ConservativeHome's The Republican

With concern growing over a possible gas tax increase, GOP Senators call on the Administration to clarify its proposal to raise $435 billion in new revenue for the Transportation Trust Fund

Natalie Gonnella

In a joint effort led by freshman Marco Rubio (a member of the Commerce Subcommittee on Surface Transportation), 23 GOP Senators today sent a letter to President Obama requesting clarification on the Administration's aim to raise $435 billion in new revenue for the Transportation Trust Fund as outlined in the President's 2012 budget proposal

With scrutiny growing over the proposal, and little information about taxes and fees attributed to the fund, Republican lawmakers called on President Obama to provide further details as to how the fundraising effort will be implemented, and to more candidly disclose whether or not Americans will face further gas taxes in the near future.

With taxpayers already coping with ever-increasing fuel prices, here's a look at the Senators' letter to the President regarding their concerns with the Transportation Trust Fund:

Rising energy prices and the negative effect that they have on consumers, job creators, and the greater economy are of grave concern to all Americans. During these tough economic times, it is important that we do everything we can to mitigate the impact of high energy prices and avoid additional increases. With that in mind, we write today to express concern with the proposed $435 billion in revenue contained in your budget request for Fiscal Year 2012 labeled as the “Bipartisan financing for Transportation Trust Fund.” Specifically, we request that you make clear to the American people and Congress how this $435 billion will be financed.

You have provided in your Fiscal Year 2012 budget specific, year-by-year totals of the amount of revenue projected to be raised by a “Bipartisan financing for Transportation Trust Fund.” For example, according to your budget, this fund would provide $26 billion next year alone. However, your budget submitted to Congress contains no details on how this revenue would be raised. Furthermore, in its recent re-estimate of your budget proposal, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office noted that “the absence of any information about the nature of the taxes or fees that might be used to produce revenues [for this fund] did not allow an assessment of the potential budgetary effects.” Also, while your budget states that you have not assumed an increase in gas taxes, it goes on to state that the new revenues “have the general characteristics of an excise tax.” This language is contradictory.

To communicate to our constituents whether or not the $435 billion trust fund represents a large gas tax increase, we respectfully request details on how the Administration calculated the amount of revenue it envisions for the “Bipartisan financing for Transportation Trust Fund.” More specifically, given the exact numbers provided in your budget, we request information as to what revenue stream the Administration assumed would fund this new transportation trust fund in the coming year.

As energy prices continue to increase, we are hopeful that this new revenue stream proposed by the Administration would not be a new gas tax on American consumers. We appreciate your clarification on an issue that affects the everyday lives of our constituents.

Thank you for your consideration of our request. We look forward to your prompt response.

A full list of signatories is available here.

Can the tea partiers come up with at least some positive policy on spending? Here are two ideas

Ryan Streeter

It's not at all popular to suggest that Republicans should find a positive role for government spending these days. The anti-spending animus that has overtaken (at least some parts) of Washington is a good thing for the country. 

At the same time, it's setting up the GOP for a bit of a crisis. The reality is that the government will spend money - a lot of it - and tea partiers will have to vote for bills that involve spending on things they campaigned against. Stories will come out - especially in local papers around the country - about how they have "betrayed" the grassroots (to use John Shadegg's words in the Daily Caller).

So it seems to me that there should be a couple of broad, topical areas on which the most tea party-ish Republicans could join together to support a positive role for spending. Here are the two most compelling:

• Energy: Today's Politico story on nuclear power is a good case in point. Energy independence is a goal any tea partier can support. It might also require some federal spending. I would add natural gas, as well. Even without additional spending on gas, we might be able to beef up that industry and become a net exporter of the stuff. But the GOP should be open to spending on these fronts to create longer-term growth that more than pays for the initial outlays.
• Infrastructure: Any federal spending on infrastructure should actually come with boatloads of attached strings and conditions. No more earmarks bills masquerading in stimulus or infrastructure clothing. But the idea that federal investments in new types of infrastructure could create longer-term jobs and a positive ROI is something the GOP needs to think through more carefully...and then put forward some good ideas (and some money). This Forbes interview with Mort Zuckerman has some ideas on this. 

Why not have a couple of pro-growth areas in which a positive role for spending will likely play a role? Politically, it will help the new GOPers deflect coming charges of betrayal - or at least that they are an even bigger Party of No than before.