Politics Disad – Jackson-Vanik

Transportation disliked by Republicans

Republicans dislike federal spending for infrastructure programs-support tolls

Sledge 12,

(Matt, Huffington Post reporter, “Gop Candidates’ Transportation Infrastructure Talk Praises Tolls But Ignores Jobs”, 1/4/12, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/04/gop-candidates-transportation-infrastructure-jobs_n_1184314.html Accessed:6/25/12)

Republicans, by contrast, view transportation as either a local issue or "a sector that ought to stand on its own feet, in other words pay for itself, in other words through tolls or other fees," Orski said. If there is one thing that GOP candidates Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich seem to agree on, it's those "user fees." If a road's worth building, the argument goes, people will be willing to pay for it themselves through tolls. That argument mirrors one advanced by the Department of Transportation during the Bush administration, which, according to the Washington Post, operated under the guiding principle that "unleashing the private sector and introducing market forces could lead to innovation and more choices for the public." The result was "a legacy of new toll roads across the country." In a 2008 speech outlining his infrastructure "principles," unearthed by Streetsblog, former House Speaker Gingrich (R-Ga.) said the country should "when possible shift to user fees rather than tax increases.

Republicans oppose new desperately needed funding for transportation

Primack, 11

(Dan Primack senior editor for the Washington Post February 17, 2011 http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/02/17/why-obama-cant-save-infrastructure/)

It is an important step, considering that the American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that the nation's 5-year infrastructure investment need is approximately $2.2 trillion. Unfortunately, Obama didn't explain how the new spending would be paid for. Increases in transportation infrastructure spending traditionally have been paid for via gas tax increases, but today's GOP orthodoxy is to oppose all new revenue generators (even if this particular one originated with Ronald Reagan). This isn't to say that Republicans don't believe the civil engineers – it's just that they consider their version of fiscal discipline to be more vital. In other words, America's infrastructure needs are stuck in a holding pattern. That may be sustainable for a while longer, but at some point we need to land this plane or it's going to crash.

Transportation Bipartisan

Bipartisanship Reached in Transportation Sector

Transportation and Infrastructure 2012 Official (Government report http://republicans.transportation.house.gov/singlepages.aspx/911)

In 2012, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee approved a long-term initiative to put Americans back to work, particularly in the hard-hit construction industry, by rebuilding our nation's crumbling roads, bridges and transportation infrastructure. This measure, the American Energy & Infrastructure Jobs Act (H.R. 7), would set long-term national surface transportation policy, provide for infrastructure improvement projects across the country, and make much needed transportation program reforms. The bill, introduced in the House by Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman John L. Mica and Highways and Transit Subcommittee Chairman John J. Duncan, Jr., was approved by the Committee on February 3, 2012. In March 2012, Congress approved a short-term extension of current transportation programs in order to ensure projects across the country would not shut down and thousands of Americans would not lose their jobs. This extension was the ninth short-term extension of programs since the previous long-term transportation law expired in September 2009. Six of the previous short-term extensions were approved under a Democratic Congress and Administration. In April 2012, the House approved transportation legislation that includes important provisions not contained in the Senate bill, and voted to begin resolving differences between the measures approved by each body. The first meeting between House and Senate conferees charged with completing final transportation legislation was held on May 8th, and on June 21st, Chairman Mica and Senator Boxer announced conferees are continuing to move forward toward a bipartisan, bicameral agreement. Key House provisions not contained in the Senate’s bill include: Cutting the red tape in the project approval process. It takes an average of 15 years to complete a major highway project. Much of that time is taken up by a needlessly inefficient and time-consuming review process. The House bill will get infrastructure improvement projects moving by making common sense reforms to project reviews, and help reduce costs to taxpayers by ensuring that projects get completed more efficiently. We can cut the project review time in half, ensuring that jobs and transportation improvements are not put on hold. Click here to see a graph depicting the streamlining reforms under the House bill. Ensuring funds collected to improve the nation’s harbors are used for their intended purpose. Our nation’s ports are vital to the economy, and millions of jobs throughout the country are dependent upon the commercial shipping industry. Unfortunately, much of the funds collected in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund are not invested for the maintenance and improvement of our nation’s harbors. Instead these funds are used to disguise other unrelated federal spending while our harbors become choked and congested. The House bill directs that these funds be spent for their intended purpose. Keystone Pipeline project approval. The House bill will remove barriers to domestic energy production, help lower energy costs, and create jobs for Americans by approving the Keystone XL pipeline. The House and Senate continue to work towards final legislation that will provide longer-term stability for projects and jobs, and provide necessary reforms to the nation’s transportation programs. Other areas of reform proposed by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee: Streamlining federal transportation programs. Currently there are more than 130 federal programs, many of which are duplicative or unnecessary. The Committee supports reducing the federal bureaucracy by consolidating or eliminating approximately 70 programs and federal mandates, and giving states more authority to determine which projects to undertake. Increasing states’ flexibility in determining their most critical transportation needs. The Committee supports reforming the federal government's intrusive, one-size-fits-all approach and returning more gas tax revenues to the state and local level. States need more authority to determine their most critical transportation needs - not Washington bureaucrats. Encouraging private sector participation. Resources for improving the nation's transportation infrastructure are limited, and the Committee supports maximizing our available resources by encouraging responsible private sector participation in financing and rebuilding our infrastructure. Eliminating earmarks. The Committee proposal does not contain earmarks. By comparison, the previous surface transportation law contained over 6,300 earmarks.