Posted on 05/02/2014 12:46:32 PM PDT by nascarnation
Using America's interstate system could get more expensive in some places in the near future. Provisions in the White House-endorsed, $302 billion transportation bill would allow states to get permission from the federal government to impose tolls on them to raise money for infrastructure upkeep. Of course, some states already charge to drive on the interstates – the New Jersey turnpike, for example – but for the most part charges are rare on the federally funded roads.
"We believe that this is an area where the states have to make their own decisions," said Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx to the Washington Post.
Currently, interstate infrastructure upkeep is mostly funded through the US Highway Trust Fund, which collects taxes on gas and diesel fuel. However, it's no longer bringing in the money to make needed repairs. According to the Washington Post, the federal gas tax hasn't been raised or adjusted since 1993. Most states get about half of their highway funding from the federal government.
Opening up the ability for states to charge tolls is just one way the government hopes to raise money. The measures comes as part of the transportation bill that aims to fund interstate infrastructure upkeep for the next four years partially by eliminating some tax breaks on businesses. Another provision in it would increase the maximum fines that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration could levy against automakers that delay recalls.
Reportedly, Republicans and Democrats in Congress are working on their own alternatives to the bill, and the Obama administration says that it's open to counter offers. Though, lawmakers don't have long to decide. According to the Washington Post, the current federal highway funding law expires at the end of September, and the Department of Transportation warns that the Highway Trust Fund could be empty as soon as this summer as well. It will be interesting to see if any of these proposals make it into the final law.
Simply put, the delegates to the first Constitutional Convention had discussed the idea of delegating to Congress, via the Constitution, the specific power to build roads and canals to carry freight, but had dropped the idea. In fact, the following excerpt from Thomas Jefferson's writings reflects this.
“A proposition was made to them to authorize Congress to open canals ... But the whole was rejected [emphasis added], and one of the reasons for rejection urged in debate was, that then they would have a power to erect a bank, which would render the great cities, where there were prejudices and jealousies on the subject, adverse to the reception of the Constitution.” —Jefferson’s Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791.
In fact, President James Madison vetoed a bill by the 14th(?) Congress to build roads and canals, Madison's constitutionally required veto letter emphasizing that, other than postal roads (Clause 7 of Section 8 of Article I), the states have never delegated to Congress, via the Constitution, the specific power to build roads and canals.
Veto of federal public works bill
Interestingly, Madison used wording from the Constitution in his letter to Congress which clearly indicates that federal power to regulate, tax and spend for a national highway system should not be interpolated from Section 8's General Defense or Commerce Clause clause powers.
And with all due respect to the family and supporters of the late President Eisenhower, please consider the following. Although Eisenhower signed the bill which established the nation's interstate highway system, Eisenhower was evidently clueless, as evidenced by Madison's veto of the public works bill, to the idea that Congress first needed to petition the states for a highways amendment to the Constitution. And if the states had chosen to ratify Eisenhower's amendement, then Congress would have had the constitutional authority that it needed to tax and spend to build the nation's highways system, and Eisenhower would have been an even greater hero than he was. So now the USA has an interstate highway system that was arguably build outside the framework of the Constitution imo.
The bottom line is that, unless the states amend the Constitution to allow Congress to lay taxes for maintaining the nation's highway system, Congress should not be laying taxes to maintain and expand the system in order to comply with Justice John Marshall's official clarification of Congress's limited power to lay taxes.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
So interstate highway tolls are arguably a fair way for the people and companies who use the highways to pay for them.
Wasn’t a lot of the money in Barack’s original ‘stimulus’ supposed to go to ‘infrastructure’? I would like to tell all the Dem donors that were the recipients of our hard earned taxpayer monies: GIVE IT BACK!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.