Link to article here.

Funds yanked: Congress puts the brakes on civil asset forfeiture
By Terri Hall
February 1, 2016
Examiner.com

Many conservatives are upset with the omnibus spending bill Congress passed at the end of the year, but one provision they should praise is congress rescinding funding for the Justice Department’s civil asset forfeiture program. Most Americans have no idea what civil asset forfeiture is until law enforcement seizes your vehicle and everything in it during a routine traffic stop even though you have committed no crime.

The program was initially launched to help local law enforcement agencies fight drug trafficking and other organized crime by seizing assets they suspect may be involved in those crimes. But now it’s morphed into a system where you don’t even have to be charged with a crime to have your property seized by police, and few innocent parties ever get their money or property back.

The modern use of civil asset forfeiture is rife with abuse and fraught with violations of citizens’ fourth amendment constitutional rights. Local law enforcement agencies now seek out high value assets to seize and use the proceeds from the sale of those assets to fund new vehicles for police departments or to fund other day-to-day operations of local law enforcement rather than seek to prosecute actual criminals and take down organized crime rings.

Many times it’s a driver who may be stopped and is found to have lots of cash on hand, so law enforcement jumps to the conclusion that the driver is involved in some sort of a drug-related crime and police immediately seize the cash, the vehicle, and all the property in the vehicle (and sometimes even the person’s home and other property) even though there’s no evidence of any crime nor do they charge the person for a crime.

It’s a very cumbersome, expensive, and lengthy process for an innocent party to get their seized property back, causing many to cut their losses and abandon their property altogether. Law enforcement is also known to threaten to charge innocent people with crimes if they seek to get their assets back, again causing many innocent parties to relinquish their property rather than fight an uphill, seemingly unwinnable battle.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that an ‘innocent owner’ defense is not constitutionally required. In states where such a defense is permissible, the innocent party is usually responsible for proving their innocence. The presumption of innocence seems nowhere to be found when it comes to civil asset forfeiture, leaving innocent parties the difficult task of fighting for their own constitutional rights against well-funded, well-organized government agencies.

The Newspaper.com cites a Tennessee motorist that got stopped and the deputy found him in possession of $18,480 in cash. No drugs were found and the motorist said the cash was for a music deal, yet a sheriff’s deputy still confiscated the cash despite there being no evidence of any crime. The motorist was never charged with any crime. It took him almost two years in federal court to finally get his money back.

The federal government’s involvement stems from the ‘equitable sharing’ program through the Justice Department that allows local law enforcement to do an end run around state laws curbing civil asset forfeiture by invoking the federal forfeiture statute. The feds then split the proceeds with the locals skimming 20% for themselves, leaving local law enforcement with 80% of the booty to spend however they wish.

In response to the growing concern over how civil asset forfeiture collides with property rights, the Institute for Policy Research is hosting a summit on civil asset forfeiture on February 9 in Irving, Texas. The summit will feature grassroots and tea party favorites like State Senator Konni Burton, State Senator Don Huffines, and State Representative Matt Schaefer along with speakers from the both the left and the right – the ACLU and Freedom Works.

Other conservative think tanks, like Heritage Foundation, are also stepping up their efforts to educate the public to the abuses of civil asset forfeiture and demand lawmakers fight to protect Americans’ fundamental rights from wrongful forfeiture. The recent congressional action to defund the federal program only lasts through 2016, so expect both sides to be ready for battle in 2017.

Link to article here.

Public outrage rises as cost of Austin toll road triples
By Terri Hall
January 17, 2016
Examiner.com

Toll roads in Texas face growing opposition and a shocking revelation by the Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority (CTRMA) just threw gasoline on the fire. The CTRMA tripled its initial cost estimates for its plan to add toll lanes to US 183 from MoPac to RM 620 in Austin from $225.7 million to a whopping $650 million. The 8-mile project will now cost $81.25 million per mile. By anyone’s estimation, that’s a staggering jump.

The CTRMA is seeking the approval of its $424.3 million amendment with the revised cost estimate by the Capitol Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) at its next board meeting. CAMPO board member and Travis County Commissioner Brigid Shea expressed dismay at the scant, sketchy information initially provided to the board. But rather than join her in scrutinizing the hike, fellow board members were frustrated by her questions and wanted to press to approve. However, action was delayed until the February 8 board meeting.

The toll authority has since provided more detail on the reason behind the explosion in cost. The majority of it involves two sets of flyovers or direct connect interchange ramps with the highways that intersect US 183 to the north (RM 620) and south (MoPac). The other additions involve bridges from the southern interchange with MoPac’s toll lanes into the toll lanes to be built in the median of US 183. Combined, this adds over $364 million to the tab. Another $90.2 million would add an additional free, general purpose free lane for about 4 miles. Lastly, $69.4 million got tacked on to inflate all the costs for the year it would start construction in 2019.

One of the objections from toll opponents is the exorbitant costs involved in turning freeways into a two-tiered highway system, cordoning off toll lanes from free lanes and having to construct expensive flyovers, bridges, or ramps to give special access to the inside toll lanes. It’s far cheaper to add free, general purpose lanes open to all cars without all the complicated flyovers and bridges. Plus, general purpose lanes are far more efficient since an unrestricted lane carries far more traffic than a restricted toll lane.

Another concern involves the CTRMA’s use of state funds to subsidize its overpriced toll project. The toll authority admits it doesn’t even have preliminary data on how much of the new project cost can be repaid with strictly the toll revenues collected, but they’ve made clear they expect all Texas taxpayers to pick up part of the tab for their bloated toll road.

Melissa Cubria, Director of Texas Public Interest Research Group, believes this cost explosion casts doubt on the CTRMA’s ability to properly manage Austin’s toll system.

“The news that the US 183 boondoggle will triple in cost is the latest in a series of stories that undermine CTRMA’s credibility and indicate that CTRMA board members do not have the expertise to manage billions in taxpayer funds. At this point, they are spending taxpayer dollars like reckless Wall Street bankers,” Cubria observes.

The Texas Transportation Commission may not pony-up the bucks for the US 183 toll project for two reasons. First, the Commission is currently evaluating its role in toll projects and may cut-off or greatly reduce its subsidies to toll projects that cannot pay for themselves. The Commission has diverted over $7 billion in funds to toll projects, double taxing Texans to take toll roads. Governor Greg Abbott campaigned against toll roads and the Commission he appoints may end or at least greatly reduce, the amount of subsidies that toll authorities received during the pro-toll Rick Perry years. Second, all of the Texas Department of Transportation’s new funding, Prop 1 and Prop 7, is strictly prohibited from going to toll projects. The sheer amount of funding available to subsidize toll projects has all but dried up.

Gasoline tax is the only remaining source of funds without restrictions, and since it has not been increased in more than 20 years, it, too, is a shrinking source of revenue. However, Texas State Senator Don Huffines introduced a bill last year during the 84th legislature to block even gasoline taxes from funding toll projects. Though it failed to pass, State Representative Ron Simmons successfully added an amendment to a bill, HB 122, to prohibit Texas Mobility Funds from going to toll projects, and House Transportation Committee Chairman Joe Pickett recently announced he’s on a war path to end managed toll lanes (inside existing freeways like is planned for US 183) in Texas calling the underutilized lanes ‘unacceptable in a growing state.’

So the state’s involvement in toll projects is in limbo, with toll opponents stacking up new allies in the legislature in the fight to prevent double taxation. With more than 40 challengers to many establishment, pro-toll incumbents, the anti-toll ranks could swell dramatically in time for the 85th legislature to convene in 2017. Whether the Commission acts to block further support of toll projects or the taxpayers stage a coup through its elected leaders in the legislature, toll projects that aren’t financially feasible like US 183 could well be on the ropes.

Link to article here.

IRS gains power to revoke passports for failure to pay taxes
By Terri Hall
Selous Foundation for Public Policy Research
January 4, 2016

Many Americans are shocked to find out that the recently passed federal highway bill, Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act, or the FAST Act, includes a provision that can take away or block them from having a U.S. passport. At a time when political scandals plague the IRS, which has been used to target conservatives, tea party and pro-Israel-affiliated groups, this is an especially shameful revelation brought to you by the House and Senate Republicans.

The GOP has put itself in a box. The Federal Highway Trust Fund has not been collecting enough revenue through the federal gasoline tax to pay for the level of spending thought necessary by the special interests. The GOP has also failed to fight to ensure every penny of the gas tax is, in fact, going to highways, not transit, rail, and bike lanes that automobile users do not use.

The federal gasoline tax, currently at 18.4 cents a gallon, has not been raised since 1993. Republicans do not want to raise taxes, including the gas tax. So, by taking a gas tax increase off the table and lacking the will to cut spending to offset the shortfall, Republicans have locked themselves into other schemes to raise the revenue needed to fund the federal highway program – schemes they’ve deemed more politically acceptable.

So, the GOP turned to tax compliance as their ‘solution.’ By giving the IRS the power to block and even revoke U.S. passports, hence one’s ability to travel internationally, for failure to allegedly pay federal taxes, Congress believes it can make up the difference by collecting more in taxes to help pay for the highway trust fund.

Is it any wonder voters don’t trust the Republican leadership in both the House and Senate?

The FAST Act actually creates a new section of the U.S. tax code, 7345, entitled, “Revocation or Denial of Passport in Case of Certain Tax Delinquencies.” While the focus is on those who owe $50,000 or more, because it includes interest and fees, many will fall into the category as fines and interest add up quickly. Indeed, the harsh new rules aren’t even designed to catch those who the government believes are fleeing the country to avoid paying taxes. It applies universally to those behind on paying their federal taxes, regardless of whether its criminal or civil in nature. The language is also very vague and much of the enforcement and application of this new law will be left up to the IRS to implement through the adoption of administrative rules. So, it’s ultimate reach is truly unknown.

Many view criminalization for failure to pay a debt as an illegal and unconstitutional revival of debtors’ prisons. Congress outlawed debtors’ prisons in 1833 and the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled them unconstitutional multiple times, most notably it ruled in its 1983 case Bearden v. Georgia that it’s a violation of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

Robert Woods, in his Forbes Magazine article on November 25, questions whether or not this new law will pass constitutional muster, “The right to travel is established, both between states and internationally. And although some restrictions have been upheld, it is not clear that this measure would pass the constitutional test.”

The passport provisions also represent a risk even for domestic travelers from four states. Louisiana, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and New York refused to comply with the REAL ID Act that forced states to issue drivers licenses according to new federal standards. Taking effect in 2016, residents of those states may now be required by the TSA to show a passport instead of a driver’s license in order to board a plane for domestic travel.

None of this tax policy would have made it into this totally unrelated, bloated, 1,300-page transportation bill without the blessing of the tax writing committees and GOP leadership,  Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI-01) prior to becoming Speaker. While the language likely originated in the Senate, the House, which preferred to pay for the bill through tax reform, eventually conceded to include the IRS provisions into its bill, arguing tax reform won’t happen with Obama in the White House.

As part of this tax compliance scheme, the IRS has also gained the ability to utilize private debt collectors to accomplish this goal in Section 32102 of the tax code titled, “Reform of rules relating to qualified tax collection contracts.” You may be thinking, why is that a bad thing? Because private debt collectors use brutal tactics to collect money, and they can even charge the delinquent taxpayer for any costs related to the private company’s debt collection services, piling onto the tab owed    .

The IRS already had the ability to use private debt collectors, but now it’s mandated for inactive tax receivables for any tax debt that has been:
– removed from the active inventory for lack of resources or inability to locate the the taxpayer;
– more than 1/3 of the applicable limitations period that has lapsed and no IRS employee has been assigned to collect the receivable; or
– a receivable assigned to collections, but more than 365 days have passed without interaction with the taxpayer or a third party for purposes of furthering the collection.

The private debt collectors do not have to disclose that they’re a private contractor either. Only the Secretary of Treasury decides when companies can disclose the truth to taxpayers.

History has already shown that using private debt collectors hasn’t worked. It was first tried in 1996 and only lasted a year due to complaints of harassment and unfair tactics. Under George W. Bush, they tried it again with the same result – unfair tactics, even harassing the elderly parents of a taxpayer with 150 phone calls after the collections firm knew the taxpayer was no longer at that address. It also resulted in taxpayers paying out penalties to those whose rights the private debt collectors violated.

Both attempts resulted in a net loss to the government, meaning you and I the taxpayer. The first, a net loss of $17 million, and the second a net loss of $4.5 million, this after Congress was told it would reap a net gain of $1 billion. The actual cost to administer the program in the 2000s was $86 million. When you factor in the commissions paid out, add another $16 million cost to the total tab. A 2013 study by the National Taxpayer Advocate (NTA) showed that IRS agents were more effective in collecting debt than private contractors, yet here we are.

Private debt collectors are notorious for not giving accurate information about taxpayers’ rights and options. They have no incentive to help you resolve your claim, only to collect what’s owed. If the taxpayer believes there are inaccurate claims to the amount owed, the debt collector won’t look into it as an IRS agent would. There are also concerns about fraud and protecting the data privacy like your address, bank accounts, social security number, employer, medical bills, etc.

As we all know, there are plenty of scammers out there waiting to pounce on such an opportunity to pose as the IRS (or its contractors). At least 736,000 contacts have been made by scammers over the phone in the past two years alone demanding pre-paid debit cards be sent to them to resolve one’s tax debt, costing 4,550 innocent taxpayers over $23 million in fraudulent tax settlements. The government then issued warnings about such scammers informing taxpayers the IRS doesn’t usually make the initial contact by phone, but private debt collectors routinely initiate contact through phone calls. How’s someone supposed to know the difference?

No matter how you look at these two IRS power grabs, it spells trouble for the taxpayer. Whether you’ll become a prisoner in your own country by being denied a passport, or harassed by unethical and ruthless private debt collectors to settle an alleged IRS tax debt, the Republican leadership in Congress delivered this anti-liberty, big government reality to your doorstep after voters gave them the keys to the Capitol to do the opposite.
______________________________________________________________________________
Terri Hall is the founder of Texans Uniting for Reform and Freedom (TURF), which defends against eminent domain abuse and promotes non-toll transportation solutions. She’s a home school mother of ten turned citizen activist. Ms. Hall is also a contributor to SFPPR News & Analysis.

Link to article here.

Congress passes highway bill, continues to divert money away from roads
By Terri Hall
December 5, 2015
Examiner.com

Thursday marked the first time since 2005 that the U.S. Congress passed a long-term federal highway bill. The FAST Act, Fixing America’s Surface Transportation, is a 5-year re-authorization of the surface transportation program. Criticized for patching the program with short-term fixes for the last decade, the $305 billion bill was supported overwhelmingly by Congress, passing the House of Representatives by a vote of 359-65 and the Senate by a vote of 83-16. President Barack Obama signed it into law late Friday, mere hours before the federal highway program was set to expire.

The bill also authorizes the controversial Export-Import Bank and allows the IRS to use private debt collectors and deny Americans passports if they’re delinquent on their federal taxes. The Ex-Im Bank is the poster child for corporate welfare and congressional giveaways to special interests that conservatives defeated this summer. The short-lived victory could play an important role in the upcoming presidential election as candidates either try to justify the re-authorization of the bank or decry it.

Conservatives have long been calling for sweeping reforms to the federal transportation program, primarily calling for fiscal solvency, ending non-road diversions of the federal gasoline tax, and leaving the bulk of the responsibility for the federal highway system to the states. For nearly a decade, the federal government has not collected enough in gasoline taxes to pay for the level of spending Congress approves.

The FAST Act is no different spending $70 billion more than federal gasoline taxes can cover. Congress pays for the excessive spending with budget gimmicks like raiding the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, accessing dividends from the Federal Reserve Bank, and changes to customs fees.

After an organized effort by Alliance for Toll-free Interstates, the final bill did not adopt the senate’s language that would have expanded the pilot program to allow some states to impose tolls on existing toll-free interstates. However, the act does allow other states the opportunity to toll existing highways if the current three states approved do not exercise their authority within three years.

Diversions to transit, rail continue
The FAST Act doesn’t enact any of the key needed reforms and, in fact, it makes many of them worse. The favorite diversions of highway funding continue to go to transit, rail, and bicycle lanes. The vast majority of the shortfall is due to such transit diversions with $205 billion slated to go to highways and $48 billion scheduled to fund transit projects. It will send over $4 billion to bike lanes and pedestrian paths and it gives an 89% increase to fund local buses, neither of which has a federal role.

Lobbying begets goodies
As has been the case in the past, states with strong members of Congress and an organized lobbying effort saw a big boost in funding. One of the standouts is Alaska whose nearly 11 percent bump in funding largely goes to non-road purposes like railroad and transit programs, including an additional $3 million for its railroad system, $400,000 more per year for the ferry system, and $13 million more to pay for the Tribal Transit program.

The bill extends $8 billion in subsidies for Amtrak, averaging over 5 percent annual increases. This benefits states like Mississippi who want the funds to reopen service from New Orleans to Mobile. The Magnolia state, along with the other states, will also have access to the Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects (NSFHP) fund, a $4.5 billion discretionary grant program for ‘nationally significant projects.’ Thanks to the FAST Act, Mississippi will enjoy an over $2 billion jump in overall funding.

But state Departments of Transportation and industry advocates frown on the lack of identifying a long-term source of funding. Gone is the ‘user pays’ model for highways when Congress continues to tap other areas of the federal budget to offset the shortfalls from the gasoline tax. The hesitation to raise the gas tax is the primary reason Congress has kicked the can down the road passing 36 short-term extensions of the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) until this week’s FAST Act.

The HTF is supposed to be a dedicated fund to highways only, but with the continued diversion of road funds for non-road purposes and Congress’ penchant for raiding other parts of the federal budget to shore-up the trust fund, even passage of this 5-year bill leaves little to celebrate for either taxpayers or transportation special interests.

With so many goodies and discretionary programs, it was hard for members of Congress to resist approving the bill, despite the lack of sustainable funding or the albatross of the Ex-Im Bank. But Republicans in particular face a backlash for support of the bill after failing to live up to its promises for reform and ending the crony capitalist stronghold on Washington D.C.

Link to article here.

Angry residents give developer earful about sewage dump, land grab
By Terri Hall
Examiner.com
November 20, 2015

Last night, in a little hill country town in Bulverde, Texas, over 130 angry residents vented at a hearing over the 4S Ranch wastewater permit. The hearing conducted by the Texas version of the EPA, known as the Texas Commission for Environmental Quality (TCEQ), had an overflow crowd. The original meeting room could not accommodate attendees, who were stacked deep into the hallways. So TCEQ moved the residents into the bay of the EMS building to conduct the makeshift meeting amid fire equipment with no seating. Attendees, many of them elderly, had to grab their own chairs from anywhere they could muster if they wanted to sit down for the nearly 5-hour meeting that went late into the night.

The issue that drew the crowd was the developer of 4S Ranch seeking to amend its wastewater permit from 180,000 gallons of treated effluent contained on the developer’s own property to dumping 460,000 gallons a day of treated sewage onto its neighbors and into Dripping Springs and Lewis Creek (which feed into Cibolo Creek and recharges the Edwards Aquifer). The biggest neighborhood effected would be Oak Village North. The high density subdivision will be located between Stahl Lane and Smithson Valley Road north of FM 1863.

4S Ranch wants to put 1,880 homes on 780 acres in a county where there’s normally a restriction of one house per acre. If there’s just two residents per home, this subdivision alone represents a near doubling of the population of Bulverde (as of 2013, there were 4,841 residents).

So the intense opposition should come as no surprise. Comal County Commissioner Scott Haag, Bulverde Mayor Bill Krawietz, Councilwoman Yvonne Chapman, and two former mayors were in attendance and reflects the intense citizen outrage. Krawietz expressed frustration that the city is prohibited from imposing stricter water quality standards than the state. They’re also not permitted to force developers to further treat and use the wastewater for beneficial purposes like watering landscaping, rather than just dumping it undiluted into area creeks.

The standard the state requires for treatment of sewage discharge is very low, lower than what is required to water a golf course. TCEQ experts could not tell residents how its treated sewage standards compare to drinking water standards, sparking further outrage among the concerned citizens.

Food & water contamination
However, one resident of Comal County who owns a vineyard and a winery nearby testified that the state won’t allow such treated sewage to be used to water her grapes. So it’s clearly not safe to be consumed. Anyone near a golf course who waters their greens with treated sewage water will also be greeted with signs that say, ‘non-potable, do not drink.’ Yet a TCEQ ‘expert’ claimed the developers dumping of treated sewage into the dry Lewis Creek will actually ‘improve’ drinking water. The crowd erupted in laughter and disbelief. Local residents knew they were being lied to. Toilet to tap is not their idea of safe drinking water.

Many neighboring residents are also cattle ranchers whose cattle would be consuming the waste water and hence will enter the food supply. Since Lewis Creek is a dry creek bed that only flows during heavy rains, many residents expressed concern about the wastewater dumping creating continuously wet or boggy conditions on their property, which could attract mosquitoes, feral hogs, and other undesirable pests or wildlife.

Flood worries
With the reality of recent flooding in Bulverde on October 30, that overwhelmed the new Singing Hills drainage system as well as a breach in the Johnson Ranch sewage system that dumped raw sewage into the creeks contaminating drinking water and wells fresh in their minds, residents asked who would be held responsible for such breaches, how would residents be notified in time to not consume contaminated water, and who would pay to clean-up private wells affected by these high density subdivisions?

Most residents had no idea that Johnson Ranch had a breach that was leaking raw sewage into their water until weeks later, far too late to protect residents. TCEQ’s only answer was they’d notify residents through radio and television. What if residents miss those announcements? Many long-time Bulverde properties are already experiencing flooding in areas that have never flooded despite heavy rains in the past, due to the rash of massive developments in this formerly rural town.

Land grab
From a property rights prospective, this is nothing more than a government land grab. Under this scenario, the TCEQ acts as a shield for the developer.  Undiluted sewage effluent becomes ‘waters of the state.’ The developer nor the TCEQ has to pay the landowner for taking their property as they would under eminent domain.

Currently, every level of Texas state government as well as many members of congress are fighting the federal overreach of the EPA claiming Texans’ land under ‘waters of the United States.’ Yet, this same claim is being made by TCEQ under the same ‘waters of the state’ argument when it’s not even for a legitimate public use, but rather to accommodate private developers for private gain.

Property rights watchdog group, Texans Uniting for Reform and Freedom, was emphatic, “No Texan should lose their land, the use of or personal enjoyment of their property, or have their drinking water contaminated just so a private developer can make a buck. This is worse than eminent domain since the landowners aren’t even compensated for the loss of property. This is legalized theft.”

Opponents contend the developers are welcome to develop their properties in a free market and contain the treated sewage on their own property. However, once a developer intends to dump sewage onto its neighbors and into creeks that adversely affects other property owners and the community at large, this is when the state must step-in to protect the public from harm.

Cumulative impacts not considered by state
With 4S Ranch projected to discharge up to 460,000 gallons per day (gpd), with Johnson Ranch projected to discharge up to 400,000 gpd, and with the Cibolo Valley Ranch expecting to discharge up to 300,000 gpd, this is over 1 million gallons of undiluted treated sewage dumping into Bulverde area creeks every day from just three new subdivisions. Residents know there has to be adverse cumulative impacts from these waste water permits.

Yet TCEQ analyzes only the data the developer provides them and reviews each permit application in isolation of all the others. There is no independent analysis done by TCEQ  to even verify that the developer’s claims are true, valid, or backed by legitimate science. As long as a developer meets the application requirements, the state approves them. Landowners Terrell and Pat Graham fought the neighboring Johnson Ranch waste water permit in a contested case hearing and the judge ruled that the TCEQ should deny the permit. But the TCEQ approved the permit anyway.

So attendees asked TCEQ many times throughout the hearing, is our opposition even going to matter? Will our concerns lead to TCEQ denying the permit or are the procedures already set in stone and headed for approval despite the contested case hearing process and in spite of potential harm done to landowners and the community?

Their concerns are valid considering they could win a contested case hearing, have a judge recommend TCEQ deny the permit, and still have TCEQ approve it. The overwhelming sentiment from affected residents asked TCEQ to deny the 4S Ranch permit. Now citizens await the TCEQ’s response and will have 30 days from the published response to weigh their chances of stopping the permit by requesting a contested case hearing.

Link to article here.

Issues to consider when voting on Prop 1
By Terri Hall
October 12, 2014
Examiner.com

Many Texans are struggling to decide whether or not to support the upcoming constitutional amendment  known as Proposition 1 on the ballot November 4. Prop 1 would take half of the oil and gas severance tax currently collected on oil and gas production (that goes to capitalize the state’s Rainy Day Fund), and allocate those funds to the state highway fund for the next 10 years.

There are many issues to consider when deciding how to vote. Many Texans wonder why there needs to be an amendment to the constitution to address highway funding. They think the federal and state taxes, or user fees, we pay on every gallon of gasoline pay for highways. Few Texans are aware of the structural road funding shortfall facing Texas and the nation.

Texans pay 20 cents per gallon for state gasoline tax and everyone pays 18.4 cents per gallon in federal gasoline tax. Neither tax has been raised in more than 20 years. It’s not indexed for inflation, nor do either adjust when the price of gas goes up or down. So we’re trying to build today’s roads with a twenty-year-old revenue stream. The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) is $4-5 billion a year behind in its ability to properly build and maintain the state highway system.

Lawmakers on both the state and federal level have exacerbated the problem by habitually raiding highway funds for non-road purposes. On the federal level, the diversions are primarily spent on transit programs, with a huge emphasis on hike and bike trails and commuter rail under the Obama administration. On the state level, twenty-five percent of the gas tax goes to fund public education, which voters approved decades ago through yet another constitutional amendment. State lawmakers have also raided gas tax for non-road purposes beyond those allowed in the Texas Constitution. According to the Texas Public Policy Foundation, forty-seven percent of the state gasoline tax is diverted to non-road uses. Whether it’s used to plug the holes in public pension funds or to buy school buses, the abuses have been persistent.

Despite promises to end state gas tax diversions session after session, lawmakers barely made a dent last session. Due to this lack of fiscal discipline, lawmakers have turned to toll roads and massive borrowing using debt financing to kick the can down the road. Few legislators want to raise the gasoline tax and prefer to outsource the tax hike to unelected toll authorities or private toll corporations rather than face the wrath of voters by directly voting to raise taxes. But now taxpayers have figured out tolls are taxes and the most expensive way to fund roads and an anti-toll revolt is spreading like wildfire.

So what can be done to start fixing the road funding shortfall?

Upside to Prop 1
Prop 1 is projected to send $1.7 billion a year in funds to highways without raising taxes. So passage of Prop 1 helps solve about twenty-five percent of the funding gap. Because of the aforementioned toll revolt, lawmakers made sure the Prop 1 funds cannot be used for toll roads. Some also see a natural tie-in to oil and gas severance tax and roads. Indeed one of the arguments for levying a severance tax in the first place was to help the state keep up with road maintenance and repair caused by natural resource extraction. Texas is blessed with a shale oil boom that’s been swelling the state’s Rainy Day Fund. Once the fund reaches a certain level, the excess spills over into the General Fund, which is primarily spent on education and public health which are unrelated to roads.

The legislation also requires a minimum balance to be maintained in the Rainy Day Fund before any funds can be transferred to the highway fund. Hence, emergency funds cannot be drained dry from passage of Prop 1. It can also help retire Texas’ out of control road debt – now the largest in the country at $31 billion in principle and interest.

Downside to Prop 1
However, many fiscal hawks feel the legislature should be funding roads out of existing funds, not with revenues that normally fund the state’s emergency fund, particularly since lawmakers just placed an amendment to raid the Rainy Day Fund for water infrastructure just last year. Conservatives were angered when budget writers failed to fund both roads and water in the regular budget last session, forcing lawmakers to dip into the Rainy Day Fund in order to cover the basics. Infrastructure is one of the core functions of government and legislators should be prioritizing the taxes we pay to get the job done.

Prop 1 is their get out of jail free card absolving them from making tough decisions on the budget. Prop 1 could also free-up other money to continue borrowing and tolling elsewhere. Since it won’t fix all the problem, TxDOT can spread the new funds around so that no single project is fully funded, and therefore still needs toll elements on it. Others reject Prop 1 based on the notion that it moves away from a user fee model (like the gasoline tax) to one borne by oil and gas producers. They argue those who use Texas roads from out of state would not be paying for their road use as they do under the gasoline tax system.

However, this legislation isn’t repealing the gas tax. The state will still capture that usage. Prop 1 is in addition to the current gas tax. The gas tax will still capture road use from all who drive Texas highways. Former State Rep. Tryon Lewis wants to see the gas tax increased to fix the shortfall, however, to get $4-5 billion more per year from a gas tax hike would require nearly tripling the 20 cent per gallon state gasoline tax. Not one sitting legislator would vote for such a hike, nor do voters want such a dramatic tax hike.

Other solutions
Both gubernatorial candidates, Greg Abbott and Wendy Davis, are fleeing from toll roads, but Abbott has laid out a comprehensive transportation plan that will end gas tax diversions, dedicate vehicle sales taxes to roads, and fix the highway funding shortfall without new tolls, taxes, or fees. That requires finding $4-5 billion in cuts from the current budget in order to re-direct those dollars to highways. Both candidates also support passage of Prop 1 as part of the mix of necessary solutions to address road funding shortfalls. So it appears help is on the way with or without the passage of Prop 1, but Prop 1 certainly makes bridging the gap a lot easier for those tasked with fixing it. Taxpayers need to be involved in the process every step of the way to ensure our highway system gets properly funded and the new hidden toll tax onslaught gets nixed, or the punitively expensive double taxation will continue in earnest.

Link to article here.

Both gubernatorial candidates stake out anti-toll positions
By Terri Hall
October 2, 2014
Examiner.com

Texas gubernatorial candidates Greg Abbott and Wendy Davis claimed to be against more toll roads at last night’s debate. Perhaps the recent research conducted by Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) that shows Texans do not want anymore tolls made the decision to be anti-toll a little easier. What’s shocking however, is that Wendy Davis thinks she can get away with it.

Since Davis entered the Texas senate in 2009, she’s done nothing but vote in favor of toll roads, even for the controversial private, corporate toll roads known as public private partnerships (P3s). Prior to her stint in the senate, she served as a Ft. Worth council member where she was appointed to serve on the Regional Transportation Council. Davis cried crocodile tears when the legislature yanked a P3 contract from Spanish toll giant, Cintra, for Hwy 121 in 2007. The contract would have locked down the expansion of free roads in Collin and Denton counties for the next 52 years. The toll rates Cintra could have charged in those final years would have been more than the cost of an airplane ticket from San Antonio to Dallas.

Davis voted repeatedly to hand more and more Texas roads to these private corporations in 2011 and 2013, among them the North Tarrant Express (7 segments of highway in Ft. Worth including major arteries like I-820, Hwy 121, & I-35) in her own district. Her law firm, Newby Davis, LLP,  does work for the North Texas Tollway Authority (NTTA) which has spawned an investigation by the FBI for conflicts of interest since Davis also sits on the Senate Committee on Transportation that handles NTTA legislation. So for Wendy Davis to try to claim she’s against toll roads after doing everything in her power to foist them upon Texans and even position herself to profit from them, is the height of hypocrisy.

Now, when running for higher office, she glibly uttered, “Tolls have been a poor solution.”

Indeed, and it’s the solution she helped bring to fruition. She touted her bill to end gas tax diversions last session and passage of Prop 1 this November as her transportation plan, however, Senate Joint Resolution 31 only froze the existing diversions and would only reduce them if the state’s revenues grew by more than three times the amount of the reduction. At that rate, the pittance of new money that would kinda, maybe, sort of ever actually get to roads would be so infinitesimally small that the bill is more akin to lip service, than an actual plan to ensure gas taxes only go to roads. By the time there’d be enough money to wean Texas off toll roads, the whole state would already be covered in tolls. Even if Prop 1 passes and all gas tax diversions ceased tomorrow, that would only solve half of the $4 billion problem.

As Attorney General, Abbott has had plenty of encounters with toll roads. In 2005, Abbott sued the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) to make public a P3 contract for the Trans Texas Corridor that the Department was suing Abbott to keep secret. He was given the unpleasant task by the legislature with reviewing P3 toll contracts for legal sufficiency. He was not at liberty to negotiate any of the terms – TxDOT has been given a blank check by the legislature to do so. These complicated, lengthy contracts ended up pushing Abbott to ask for $1 million annually just to pay for the enormous legal costs of negotiating these specialized toll contracts. Abbott initially spoke out about the unconstitutionality of TxDOT using the state highway fund to guarantee a loan of up to $4 billion in future gas taxes for the NTTA’s Hwy 161 toll project.

The constitution prohibits using the state highway fund to guarantee debt (outside the debt voters specifically approved with passage of constitutional amendment Prop 14 in 2003) and bind future legislatures. Rather than use his power as the state’s chief law enforcement officer to block the final unconstitutional loan, he looked the other way and allowed it to happen. Since then, TxDOT did another loan guarantee on the Grand Parkway toll project for another $4 billion last year.

Now Abbott declares: “My plan does not involve any toll roads, period. I’m not interested in adding toll roads in my plan,” in an answer to a pointed question posed by Express-News Austin Bureau Chief Peggy Fikac.

The anti-toll sentiment in Texas is now in full bloom, and both candidates know supporting more toll roads is a losing proposition. So while both candidates have some baggage when it comes to toll roads, the more credible candidate is Abbott. His plan actually solves the funding shortfall without new taxes, fees, and tolls. He never directly voted on toll policy as Davis did, and he did sue TxDOT to open up the Trans Texas Corridor contract to the public as well as make waves about TxDOT’s unconstitutional loan guarantees on toll projects.

While Abbott should have stopped those loan guarantees, Texas Governor Rick Perry, the defacto head of the Republican Party in Texas for over a decade, made toll roads one of his chief legacies and made publicly opposing him difficult, especially for members of his own party. With Perry out of the way, Abbott’s instincts are obviously to chart a different course. January, when the new governor gets sworn in, can’t come fast enough.

Link to article here.

From roads to rail: TxDOT head opens door to raiding road funds for rail
By Terri Hall
Examiner.com
May 29, 2014

In what appears to be a contradiction with Texas House Speaker Joe Straus’ announcement that his next budget will end all un-constitutional gas tax diversions to ensure taxes collected for roads indeed go to roads, Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) Executive Director Joe Weber recently signaled the need to depart from highway-only funding to use road taxes for rail.

Weber told the Dallas Morning News that “it’s going to take more than new roads to keep Texans traveling smoothly if population growth estimates prove true.”

He also said TxDOT needs to increase funding for rail projects despite an environment where road dollars are already scarce. With the Department’s shift to tolling, some of this money it plans to divert to rail will include toll revenues. Texans won’t take kindly to paying tolls to fund rail that they can’t or won’t use.

Weber’s position seems a contradiction in and of itself by acknowledging road funding is already inadequate to meet transportation needs, yet his plan to fix that is to steal yet more funding from roads to build rail. Weber did not respond to requests for clarification. There is a very limited amount of road dollars available and it can either be boosted to expand roads where needed to relieve congestion or raided for rail, which the vast majority of Texans won’t or can’t use since rail doesn’t take you where you need to go.

TxDOT has already diverted some of its Texas Mobility Funds to fund streetcar projects — $92 million in San Antonio and $90 million in El Paso. The Department has also funded $140 million in rail-related projects in Dallas-Ft.Worth. Meanwhile, the agency persistently claims there’s no money to fix our roads without tolls. Stealing from Peter to pay Paul has already become the practice at TxDOT with gas taxes and other public money being used to build toll roads, which is double taxation. Texans have been duped into thinking the toll they pay is for the road they’re driving on, but those days are over. It’s no longer the user pays model. Now tax money is building the toll road, but motorists are being taxed again to drive on it.

Rather than increase transparency and truth in taxation, Weber wants to muddy the waters even further by using road taxes for rail. Until Weber’s announcement, TxDOT diverted money to rail under the radar. Now it appears to be official policy. Judging from its actions in prior legislative sessions, TxDOT will likely use all resources available to advocate for more ‘flexibility’ in the use of gas tax and other revenues under its control to spend however it sees fit – including on rail.

Rosy projections may not come to fruition
Population forecasts are likely not much different from toll road forecasts – wildly optimistic and largely inaccurate. Officials always have to create a crisis to convince taxpayers to part with their money to advance the agenda of special interests. Behind this new push for rail is the reality that President Obama’s transportation vision emphasizes rail, and the Administration’s transportation bill would shift funding away from highways. That means rail is where the money is to be had. Weary of waiting for lawmakers to shore up road funding, special interests are reading the tea leaves and see another gravy train opportunity through rail projects.

Regardless of Weber’s motivation, rail is enormously more expensive than adding highway capacity. Purchasing and maintaining the rail cars alone adds tremendous cost that doesn’t exist with roads since individuals pay for their own cars and for the maintenance of their own vehicles. Most Texans aren’t clamoring to get into rail cars, they’re begging for highway capacity and for their road & vehicle taxes to go to their intended purpose. It’s going to require vigilance to ensure scarce road money doesn’t get raided for rail programs while Texans aren’t looking.

The mixed messages state leaders are sending – Straus promising to end raid of gas tax for non-road purposes, while Weber is calling for road funds to go to rail – could torpedo the effort to get voters to approve more road funding this fall when Prop 1 appears on the ballot. Prop 1 funds would be deposited into the State Highway Fund which can only go to roads, but voters may not know that with all this talk of rail.