Who's to blame for the
sellout? By Henry
Lamb ------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted:
June 2, 2007 1:00 a.m. Eastern
The nation's transportation experts
have identified their top three priorities: a national freight network, urban
congestion and connecting new urban centers with the interstate system. The
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, meeting in
national conference last month, heard futurists predict that the cost of
meeting the transportation needs would be $3.1 trillion over the next 25 years.
State and local governments are turning to "public-private partnerships," or
PPPs, to produce the funding.
The city of Chicago was happy to partner with a
Spanish-Australian group that paid $1.83 billion for a 99-year lease to operate
the Chicago Skyway. The same outfit paid Indiana $3.85 billion to operate the
Indiana Tollway for 75 years. The same Spanish company has partnered with a
Texas firm to give the state of Texas $7.2 billion to build and operate the
first leg of the Trans-Texas Corridor. And Pennsylvania's Gov. Rendell is
expecting a bid of between $15- $18 billion for the Pennsylvania
Turnpike.
Most states have already enacted or are considering
legislation to authorize this PPP financing of public infrastructure.
Public opposition to PPP financing encouraged the Texas
Legislature to adopt a two-year moratorium on the state's PPP projects. The
governor's veto, however, along with threats from the U.S. Department of
Transportation, forced the Legislature to pass a watered-down compromise bill
that blocks only future PPP projects, but allows the current Trans-Texas
Corridor to go forward.
Public opposition to PPP financing encouraged chairman of
the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee James Oberstar and
Transit Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Peter DeFazio to issue a May 10 letter to
governors and state transportation officials that warned about rushing into
PPPs that did not fully protect the public interest.
"We don't need their advice, frankly," said Indiana Gov.
Mitch Daniels. He said the letter was "nothing but congressional posturing."
Daniels' criticism was typical of the response from state officials.
National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue
Commission Vice Chairman Jack Schenendorf told the conference attendees the
federal program no longer has a sense of mission, which has led to competition
among the states for federal funds and to the proliferation of "earmarks" for
local political advantage.
Regardless of the finger-pointing, the fact remains that
driving in urban areas is a nightmare, and driving on the interstate system is
like playing tag with 18-wheelers - and it's getting worse, not better. The
people want relief, but not at the expense of bondage to PPPs.
Officials claim transportation revenues from traditional
sources are barely adequate to maintain existing roads and do not provide for
future construction. If this contention is true, the next question to be
answered must be: Is this the result of inadequate fuel tax rates, or have the
revenues from fuel taxes been siphoned off for other purposes?
This question directed at transportation officials produces
an incredible array of slippery answers. Legislators, at every level of
government, should insist that transportation taxes be spent on nothing but
transportation. If transportation taxes are used exclusively for transportation
needs and the revenue is inadequate, then a tax increase is required to meet
the needs of the people.
ealistically, with gas prices above $3 per gallon, no
politician will suggest increasing the gasoline tax, when it is so much easier
to sell off a highway to a PPP and reap billions in new money - without having
to ask the voters for a tax increase.
The voter still pays; he just won't have a vote. And the
price he pays will be more. Toll roads built or operated by PPPs must pay a
profit to the shareholders of the firms that put up the money. If the state
builds and operates the infrastructure, that profit does not have to be built
into the price, and therefore, the voter saves a bundle.
Infrastructure sales to PPPs are the hottest ticket in town.
It's going to take a monstrous effort by the people to reverse this trend that
is clearly rushing across the nation like a tidal wave. Transportation
officials see PPPs as the answer to their revenue problems. Legislators tend to
"go along" with the budget committee, unless they are peppered by contacts from
their constituents.
Texas voters tried valiantly to put a moratorium on the sale
of the Trans-Texas Corridor to Cintra-Zachry, the Spanish-Australian PPP that
wants to pay $7.2 billion to the state. They succeeded in the Legislature, but
threats from the governor and the federal government ignored what the people
want.
In every state and every community, someone is planning,
right now, to sell public infrastructure to a public-private partnership.
Chances are better than good that the PPP has its roots in another country.
This can't be good for America.
To view the entire article, visit
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55971
© 2007
Henry Lamb is
the executive vice president of the Environmental Conservation
Organization and chairman of Sovereignty
International.
[Non-text portions of this
message have been removed]
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.
section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or
payment to those who have expressed prior interest in receiving this
information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For further
information please refer to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml |