Republicans have been spouting lots of good rhetoric, but what really matters is shrinking the burden of government. One very attractive option is federalism. There are things that perhaps should be done by government, but there is absolutely no reason why they require a remote, expensive, one-size-fits-all, redistributionist, unconstitutional bureaucracy in Washington.
Writing for Real Clear Markets, Diana Furchtgott-Roth of the Hudson Institute uses highway funding as an example of how we can get much better results if Washington butts out and lets states make their own decisions. She doesn’t take this argument to its logical conclusion and urge the dismantling of the Department of Transportation, but I’ll unabashedly take that extra step. Don’t just shut it down. Bury it in a lead-lined coffin, cover it with six feet of concrete, and then add a foot of salt to make sure it doesn’t somehow spring back to life.
By ceasing to authorize expenditures from the Highway Trust Fund, and ending the 18-cent federal gasoline tax, Congress could let the trust fund expire and turn highway spending authority back to the states-along with the ability to levy the fuel tax for their own coffers. Such devolution of responsibility to states would release them from expensive federal laws and regulations associated with current highway spending, such as environmental laws that add years to project construction (remember “shovel-ready” road projects?). Nor would states be bound by Davis-Bacon prevailing-wage requirements and Project Labor Agreements, which require the use of costly union labor on construction projects. …Removing federal restrictions would expand states’ opportunities to raise revenue by imposing highway tolls, which could ease traffic congestion by varying prices depending on when traffic is heavy or light. Such toll roads in southern California have eased congestion and raised revenue for the state. Each state would be able to fund and build the roads it wants, using a combination of taxes, bond issues, tolls, and public-private partnerships.
[…] Department of Transportation […]
[…] programs and department that are part of the domestic discretionary category. Should there be a federal Department of Transportation? A federal Department of Housing and Urban Development? A federal Department of […]
[…] use of private jets rather than commercial flights. It’s the fact that he’s the head of a department that shouldn’t even […]
[…] Department of Transportation […]
[…] Department of Transportation […]
[…] (on a wide range of issues, such as Medicaid, the pandemic, food stamps, infrastructure, […]
[…] (on a wide range of issues, such as Medicaid, the pandemic, food stamps, infrastructure, […]
[…] case for decentralization (on a wide range of issues, such as Medicaid, the pandemic, food stamps, infrastructure, […]
[…] Department of Transportation […]
[…] P.P.P.S. There are some simple steps to restore and rejuvenate federalism in the United States, such as block granting Medicaidand shutting down the Department of Transportation. […]
[…] P.P.P.S. There are some simple steps to restore and rejuvenate federalism in the United States, such as block granting Medicaid and shutting down the Department of Transportation. […]
[…] Department of Transportation […]
[…] Department of Transportation […]
[…] Department of Transportation […]
[…] Department of Transportation […]
[…] Department of Transportation […]
[…] Department of Transportation […]
[…] Department of Transportation […]
[…] Department of Transportation […]
[…] Department of Transportation […]
[…] Department of Transportation […]
[…] Department of Transportation […]
[…] Department of Transportation […]
[…] since I don’t expect the current crowd in Washington has any interest in getting rid of the Department of Transportation, perhaps we should have a more modest goal of eliminating subsidies for mass […]
[…] Department of Transportation […]
[…] since I don’t expect the current crowd in Washington has any interest in getting rid of the Department of Transportation, perhaps we should have a more modest goal of eliminating subsidies for mass […]
[…] Department of Transportation […]
[…] since I don’t expect the current crowd in Washington has any interest in getting rid of the Department of Transportation, perhaps we should have a more modest goal of eliminating subsidies for mass […]
[…] since I don’t expect the current crowd in Washington has any interest in getting rid of the Department of Transportation, perhaps we should have a more modest goal of eliminating subsidies for mass […]
[…] Department of Transportation […]
[…] Department of Transportation […]
[…] Department of Transportation […]
[…] Department of Transportation […]
[…] Department of Transportation […]
[…] of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Energy, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Health and Human Services, along with a host of other government programs, […]
[…] Department of Transportation […]
[…] Department of Transportation […]
[…] Department of Transportation […]
[…] Department of Transportation […]
[…] Department of Transportation […]
[…] Department of Transportation […]
[…] Department of Transportation […]
[…] Department of Transportation […]
[…] Department of Transportation […]
[…] Department of Transportation […]
[…] Department of Transportation […]
[…] Department of Transportation […]
[…] Department of Transportation […]
[…] Department of Transportation […]
[…] Department of Transportation […]
[…] Department of Transportation […]
[…] Department of Transportation […]
[…] Department of Transportation […]
[…] Department of Transportation […]
[…] Department of Transportation […]
[…] Department of Transportation […]
[…] Department of Transportation […]
[…] P.P.S. Federalism doesn’t only apply to income-redistribution programs. We also should eliminate any role for Washington in areas like education and transportation. […]
[…] my two cents on federalism in the context of issues such as welfare, natural disasters, transportation, coronavirus, infrastructure, and […]
[…] called for the abolition of the Department of Transportation. On more than one […]
[…] The correct infrastructure policy for Washington is to have no infrastructure policy. That’s because transportation should be handled by state and local government. Or, even […]
[…] also paying for this pork-barrel project is very distressing. And it helps to explain why I want to shut down the Department of Transportation in Washington. That’s the real moral of this […]
[…] called for the abolition of the Department of Transportation. On more than one […]
[…] them? Whether based in Detroit or DC, departments such as HUD, Agriculture, Energy, Education, and Transportation shouldn’t […]
[…] Department of Transportation […]
[…] Department of Transportation […]
[…] for local infrastructure rather than having some convoluted and wasteful nationwide program (like we have to some degree in the United States) that is susceptible to waste and […]
[…] should phase out the entire Department of Transportation, but this would be a good […]
[…] not the role of the federal government to pave roads and and build bridges and corrupt big-city political machines shouldn’t be […]
[…] of federal intervention. Now if we can get the Post to apply the same federalism lesson to Medicaid,transportation, and other issues, we’ll be making real […]
[…] of federal intervention. Now if we can get the Post to apply the same federalism lesson to Medicaid,transportation, and other issues, we’ll be making real […]
[…] whether it’s Medicaid, education, transportation, welfare, or disasters, involvement from Washington makes things worse rather than […]
[…] whether it’s Medicaid, education, transportation, welfare, or disasters, involvement from Washington makes things worse rather than […]
[…] argued (repeatedly) that we should abolish the Department of Transportation and allow states to make decisions on how […]
[…] argued (repeatedly) that we should abolish the Department of Transportation and allow states to make decisions on how […]
[…] objection is that they work for departments that shouldn’t exist (such as HUD, Education, Transportation, Agriculture, etc) and/or they are overcompensated relative to workers in the productive sector of […]
[…] inefficient misallocation of resources), then entire federal departments such as HUD, Education, Transportation, Agriculture, etc, should be classified as waste, fraud, and […]
[…] cap will lead politicians in Washington to finally get the federal government out of areas such astransportation (and housing, agriculture, education, etc) where it doesn’t […]
[…] cap will lead politicians in Washington to finally get the federal government out of areas such as transportation (and housing, agriculture, education, etc) where it doesn’t […]
[…] cap will lead politicians in Washington to finally get the federal government out of areas such as transportation (and housing, agriculture, education, etc) where it doesn’t […]
[…] Department of Transportation […]
[…] Department of Transportation […]
[…] programs, which is far too much since we should be abolishing departments such as HUD, Agriculture, Transportation, Education, […]
[…] programs and department that are part of the domestic discretionary category. Should there be a federal Department of Transportation? A federal Department of Housing and Urban Development? A federal Department of […]
[…] Department of Energy, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Commerce, Department of Transportation, etc, […]
[…] federal intervention. Now if we can get the Post to apply the same federalism lesson to Medicaid,transportation, and other issues, we’ll be making real […]
[…] federal intervention. Now if we can get the Post to apply the same federalism lesson to Medicaid, transportation, and other issues, we’ll be making real […]
[…] argue against the entire Department of Transportation, explaining that it’s not a proper function of the federal […]
[…] the programs and department that are part of the domestic discretionary category. Should there be a federal Department of Transportation? A federal Department of Housing and Urban Development? A federal Department of […]
[…] the programs and department that are part of the domestic discretionary category. Should there be a federal Department of Transportation? A federal Department of Housing and Urban Development? A federal Department of […]
[…] the programs and department that are part of the domestic discretionary category. Should there be a federal Department of Transportation? A federal Department of Housing and Urban Development? A federal Department of […]
[…] of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Agriculture, etc, […]
[…] of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Energy, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Health and Human Services, along with a host of other government programs, […]
[…] Department of Education, Department of Agriculture, Department of Energy, Department of Commerce, Department of Transportation, […]
[…] Department of Education, Department of Agriculture, Department of Energy, Department of Commerce, Department of Transportation, […]
[…] of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Energy, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Health and Human Services, along with a host of other government programs, […]
[…] of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Energy, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Health and Human Services, along with a host of other government programs, […]
[…] to shut down entire departments of the federal government, including Housing and Urban Development, Transportation, Education, and […]
[…] of Commerce. Or Department of Housing and Urban Development. Or Department of Education. Or a Department of Transportation. Or…well, you get the […]
[…] of Commerce. Or Department of Housing and Urban Development. Or Department of Education. Or a Department of Transportation. Or…well, you get the idea. Like this:LikeBe the first to like this post. By Everette Hatcher […]
[…] of Commerce. Or Department of Housing and Urban Development. Or Department of Education. Or a Department of Transportation. Or…well, you get the idea. Rate this: Share […]
[…] written before about the importance of getting rid of the Department of Transportation, and I’ve also written about Republicans getting in bed with big […]
[…] written before about the importance of getting rid of the Department of Transportation, and I’ve also written about Republicans getting in bed with big […]
[…] (spending actually should be substantially cut, including elimination of departments such as HUD, Transportation, Education, Agriculture, etc), but if maintained over a lengthy period will eliminate all red ink. […]
[…] (spending actually should be substantially cut, including elimination of departments such as HUD, Transportation, Education, Agriculture, etc), but if maintained over a lengthy period will eliminate all red ink. […]
[…] (spending actually should be substantially cut, including elimination of departments such as HUD, Transportation, Education, Agriculture, etc), but if maintained over a lengthy period will eliminate all red ink. […]
[…] there any reason not to get rid of the Department of Transportation, which does things that should be handled by the private sector, or state and local […]
[…] for that matter. The answer, at least in part, is to do the opposite of what Obama is proposing. Abolish the Department of Transportation and get the federal government out of the business of funding local infrastructure. […]
[…] I’ve also written about the grotesque inefficiency and bloat at the Department of Transportation and urged that the building be razed to the […]
[…] I’ve also written about the grotesque inefficiency and bloat at the Department of Transportation and urged that the building be razed to the […]
[…] in Washington are legitimate functions of the federal government. I’ve already posted about the need to dismantle the Department of Transportation and send it back to the states, but some things shouldn’t even be handled by state and local […]
[…] Comments RSS […]
[…] But if you dig into the details of the poll, the GOP has done an inadequate job of helping people understand why various programs, departments, and agencies should be abolished. The polling data surely would be even better if Republicans were moving beyond general rhetoric and exposing specific examples of waste, fraud, and abuse. And public opinion presumably would be even stronger if Republicans were out there making a principled case that a big share of spending is for things that are not legitimate functions of the federal government. […]
[…] But if you dig into the details of the poll, the GOP has done an inadequate job of helping people understand why various programs, departments, and agencies should be abolished. The polling data surely would be even better if Republicans were moving beyond general rhetoric and exposing specific examples of waste, fraud, and abuse. And public opinion presumably would be even stronger if Republicans were out there making a principled case that a big share of spending is for things that are not legitimate functions of the federal government. […]
Where will they get the money for pork? They wouldn’t be able to take “highway” money and apply it to non-highway things.
Additionally, there would be no funds for their “redistribute the wealth” programs.
And finally, there would be no leverage to control speed limits nationwide. How could they threaten states with loss of funds if there are none?
I would not be surprised if 1/3 of the 18 cents goes to something other than highways.
No chance of this ever happening.
Also, I found her use of the punctuation combination ?). very interesting.
Would be nice, but what incentive mechanism would actually enable this to happen?