another politician provide some ideas. It’s Perry, saying things like, “There are no ‘free’ ways. There are toll roads, slow roads, or no roads.”
Everybody with the slightest interest in transportation policy understands what the options are. We can raise the gasoline tax statewide. We can index the tax to inflation. We can have local option gasoline taxes. We can borrow the money by issuing bonds and going further into debt. We can end the billion-plus dollars of diversions to DPS and other recipients (but if we do that, how will we fund DPS?). Or we can build toll roads. Appointing a committee to evaluate current spending and identify potential savings and potential new revenue sources is an embarrassingly weak response. We already have all sorts of folks who do what she suggests–the Legislative Budget Board, Senate Finance, House Appropriations, for starters. And the state comptroller. The problem is not a lack of smart people who can scrub the budget. It gets scrubbed every session. The problem is the lack of political will and leadership to propose a solution.
Texas is heading for a financial crisis. The budget has a structural deficit. Our needs are growing and our income is not. What is she going to do about that? This ought to be the first question in the gubernatorial debate.
Tagged: kay bailey hutchison, transportation
Not a police officer says:
Has anyone thought of terminating the DPS Highway Patrol and replacing it with a drastically lower-cost motorist courtesy patrol? Seriously, how does the public benefit by a department that spends most its time soaking motorists for trivial “technical foul”-type violations?
Yeah, I know, it’s a bold move and would require people to use intellectual integrity when thinking through transportation policy, so the chance is virtually zilch, but still…?
Oh, and it would also require us to stop worshiping every last word of government expansionists like Jerry Johns, Ralph Nader, MADD, and Joan Claybrook…
Reply »
Jamie says:
[Indeed, she could watch a video that is on her web site and hear another politician provide some ideas. It’s Perry, saying things like, “There are no ‘free’ ways. There are toll roads, slow roads, or no roads.”]
Good point.
Reply »
Clark says:
The last sentence of this post pretty much sums up why Terry Sullivan didn’t want Paul asking Sen. Hutchison questions at the KERA debate.
Reply »
Face Reply:
December 31st, 2009 at 11:55 am
Right…and the same reason KBH can’t answer any of these questions. She is all about being liked. She wants to run for homecoming queen, not governor. Leadership is about tough choices, not just criticizing the only person brave enough to show up with solutions.
Reply »
MonkeyMan Reply:
December 31st, 2009 at 12:22 pm
And how do you distinguish Gov. Perry? Where is his leadership? Can he answer these questions? He’s now perhaps open to some modification of the gas tax, but what has happened on his watch — squat. I agree that KBH’s committee proposal is less than bold (to put it mildly), but don’t you have to acknowledge that it is, technically, bolder than anything Perry has done to address this issue.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
December 31st, 2009 at 12:52 pm
You mean, like the fact in the last ten years Texas has built more lane miles of road (overwhelmingly non-tolled roads) than every other state combined? I’d say Perry has a helluva good transportation record.
T-A-S says:
Paul:
What would you do about the structural deficit? Raise the sales tax rate? Expand the sales tax to cover business and professional services, like lawyers, accountants, and stock brokers? Shut down special-interest tax breaks, like the school property tax abatements for wind farms, nuclear plants, and refineries? Sunset all tax exemptions? Or let universities raise tuition enough that they don’t need any state money at all?
Bunch of bad choices.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
December 31st, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Assuming that I don’t have to answer for the political consequences, I would reduce the amount of the property tax cut. Fifty cents was too much. Twenty-five cents would be about right.
Reply »
tx watcher says:
Kay Bailey Hutchison has no vision nor clue about Texas. Its sad to see her ramble about and strut about with no clothes. Who will tell the crazy aunt to sit down and be quiet? What a shame
Reply »
MonkeyMan says:
The truth of the matter is that neither of these candidates can talk about our financial situation, because they lack the fortitude to honestly speak to their Republican base about what is necessary to keep basic government functioning. This is what happens when you let folks like Grover Norquist and Michael Quinn Sullivan control the rhetoric. It’s irresponsible. The irony is the R’s in suburban areas would likely support targeted taxes to add transportation infrastructure — pity that they are ahead of the candidates in the R primary in accepting this conclusion.
Reply »
Rumble Strip says:
Mr. Burka:
Those are the exact issues. Everything else is secondary (not unimportant but simply the next steps). A+.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
The average middle class person wants govt to provide: security, water/sewer, good roads and an environment that encourages business growth (aka: jobs), high schools that graduate literate people, low taxes and a govt that lives completely within its means.
Reply »
tdl Reply:
December 31st, 2009 at 4:14 pm
So what do you do if the tax system you’ve got doesn’t generate enough money to provide security, water/sewer, roads, jobs, and good schools? Which of these services do you want to do without? Or would you be willing to pay more to get more?
Reply »
TX Accountant says:
Hutchison has no way to pay for her plans. I’ve crunched some numbers, and her rail plans could cost upwards of 200 billion dollars over several years if she is serious about doing it “right.” It would also condemn more acreage than the entire proposed Trans-Texas Corridor if we are to take her plan at face value.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
December 31st, 2009 at 5:20 pm
There is not going to be any high speed rail. Grade separation is the problem, not condemnation.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
January 1st, 2010 at 7:18 am
I would like to add one thing about high speed rail. The first person to propose it was not KBH. It was Rick Perry. Has everyone forgotten that high-speed passenger rail lines, pipelines, and electric power lines were to be situated in the quarter-mile wide esplanade of the Trans-Texas Corridor. This was part of Ric Williamson’s original plan.
Reply »
paul burka's brain Reply:
January 5th, 2010 at 9:16 am
from KBH onw plan: “* Renew Emphasis On High-Speed And Commuter Rail. Because of the distances and population densities involved, the area within the “Texas Triangle” of Dallas-Ft. Worth, Houston and San Antonio is ideal for a system of high-speed and commuter rail.” this is a $25 billion dollar base plan.
Reply »
John Johnson says:
I’m sure that KBH would start to pay for transporation plan by just stealing money from some dedicated accounts like Perry and his boys have been doing for years in order to balance the budget.
Some of us realize that taxes are going to have to be raised or spending curtailed. It’s really pretty simple. Anyone have the balls to stand up and say so? I think not.
Reply »
Stevie F says:
Neither of these candidates seems to feel that they need to stoop to telling voters what they would do and that talking about issues is for mortals.
Reply »
Fiftycal says:
WHAT! You question KAY BABY??? How dare you. Shirley her policys are WAYYYY WAYYYY above your ability to understand. And as a long time champion of AMTRAK, Kay Baby will see to it that HIGH SPEED RAIL will serve the transportation needs of Texans in the future. Next week, she that must be obeyed will announce that rail transport has been delegated to Capital Metro and their crack team of rail expurts.
Reply »
jpt51 says:
All the more reason to elect an open and honest candidate, Bill White!
Reply »
Tom says:
Why is it surprising that KBH is an empty suit? In my opinion, she comes across as the sterotypical country club Republican, totally out of touch with reality who would have been exposed a long time ago if she had ever had a serious opponent. Perhaps it’s a good thing for the Texas GOP that she’s unlikely to be their nominee as she would get trounced by Bill White.
Reply »
tx watcher says:
Paul, true the TCC had rail but it was to be built with private money! KBH plans to us tax dollars. She repeated that in the DMN interview as well.
And the TCC is dead but KBH land grab to build the golden triangle rail system is north of $25 billion. But bottom line her plan is more govt and study and delay. But at least its not bold fonts.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
January 2nd, 2010 at 6:58 am
This “more gov’t” line is such a cliche. The test of a policy proposal ought not be, Is it “more government,” but is it (a) affordable and (b) beneficial to the state. I think the answer is no on both counts concerning high speed rail.
There is no way high speed rail could be built with private money. You can’t make the numbers work. Texas already has high-speed mass transit. It’s called Southwest Airlines. It works like a train. You get on an empty plane. It fills up. You get off. It empties. More people get on. It fills up.
Reply »
Likes the toll road near her house says:
A genius source of funding for roads – THE GAS TAX.
I don’t mean raising it. I mean ending the diversions, or at least cutting them back significantly.
It would mean our legislators would finally have to learn school finance and fix that problem as well (they can’t all be Scott Hochberg, but they could at least stop shying away from it). But hey, unless you raise taxes, and that is politically stupid unless you give TXDOT a more thorough whooping first, someone needs to talk about ways to move the current money around.
Joe Deshotel actually had a great piece of legislation related to ending diversions of federal funds that go to DPS – inspired, really. Too bad McCall’s Calendars committee held it up.
Reply »
paulburka says:
Ending the gasoline tax diversions, as I have pointed out many times, solves one problem but creates another. Where does the money come from to fund DPS? How does education make up for the money that it will lose?
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
January 2nd, 2010 at 9:31 pm
How do you re-divert or undivert money constitutionally mandated? Get real, please.
Reply »
David Siegel Reply:
January 3rd, 2010 at 7:32 am
One quarter of the gas tax is constitutionally dedicated to the Available School Fund. Of the rest, 87.4% goes to TxDOT and associated employee benefits. 10.7% goes to DPS. The remaining 2% goes to the Dept of Motor Vehicles and a few odds and ends.
So, in dollars, there’s just over $1 billion that could be redirected to TxDot. Which would mean, of course, $1 billion additional demand on sales tax revenue.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
January 3rd, 2010 at 10:48 am
The total appropriated amount of diversions is $1,531,560,677
DPS receives $1,245,000,000 (rounded)
TEA receives $100M
Medicaid receives $85M
HHS receives $20M
Nothing else is significant.
paulburka Reply:
January 3rd, 2010 at 10:30 am
Re anonymous, above –
To “unedivert” education’s share of the gasoline tax would require a constitutional amendment. It would never pass the Legislature.
Reply »
Kenneth D. Franks says:
We were promised back 20 years ago that the lottery money would go to education. The gas tax collections also have been diverted to the general fund or other purposes. As much as Texas politicians like to blame Washington for everything, it seems they have learned all of the accounting tricks somewhere.
Reply »
David Siegel says:
The lottery money does go to education. All $1 billion a year. Unfortunately, it takes $40 billion a year to run even our current public education system.
Reply »
Briscoe Democrat says:
Once again folks.
My prediction: Perry beats the snot out of KBH by 10 points in March primary, 55-45 and wins re-election over White by a small margin: 50-48 in the general.
End of story due to anti-DC sentiment and anti-Democratic sentiment.
Reply »
Harry Doghiney (D-TX) says:
anti-DC sentiment and anti-Democratic sentiment
If these sentiments were as widely held as you people believe, Glenn Beck would be president. Keep reading freerepublic and redstate and keep telling yourself that your name is Legion.
Reply »
George Gallup says:
Harry how sad a life you must lead. Thinking that Glenn Beck would be President? The voters are fed up with this free spending over reaching congress either party does not matter. were there enough folks to challenge the incumbants many heads would role. the nation is going to swing back towards the center by the end of 2010.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Actually, the amount of the diversions is closer to $1.2 billion. TEA no longer receives that $100 million. And the DPS amount has been reduced to closer to $880 million.
Reply »
Briscoe Democrat says:
Stick a fork in Kay, she’s DEAD and finished.
Reply »