Macquarie eyes Austin airport for a Public Private Partnership

Link to article here.

Macquarie is the same company who bought dozens of Texas newspapers in the path of the Trans Texas Corridor (to control the criticism of the project to be sure), was a bidder on the Hwy 121 “crown jewel” of Texas toll roads and the US 281 & 1604 toll roads, and is a partner with Cintra on toll projects all over the world, including the Indiana Toll Road and Chicago Skyway. Rudy Giuliani has ties to Macquarie, and the Bush Administration hired Macquarie’s division director to be the DOT’s Chief Counsel. It also owns the Virginia toll road where they doubled the toll rates, and it’s business model has been criticized by the same guy who first spotted Enron’s dubious tactics. Now they want to lease the Austin Airport in another public private partnership (PPP) deal to maximize the airport’s revenues and rip-off the taxpayers.

Macquarie circles airport in Texas
David Nason, New York correspondent
The Australian
May 08, 2008

THE Macquarie Group’s airport ambitions in the US have spread to Texas, where its infrastructure division is in talks to lease all or part of the Austin-Bergstrom International Airport in the Texas capital, Austin.

A Macquarie spokesman confirmed yesterday that discussions with Austin officials were under way but stressed they were at a “very preliminary stage”, with no formal proposal for an ABIA takeover on the table.

According to some projections, leasing ABIA to a private operator could earn the city of Austin $US500 million ($526 million) annually.

The airport play comes as Macquarie and its Spanish toll roads partner Centra await a decision on a proposed 75-year lease for the Pennsylvania Turnpike, one of the US’s busiest highways.

At least three consortiums have submitted bids with Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, who is expected to select his preferred operator sometime in the next week.

Mr Rendell wants to channel the lease payments — possibly as much as $US18 billion over the life of the lease — into Pennsylvania’s ageing highways, bridges and mass transit systems. But he is facing opposition from legislators, voters and his own Turnpike Commission.

Opposition to airport privatisation in the US is also expected to be strong, especially if foreign companies are involved.

Under a Federal Aviation Administration pilot program introduced in 1966, US airports can be exempted from federal administration, but until now only Chicago’s Midway Airport has actively pursued privatisation.

The program allows for up to five US airports to be leased to private operators, but the hurdles are many, including approval from the FAA and from 65 per cent of airlines using the airport.

Macquarie, which already operates airports in Sydney, Tokyo, Brussels, Copenhagen and Bristol in England, is one of six companies to have lodged a proposal with Chicago officials.

It now sees a second opportunity in Austin, where the push for privatisation is driven by federal laws that compel the city to spend airport revenues at the airport while other city-operated businesses such as Austin Energy and the Austin Convention Centre return their profits to the city.

Austin city councillor Brewster McCracken told the Austin Business Journal he was opposed to privatising public assets but regarded the airport as a separate issue because it provided no revenue to the city’s general fund.

ABIA’s total operating revenue for the 2007 fiscal year was $US81.9 million with $US17 million of that going back into the airport’s capital fund.

Austin-Bergstrom is a former US Air Force Base 8km outside Austin that was only opened to civilian traffic in 1999, to replace a smaller airport. Last year, it serviced almost 8.9 million passengers, a record.
Globally, the Macquarie Group has some $US200 billion invested in infrastructure and it has targeted the US as its major infrastructure growth area.

Body: And for good reason. In a report last week, the US Urban Land Institute and Ernst & Young said US transportation infrastructure investment was lagging far behind that of most other developed nations and that greater acceptance of public-private partnerships was the only practical answer.

It estimated the annual shortfall in funds for US transportation needs at a staggering $US170 billion, a figure that would rise sharply with the forecast population growth of 90 million over the next 35 years.

The report said vehicle miles travelled in the US had increased 95 per cent since 1980 while road capacity had increased only 3 per cent.

It said 24 per cent of US roads were in poor to mediocre condition and more than 25 per cent of bridges were structurally or functionally deficient.

Macquarie and Cintra already jointly own and operate toll roads in Illinois and Indiana.

Last month, electronic tolling started on the Indiana Toll Road with drivers using the automatic system getting their tolls frozen at current rates until 2016.

A spokesman for the Indiana Toll Road Concession Co, which operates the toll road, said the spirit of the toll freeze was to look after local users.

But in 2006, Macquarie Infrastructure Group chief executive Stephen Allen told investors in New York that the real advantage of automatic tolling was that people tended to think tolls were cheaper when they had an electronic tag.

“I call it the ‘mobile phone effect’,” Mr Allen said at the time. “How many people out there know the cost of a call on your mobile phone? Well, it’s very expensive, I can assure you of that.

“It’s the same thing with (electronic) tags. You go through, you hear the beep, you don’t think about it. You pay your bill once a month. It’s amazing how reaching into that pocket to get that three bucks seems a lot more painful than hearing that beep.”

Allard: Why does the Lone Star State tolerate TxDOT's failures?

Link to column here.

Once again, Ken Allard’s poignant humor hits the nail on the head. Why do we tolerate TxDOT’s failures? Where are the indictments and heads rolling? Short of TURF’s lawsuit to stop their illegal lobbying and ad campaign, NO ONE in state law enforcement is doing didly-squat to prosecute or reform this agency. Our great hope is the Sunset Commission. God bless Senator Glenn Hegar who gets it!

Ken Allard: Why does the Lone Star State allow TxDOT’s bureaucratic arrogance?
05/07/2008
San Antonio Express-News

The headlines might have read, “No Hope, No More,” but we have been on a collision course over the future of TxDOT ever since Gov. Perry’s dismissal last week of interim commissioner Hope Andrade.

She succeeded chairman Rick Williamson, whose last wish was that his embattled agency might engage in a creative dialogue with its critics. He even reached out to ask for my help in connecting the agency with “some of the best minds at UTSA,” but his untimely passing prevented those possibilities.

The widely respected Andrade tried to continue his initiative, but certain fundamentals have emerged. Among them: to the extent that it can be controlled at all, TxDOT answers only to its political masters — and then only to some of them. When hauled before the Texas Senate earlier this year, agency leaders had no good explanations for some outrageous failings, including a billion-dollar accounting error and millions more wasted on lobbying for dubious pet projects.

Had a similar situation occurred in Washington, indictments might well have followed. But not in Texas. Sen. Glenn Hegar recently wrote that lawmakers’ “concerns about the Trans-Texas Corridor, the agency’s policies, funding schemes, budget and construction priorities have (often) been met with contempt and disdain by TxDOT officials.” The mystery is why such bureaucratic arrogance is tolerated in the state that produced the legendary “Lonesome Dove” figures of Woodrow Call and Augustus McCrae.

But if you think the agency isn’t listening to your concerns, don’t feel too badly. They don’t listen to the Texas Legislature, either. In an interesting twist, Sen. Hegar also sits on a sunset committee charged with identifying “waste, duplication and inefficiency” among state agencies. Ironically, TxDOT’s turn for review comes up this year. Can you think of some issues the sunset commissioners might want to look into? What kinds of minds produced the “My Favorite Martian” School of highway design, bewildering tourists and locals alike as they try to escape from the San Antonio airport? Even more interesting: Why is there apparently a requirement that all TxDOT engineers be Aggies?

There are, of course, far larger issues because if TxDOT and toll roads are the only answers, we’re probably not asking the right questions. County Judge Nelson Wolff recently raised the possibility of light rail. Until recently, there was the assumption that toll roads were the only alternative or, according to Sen. Hegar, “selling our highway infrastructure to the highest bidder, usually a foreign-owned company.”

Like a mule’s first kick, paying $4 for a gallon of gas is an educational opportunity that ought not to be missed. So, too, are the unmistakable signs that the real poverty in this area begins with our thinking. Simply go out U.S. 281 to the areas around Evans and Bulverde Roads to glimpse urban sprawl at its ugliest, a spectacular failure of zoning, planning and land use but, most of all, of common sense.

Forget the obvious threats to the aquifer, to the environment, and even to public safety if the sprawl zones ever had to be evacuated. It is as if the developers had abandoned all thought of San Antonio and were busily building the new and glorious Newark-Upon-the-Guadalupe.

As a wide-eyed schoolboy back east, I learned Texas history from afar, especially that part about lines being drawn in the sand. With the governor, the bureaucrats and the developers now on one side of that line, what a joy, what an honor it is to be here and on the other!

Retired Col. Ken Allard is an executive-in-residence at UTSA.

Hegar: Delisi doesn't have my support

Link to article here.

COMMENTARY
Hegar: To gain my support, Delisi must prove me wrong
State Sen. Glenn Hegar, R-Katy, TEXAS SENATE
Tuesday, May 06, 2008

On Wednesday, Texas Gov. Rick Perry announced he had appointed Deirdre Delisi, his former chief of staff, chairwoman of the Texas Transportation Commission, which oversees the Texas Department of Transportation. As of today, I will not vote to confirm her appointment in the next legislative session.

Ask almost any Texan, especially those who have the need to travel frequently on Interstate 35, about our Texas transportation system and they will tell you that many of our roads have extreme congestion, while other construction projects have experienced significant cost overruns. Last year, TxDOT notified the public that it had experienced a billion-dollar accounting error, spent millions of dollars in an effort to persuade Texans that we need to pursue the proposed Tran-Texas Corridor even though the legislature had just passed a two-year moratorium on public-private agreements. The next legislative session will be a critical time as we work to ensure that TxDOT can regain the trust of Texans and to overcome the low opinion of what was once the most respected highway department in the nation.

In the Legislature, relations with TxDOT are also at an all-time low. Lawmakers’ questions and concerns about the Trans-Texas Corridor, the agency’s policies, funding schemes, budget and construction priorities have often been met with contempt and disdain by TxDOT officials. The result is that many legislators, including me, have lost confidence that TxDOT and its policies are working in the best interests of Texas taxpayers.

That is why I had high hopes that the governor would use the vacancy created by the untimely passing of former Transportation Chairman Ric Williamson as an opportunity to appoint someone who would work to change the status quo, reach out to lawmakers and work with the Legislature to address the concerns of the citizens we represent.

I view Delisi’s appointment as a squandered opportunity. Rather than choose someone to head the commission who will reach out and work cooperatively with legislators, the governor instead has chosen a political “yes woman” with little or no practical experience involving transportation issues other than carrying out Perry’s myopic vision that relies solely on building more toll roads and selling our highway infrastructure to the highest bidder, usually a foreign-owned company.

I serve as the vice chairman of the Texas Sunset Advisory Commission. In 1977, the Legislature created the commission to identify and eliminate waste, duplication and inefficiency in government agencies. The 12-member commission is a legislative body that reviews the policies and programs of more than 150 government agencies every 12 years. The commission questions the need for each agency, looks for potential duplication of other public services or programs and considers changes to improve each agency’s operations and activities. Currently, the Texas Department of Transportation is undergoing its 12-year Sunset review.

I also serve as a member of the Senate Nominations Committee, the panel that will have to vote to confirm Delisi’s appointment when the legislature reconvenes in January 2009. One might expect that the governor and Delisi would have contacted all members of these key committees to discuss their plans for TxDOT and to ask for our vote in the upcoming nomination process. Unfortunately, like most of my colleagues, I learned about the appointment from the news media.

The governor can certainly appoint anyone whom he sees fit, but as a state senator who takes his constitutional “advise and consent” responsibilities seriously, I would have hoped Perry would have sought out the advice of legislators before asking for our consent at this critical juncture in Texas history.

TxDOT’s vision statement says that the agency will work to:

“Promote a higher quality of life through partnerships with the citizens of Texas and all branches of government by being receptive, responsible and cooperative.”

Perry’s and Delisi’s recent actions with regard to this appointment are not in keeping with that statement but instead reflect a vision of non-cooperation and non-responsiveness to lawmakers and the constituents they serve.

I certainly hope that Delisi will prove me wrong. Likewise, I hope that between now and her Senate confirmation hearing next January she will attempt to change my perception that she will not be an agent of the status quo at TxDOT. If so, she may still have an opportunity to earn my confidence and my vote, and the taxpayers of our state and those who use and depend on our vast transportation system will be well served.

Hegar represents District 18.

Lone Star Report: Time to reform TxDOT and the revolving door at the Governor's office

As usual, Will Lutz of the Lone Star Report speaks for the interests of taxpayers with clarity and conviction. His assessment is exactly right. The Legislature can take the power over TxDOT from the Governor and slap him with new ethics laws on his revolving door Cintra-fest. We need courageous, genuine leadership in the Legislature. It’s obvious that it won’t just emerge, we must demand it!

Will new commissioners improve TxDOT?
by William Lutz
Lone Star Report
5/5/08

Gov. Rick Perry appointed two new members of the Texas Transportation Commission April 30, his former chief of staff, Deirdre Delisi of Austin and William Meadows of Fort Worth, a member of the North Texas Tollway Authority Board.

The appointment of a former Perry staffer to a key government post is consistent with Perry’s appointment pattern, which isn’t always well-received at the Capitol.

Some Capitol hands view Delisi’s appointment as a sign the Legislature can expect more of the same from the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). Sen. John Carona (R-Dallas), chairman of the Senate Committee on Transportation and Homeland Security, even tried to discourage Perry appointing her.

Both appointments are subject to Senate confirmation, but in the past, some GOP senators – despite talking a good, independent game early in the session – don’t seem to have much stomach for a fight with the Governor in mid-May of session years. Therefore, Delisi’s confirmation is likely.

Still, the agency has an opportunity here. Its reputation with legislators and grass-roots conservatives has nowhere to go but up. And it will need some credibility because its authority to sign comprehensive development agreements expires in 2009.

(A comprehensive development agreement is a contract whereby the state rents right-of-way to a private company and gives it the exclusive right to build and operate a toll road.) Here are some areas the new commissioners need to address, if the commission wishes to improve its reputation.

Current transportation policy was sold to lawmakers under false pretenses. That is, the omnibus transportation bill of 2003 was promoted to lawmakers as “local control” and “more tools in the toolbox.” Lawmakers thought they passed a bill that let local leaders use new financing tools if they wanted to for building local highways faster.

But that’s a far cry from what was delivered. No one told lawmakers in 2003 or 2005 that the Texas Department of Transportation was going to try to shake down the Harris County Toll Road Authority for cash when it wanted to build new toll roads. Nor did anyone tell them the transportation commission would favor private contractors over local non-profit toll authorities for the right to build and maintain roads. Nor did anyone mention that the primary driver behind building toll roads was the desire to raise tolls artificially high to generate cash that could be siphoned off to other roads that can’t be built with tolls. The bills passed in 2007 were an attempt by the Legislature to fix all of these problems.

Had the agency let local leaders help decide how much revenue to extract from local motorists, the issue wouldn’t get as much blow-back at the Capitol.

The public doesn’t understand the state’s transportation dilemma and doesn’t trust TxDOT. Lawmakers and others have pointed this fact out repeatedly to the agency. Yet its response was to run a political PR campaign promoting privatized toll roads.

There’s a difference between being transparent and building trust and using government resources for political purposes. Lawmakers wanted the former. TxDOT provided the latter.

The clarity and transparency of the agency’s explanations of the state’s financial situation could use improvement. There is also a need for the agency to explain and justify the fact that construction costs have risen dramatically faster than inflation.

The agency and its supporters have shown flagrant disregard for the public’s right-to-know. If these comprehensive development agreements are really so great – as Perry claims – then why is the agency afraid to let the public see them before they are a done deal and the state is stuck with them for 50 years?

A provision was quietly slipped into a transportation bill in 2005 that exempts any part of any proposal for a comprehensive development agreement from public disclosure – even under criminal subpoena. This blanket secrecy provision, found in section 223.204 of the Transportation Code, includes draft contracts between the agency and private vendors (like Cintra). This provision became a campaign issue in 2006, when Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn and the Houston Chronicle demanded the release of the draft agreement between Cintra and the Texas Department of Transportation to develop the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 project.

The public explanation usually given when this provision is published is that a draft contract between the state and a private company is proprietary and contains trade secrets. The problem with that argument is that state law has always provided an exception to public disclosure for real trade secrets – provided that the Attorney General and the courts agree that the material is actually proprietary.

In short , it is fair to question whether the rationale for the blanket exemption from public disclosure is driven by politics. If the public can’t see contracts that bind the state for 50 years until after they have been approved and are then a done deal, then opposition is less likely to materialize. There will be less debate over the toll rates and non-compete clauses, for example.

Thanks to Sen. Jane Nelson (R-Lewisville), in 2007, the Legislature passed a “truth in tolling” provision that requires the agency to publish toll rates and other key information before finalizing a toll contract.

But shouldn’t the public have the right to see the whole contract in advance of its approval? Will the new commissioners support additional public disclosure of toll road contracts or will they defend secret, special-interest government at its absolute worst?

The agency has not shown the Legislature the respect it deserves. The current executive director of TxDOT has made some improvements in this area. But in 2005, 2006, and early 2007 the agency and the commission showed an appalling lack of respect to lawmakers. Commissioners would seldom attend legislative hearings and regularly picked petty fights with key legislative players.

Carona – the chairman of the Senate committee overseeing TxDOT – had to go to the House and create a big public showdown in 2007 just to get a meeting with the then-chairman of the Texas Transportation Commission. Simply respecting the process – as TxDOT has begun to do in recent months – will go a long way toward building bridges with lawmakers.

The agency is perceived as having a “my way or the highway” approach. It seems that every action the agency takes is designed to build support for privately-run toll roads.

If the commission came up with and supported a more balanced approach, it might get a more receptive audience for its ideas. Not every road has to be a toll road built and financed by Cintra.

A little common sense will help, sometimes. TxDOT seems to have a way of dumping gasoline on the fire. A good example was right after the 2007 legislative session (when the Legislature banned cities from issuing speeding tickets with automated cameras) when TxDOT put up automated cameras in a rural part of Interstate 10 to issue speed warnings. No wonder rural folk don’t trust TxDOT!

TxDOT is still under the Governor’s control and its tolling policies have not been repealed, largely due to a lack of legislative will-power.

If the Legislature wanted to stop this stuff, it could – even when Perry plays hard ball. Lawmakers can override vetoes. They can brave special sessions. They could make life unpleasant for the governor by holding hearings into the revolving door between the governor’s office and certain transportation contractors (including issuing subpoenas to transportation lobbyists who used to work for Perry). They can propose new ethics and campaign contribution legislation.

The agency is up for Sunset in 2009, and the Legislature could easily have someone besides the Governor appointing its board. Or it could allow Comprehensive Development Agreement authority to expire.

But if the new commissioners take a more cooperative approach to transportation, the Legislature may conclude that none of the above steps are necessary.

In other words, the new commissioners are coming in under a cloud, but they also still have an opportunity to make changes – if they want to.

Perry erred in choosing political bootlicker for Chair of Transportation Commission

Link to editorial here.

Perhaps what’s most apalling about this appointment aside from the overtly political nature of Governor Perry’s choice to run the Transportation Commission, is Deirdre Delisi’s total lack of ANY relevant experience in transportation issues whatsoever. Past Chair, Ric Williamson, was at least a former legislator and had worked in the oil and gas industry. But Delisi’s only experience is running political campaigns and defending a very unpopular Governor’s agenda, which makes her perfect for the job from Perry’s perspective, but a horrific choice for taxpayers and for anyone wishing to take affordable transportation solutions seriously.

Editorial: Perry errs in choice for top TxDOT job
05/01/2008
San Antonio Express-News
Perhaps Gov. Rick Perry is right. Perhaps Deirdre Delisi is the most qualified person in Texas to lead the state Transportation Commission. There’s no denying that the Duke University graduate, who also has a master’s degree in international policy studies from Stanford University, is a very bright and competent individual.

But there’s also no getting around the fact that the primary reason Perry tapped the 35-year-old Austin resident to head the commission is that she worked for him for nine years as chief of staff, senior deputy chief of staff, deputy chief of staff and director of Perry’s 2002 gubernatorial campaign, as well as serving on his staff when he was lieutenant governor and working in his campaign for that office.

In a February interview with the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Sen. John Carona, R-Dallas, the no-nonsense chairman of the Senate Transportation and Homeland Security Committee, offered his opinion about the rumored appointment.

“We don’t need political hacks in that position,” he said. “We need people who understand the business. We need people who understand transportation. We don’t need someone who’s unpopular with the Legislature.”

Major missteps and public relations fiascos have destroyed public confidence in the Transportation Commission and the Texas Department of Transportation. The interim chairmanship of Hope Andrade, after the sudden death last year of Ric Williamson, had begun to repair some of that damage. The selection of a chairman based on cronyism will further erode public trust.

What makes Delisi’s appointment more galling is that Perry is replacing Andrade on the commission. The move means that between the chairman and four commissioners, none lives in South Texas, denying an often-neglected region representation on the crucial commission.

A governor who wasn’t tone deaf to public criticism wouldn’t make that kind of mistake. Unfortunately, it’s what Texans have come to expect from the increasingly oblivious leadership of Rick Perry.

Senators to Prez: Stop stockpiling oil at a time of crisis

Link to article here.

Sen. Hutchison: “Immediately Halt Deposits in the Strategic Oil Reserve”
Published in Texas Insider: 04-30-08
Letter to the President Signed by 16 Senators, Cites “Busiest Driving Season” of the Year

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), Chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, today urged the administration to immediately halt deposits of domestic crude oil into the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR).

“The SPR had 554 million barrels when President Bush took office and today it has over 701 million barrels,” Sen. Hutchison said. “We are in an extreme circumstance, now that oil is around $120 a barrel. I support an immediate halt in the deposits of domestic crude into the SPR as we enter the busiest driving season of the year.”

The letter was signed by Senators Jon Kyl (R-AZ), John Barrasso (R-WY), Kit Bond (R-MO), Sam Brownback (R-KS), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Susan Collins (R-ME), John Cornyn (R-TX), Elizabeth Dole (R-NC), Judd Gregg (R-NH), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Lisa Murkowski (R-AL), Jeff Sessions (R-AL), John Sununu (R-NH), and Ted Stevens (R-AK). Sens. Murkowski, Sessions, and Barrasso are members of the Senate Energy Committee.

TEXT OF THE LETTER
April 29, 2008

The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear President Bush:

We write today to request that the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) immediately halt deposits of domestic crude oil into the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). As we enter the busiest driving season of the year, the price of a barrel of West Texas Intermediate crude oil hovers around a record $120.

The SPR was established in 1975 to provide a supply of crude oil during times of severe supply disruptions. Today, the SPR contains more than 701 million barrels of oil, exceeding our International Energy Program commitments to maintain at least 90 days of oil stocks in reserve.

High energy prices are having a ripple effect throughout the U.S. economy and exacerbating recessionary pressures. The Energy Information Agency reports that supplies and inventories of crude oil and refined products are above 2007 inventories while our demand for gasoline is down. Yet, the price of crude oil has skyrocketed 100% from last year’s levels which were just above $63 a barrel in April, 2007. Despite these economic realities, the DoE recently solicited contracts to exchange up to 13 million barrels of royalty oil from Federal leases in the Gulf of Mexico for deposits in the SPR.

Some analysts blame geopolitical instability and disruption in production for the rapid price increases; however, these factors alone do not explain the extraordinary increase in oil prices compared to previous years, when these same challenges were present. Temporarily halting deposits to the reserve can provide some relief because the increased supply of oil available for refinement will send the right signal to all markets that the U.S. Government will take measures necessary to address exorbitant crude oil prices that negatively affect the global economy. We believe, in light of the dramatic increase in oil prices, a temporary halt to deposits into the SPR should be considered until the economy stabilizes.

I appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward to hearing back from you.

Hutchison: Time to remove ethanol from food price hike/rationing equation

Link to article here.

Undoing America’s Ethanol Mistake
By Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
Published in Texas Insider: 04-30-08

The Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman once said, “One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.”

When Congress passed legislation to greatly expand America’s commitment to biofuels, it intended to create energy independence and protect the environment.

But the results have been quite different. America remains equally dependent on foreign sources of energy, and new evidence suggests that ethanol is causing great harm to the environment.

In recent weeks, the correlation between government biofuel mandates and rapidly rising food prices has become undeniable. At a time when the U.S. economy is facing recession, Congress needs to reform its “food-to-fuel” policies and look at alternatives to strengthen energy security.

On Dec. 19, 2007, President Bush signed into law the Energy Independence and Security Act. This legislation had several positive features, including higher fuel standards for cars and greater investment in renewable energies such as solar power.

However, the bill required a huge spike in the biofuel production requirement, from 7.5 billion gallons in 2012 to 36 billion in 2022.

This was a well-intentioned measure, but it was also impractical. Nearly all our domestic corn and grain supply is needed to meet this mandate, robbing the world of one of its most important sources of food.

We are already seeing the ill effects of this measure. Last year, 25% of America’s corn crop was diverted to produce ethanol. In 2008, that number will grow to 30%-35%, and it will soar even higher in the years to come.

Furthermore, the trend of farmers supplanting other grains with corn is decreasing the supply of numerous agricultural products. When the supply of those products goes down, the price inevitably goes up.

Subsequently, the cost of feeding farm and ranch animals increases and the cost is passed to consumers of beef, poultry and pork products.

Since February 2006, the price of corn, wheat and soybeans has increased by more than 240%. Rising food prices are hitting the pockets of lower-income Americans and people who live on fixed incomes.

While the blame for higher costs shouldn’t rest exclusively with biofuels — drought and rising oil costs are contributing factors — the expansion of biofuels has been a major source of the problem.

The International Food Policy Research Institute estimates that biofuel production accounts for between one-quarter and one-third of the recent spike in global commodity prices.

For the first time in 30 years, food riots are breaking out in many parts of the globe, including major countries such as Mexico, Pakistan and Indonesia.

The fact that America’s energy policies are creating global instability should concern the leaders of both political parties.

Restraining the dangerous effects of artificially inflated demand for ethanol should be an issue that unites both conservatives and progressives.

As a recent Time cover story pointed out, biofuel mandates increase greenhouse gasses and create incentives for global deforestation.

In the Amazon basin, huge swaths of forest are being cleared to meet the growing hunger for biofuels.

In addition, relief organizations are facing gaping shortfalls as the cost of food outpaces their ability to provide aid for the 800 million people who lack food security.

The recent food crisis does not mean we should entirely abandon biofuels.

The best way to lower energy prices, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil, is to accelerate production of all forms of domestic energy.

Expanding biofuels while refusing to take other measures, such as lifting the ban on oil and natural gas production in Alaska and the Outer Continental Shelf, is counterproductive. We should be tapping into a broad portfolio of energy options, including clean coal, nuclear power and wave energy.

The key is increasing energy supply. By taking these measures, we can enable biofuels to be part of the energy solution, instead of contributing to the energy problem.

Congress must take action. I am introducing legislation that will freeze the biofuel mandate at current levels, instead of steadily increasing it through 2022.

This is a common-sense measure that will reduce pressure on global food prices and restore balance to America’s energy policy.

As the Senate debates this issue, we must remain focused on the facts.

At one point, expanding biofuels made sense for America’s energy security. But the recent surge in food prices has forced us to adapt. The global demand for energy and food is expected to rise about 50% in the next 20 years, and the U.S. is well-positioned to be a leader in both areas.

That will require a careful, finely tuned approach to America’s farm products.

By freezing the biofuel mandate at current levels, we will go a long way to achieving that goal.

Senator Hutchison chairs the Senate Republican Policy Committee and is representing Texas in her third full term in the Senate.

Perry appoints two tollers to Transportation Commission

Link to article here.

It’s hard NOT to laugh out loud at Bexar County Judge Nelson Wolff’s comment in this article:

“We’ve got a lot of goodies in the last few years, I guess we’ve got to be thankful for what we got while she was there,” he said.

By my calculation, all San Antonio got for her “representation” was toll roads, threats, intimidation, yanking people off the Via Board for voting with the citizens against tolls, and more toll roads. So I suppose not having San Antonio representation needs to be seriously filtered through the reality check of Governor Perry’s poisoned Transportation Commission. They’re all about pushing his agenda of toll roads and the Trans Texas Corridor at any cost, no matter what region they’re from. The Commission does anything BUT represent the will of the people of Texas or the public good.

Gov. Perry assigns two to Transportation Commission
By Peggy Fikac and Patrick Driscoll
Express-News
04/30/2008

AUSTIN — Gov. Rick Perry today named his former chief of staff and a North Texas tollway official to the state Transportation Commission, filling the vacancy left by Ric Williamson’s death and replacing San Antonio member Hope Andrade.

Perry’s appointment of past chief of staff Deirdre Delisi, 35, and Fort Worth insurance executive Bill Meadows, 55, who serves on the North Texas Tollway Authority, leaves South Texas without a member on the powerful panel.

The news of Andrade’s departure was taken badly in San Antonio, where officials feel the city over the years has tended to lack a voice on the Transportation Commission and has often been shortchanged on highway funding.

“Of course, this is not good for us,” Bexar County Judge Nelson Wolff said. “She’s going to be sorely missed, I can guarantee you that.”

Delisi was designated by the GOP governor to lead the commission, a spot that Perry had given Andrade on an interim basis after Williamson’s late December death.

Delisi, who has been a political and policy adviser to Perry, left as chief of staff last year when she and her husband, Ted, became parents of twin boys. She was Perry’s 2002 campaign manager and worked in George W. Bush’s 2000 presidential campaign.

Meadows, senior vice president of an insurance and financial service company, is a former Fort Worth city councilman who serves on the tollway authority. He will give Dallas-Fort Worth the representation that the area’s leaders have said it should retain in the wake of the death of Williamson, who was from Weatherford.

The commission also includes Ned Holmes of Houston, Ted Houghton Jr. of El Paso and Fred A. Underwood of Lubbock.

Change is coming in the wake of a rocky relationship between the Legislature and the Perry-appointed Transportation Commission. Some top lawmakers have publicly butted heads with commissioners over the direction of Texas transportation as the commission seeks to implement Perry’s vision of leaning on toll roads and private investments as the primary strategy.

Lawmakers last year sought to rein in public-private partnerships on tollways, and they have questioned transportation officials’ figures in the face of ever-growing mobility needs and funding that doesn’t keep pace.

Some have questioned whether Delisi is the right pick. Sen. John Carona, R-Dallas, Senate Transportation and Homeland Security Committee chairman, was quoted in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram earlier this year as opposing Delisi, saying, “We don’t need political hacks in that position.”

Others praise Delisi’s intelligence and said she would be able to work with lawmakers.

“I think Deirdre is a very smart and capable person who understands the governor’s transportation policy and also understands the politics of the Legislature, so I think she’ll be an asset to the commission,” said Rep. Mike Krusee, R-Round Rock, House Transportation Committee chairman, who isn’t seeking re-election and has been rumored to be in line for such an appointment himself.

The appointments require Senate confirmation. Delisi lives in the district of Sen. Kirk Watson, D-Austin, Senate Transportation and Homeland Security Committee vice-chairman. Watson, who as her senator could block the appointment, said Tuesday he doesn’t discuss such pending nominations.

“You’ve got to check with the governor’s appointments office,” Watson said. “I take this responsibility very seriously and have spent a significant amount of time working on this issue, visiting with Ms. Delisi and others regarding this appointment.”

Sen. Eliot Shapleigh, D-El Paso, a Senate Transportation and Homeland Security Committee member, said, “What we need is a pragmatic debate on mobility needs, including mass transit. What we don’t need is ideologies and a fixation on 100-year privatized highways.”

Sen. Robert Nichols, R-Jacksonville, a Senate Transportation and Homeland Security Committee member who served on the Transportation Commission before being elected to the Legislature, said of Delisi, “He (Perry) obviously has a working relationship with her and feels comfortable with her. … I’ve worked with her before. She’s a smart lady.”

Sen. Florence Shapiro, R-Plano, a Senate Transportation and Homeland Security Committee member, said, “We need members of that commission that work well with the Legislature. I happen to know Bill Meadows. I think Bill Meadows is certainly somebody the Legislature can work with.”

Meadows lives in the district of Sen. Jane Nelson, R-Lewisville, who said in a statement, “I have urged Governor Perry to appoint someone from the DFW region to the Transportation Commission. We are ground zero for the state’s transportation challenges. The challenges we face affect the entire state, given how critical our region is to the state economy.”

Andrade, who has also served on the now defunct Texas Turnpike Commission and the VIA Metropolitan Transit board, joined the Transportation Commission in 2003 when it was expanded from three members to five. Out of 37 commissioners since World War II ended, she is just the third from San Antonio.

As Andrade stepped into the job, the commission was starting full tilt to toll new road lanes whenever feasible and invite private involvement when possible. Also, bonds and a new fund supported by traffic fines were beginning to pump up construction statewide, a bubble that in recent years more than doubled highway projects in San Antonio.

Local leaders say having Andrade in Austin only helped.

“Having Hope Andrade there has been a great asset for us — losing Hope will be a great loss,” said Bill Thornton, chairman of the Alamo Regional Mobility Authority, which plans to start construction this year on the U.S. 281 tollway.

Wolff tried to be positive.

“We’ve got a lot of goodies in the last few years, I guess we’ve got to be thankful for what we got while she was there,” he said.

Road lobby to lawmakers: If goal is to MAXIMIZE profits, use a private toll contract

Today the Joint Study Committee on Private Participation in Toll Projects (mandated by the private toll moratorium bill) invited boatloads of bureaucrats and private sector road building contractors (engineering firms, law firms, financial consultants, etc.) to sing the praises of private toll deals before state lawmakers (and the Governor’s 3 appointees, all pro-privatization and pro-TxDOT…think people who believe TxDOT walks on water, tells no lies, and is always right).

A few government folks warned Public Private Partnerships (or PPPs) are not prudent or do-able in all situations, but none repudiated them outright or recommended the Legislature do away with them. At a Senate Transportation Committee hearing March 1, 2007, PPP expert Dennis Enright with Northwest Financial in New Jersey said PPPs cost 50% more, the private sector assumes NO FINANCIAL RISK (though PPP advocates claim “risk transfer” is the advantage of doing a private deal), and recommended toll projects always stay in the public sector. No such moral clarity today. One thing’s clear: the highway lobby and the PPP chief cheerleader, Robert Poole of the Reason Foundation, have been very busy lobbying our elected officials since the hearing March 1, 2007.

It was all a taxpayer could do to keep his/her cool when listening to the spin and the brazen attempts to raid our wallets with the highest possible toll “the market will bear,” simply because they can. The hogs at the trough are alive and well and far outnumber the ordinary citizens who can take off work to sit in a 6 hour hearing (with no breaks, but lawmakers always have a “back room” stocked with drinks and food both in Austin at today’s meeting) before they can give a stitch of testimony against these sweetheart deals that amount to a public fleecing.

Read the TURF testimony (which we were not allowed to finish before being cut off) here.

A Secretary from the Florida Department of Transportation even admitted the primary funding source for their PPP deals is private activity bonds (or PABs), which is a pot of public money established by the feds to encourage private toll contracts (note how it’s cloaked with “private” in the title).

VA Secretary of DOT a STAR!!!!!

Deputy Secretary of the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), Barbara Reese, stole the show today and displayed the kind of integrity and leadership we need at TxDOT. We liked her so much we suggested the Legislature get her down here to run TxDOT post-haste!

She described how Virginia’s DOT approaches transportation starting with “an unwavering commitment to the public good” (since someone has to pay that tax/toll) and total transparency (“no closed door deals”). They have a section of their web site where anyone at any time can examine the performance of any contract and, hence, the department’s technical and financial decisions on behalf of taxpayers.

Reese also noted that they’re very open and candid about what they’re doing and why, and emphasized they involve the public at every step of the process. She was specifically asked by one of the committee members if they proceeded with a project if the public didn’t want it, and she emphatically said, “No.” What a novel concept, actually listening to the public who pays the bills…TxDOT and our Texas politicians have a lot to learn about integrity and serving the public interest from VDOT.

She said 80-90% of their road maintenance has been outsourced from government to the private sector which has subsequently reduced the number of VDOT employees from 12,000 down to 8,600. Here’s the kicker. If a VDOT project wasn’t done in time or came in overbudget, “you have a lot of explaining to do and possibly could lose your job.” How refreshing! A government agency that will actually fire people who don’t deliver for the taxpayers! I’m concluding TxDOT’s recent $1 billion accounting error and ad campaign selling tolls roads and the Trans Texas Corridor to the public using TAXPAYER MONEY would have resulted in heads rolling at VDOT. Where’s the accountability at TxDOT?

Hogs at the trough get trotted out

Then out came the private sector firms (who will profit handsomely from PPPs and toll roads) blowing sunshine in lawmakers’ ears about what the private sector brings to the table. They talked about “risk transfer” and tried to claim since a private lender is involved in private deals, that the deal is more scrutinized than a public sector model. Oh really, is that how we arrived at the current subprime mortgage crisis? Because lenders were so good at “scrutinizing” buyers’ ability to make payments? Let’s remember who bailed that mess out…we the TAXPAYERS did. There is no private “risk” anymore. It’s the taxpayers, the taxpayers, and ONLY the taxpayers who pay the price for corporate America’s mistakes and our government’s malfeasance.

URS and other companies who do these traffic and revenue toll viability studies are known for perpetually OVERprojecting the expected amount of traffic that will take these toll roads, and when the cars don’t materialize, it’s once again the taxpayers who bail out the failed toll road, like we did on the failed Camino Columbia toll road in Laredo (and there’s plenty of examples of failed toll roads in Florida, and in VA and elsewhere). It’s a total scam, they’ll say and do anything to get these toll roads built, sell the bonds, get their money, and leave the taxpayers holding the bag. I’ve even heard companies admit they can’t tell TxDOT the truth because then they’ll never hire them for these studies again. It’s all about the money, folks. The public good gets checked at the door. It’s been long since buried in Texas.

Very few start-up toll roads are financially viable

Well, the fact most of these toll projects aren’t 100% toll sustainable has been abundantly obvious since day one of the Governor and Legislature’s shift to tolling. They’re using all kinds of public subsidies to make the projects work so that they can still toll you! Wisdom and prudence would say if the road can’t be paid for by the tolls, then don’t build it as a toll road, period. No so with today’s politicians. They instead choose to subsidize it so they can still tap the vein and get their revenue stream.

So don’t believe them when tollers claim you have a choice whether to pay to take a toll road. No you don’t, a heap of YOUR public money is going into nearly every one of these projects, but you won’t be able to drive on them without paying a toll, too, in a double or even triple tax scheme. Why do you think they’re tolling existing freeways? Because they can make an extra BIG heap of cash off roads already built and paid for!

Any discussion of market valuation is always very revealing. The purpose of market-based tolls is to “maximize the profits” from the road (as we warned when we tried to kill this provision in the bill last year). Lawmakers and private firms said so repeatedly at the hearing. This shift to tolling has always been about creating a new revenue stream for road builders without having to raise the gas tax. Politicians honestly think raising the gas tax will bring worse political fallout than tolling. Well, they’re learning that’s a false hope. See, it’s not that they’re averse to raising your taxes, they do it all the time, they think tolls can ultimately be blamed on local government decisions so they basically think they get to pass the buck with tolling. There’s no question that paying tolls on all new lanes/roads will be the largest tax increase in Texas history, period, and there’s blame at EVERY level of government.

PPPs more expensive than public toll roads

The private firms admitted PPPs cost the taxpayers more, not to mention loss of control, but they think it’s justified since in some circumstances the road can’t be built without the private money since many public tolling entities have maxed their proverbial bond debt credit cards. So instead of restrain government spending and rein-in the prolific use of leveraged debt to get new roads built, their argument is the public should pay even more to have a private company build, maintain, and control our roads in 50+ year deals for the ultimate quick fix.

The road building industry is hitting tough times, like all of us hit hard by the recession, so instead of tighten their belts like we have to, they want the taxpayers to suspend all rational fiscal policy and allow PPPs to continue in Texas when we can least afford them.

Tolls not a “user” fee

Sasha Page of Infrastructure Management Group (IMG), a financial firm that consults on such deals, even admitted the private sector attraction to toll roads is due to the “monopolistic characteristics” of toll roads. Cha ching! You got it! Again, the testimony of industry experts time and again shows toll roads are monopolies, they are not “free market” as tollers try to tell us. And, tolling is not a user fee, it’s a tax, especially when they use a mix of other public funds to build them.

Market valuation, in particular, is another Robin Hood scheme to jack up the toll beyond the actual cost of the road and milk that money from one set of motorists and give it to another set. A user fee is directly tied to the user of the road as it is with traditional turnpikes. Toll advocates complain the gas tax is flawed because the payer is too far removed from actual road use because all the money gets put in a pot and gets redistributed. Well, that precisely what they’re doing with market valuation and PPPs. All told, they’re putting the money in a pot and spending it elsewhere, not on the road where the toll is collected.

Advocates will say it’s not fair to raise the gas tax for everyone, like in rural Texas, to solve congestion in Houston or Dallas. First of all, rural areas get far more back in gas taxes than they put in and urban areas have donated to rural areas since the gas tax first started. There simply isn’t enough population in rural areas to support any highway being built/maintained. The bottom line is this: we’ve all decided public infrastructure and connectivity of all our roads, whether urban or rural, are important and necessary and we’ve all agreed to pool the money collected for roadways to support and maintain a STATEWIDE highway system. All Texans benefit from our highway system, whether it’s to get to work, get goods to market, or to visit Grandma in another town, we all use and need our highway system.

Toll advocates bring up this straw man gas tax argument to stir-up strife and division among various regions as an excuse to push the most expensive transportation tax, toll taxes, on all of us without a public vote.

Market valuation is hard for politicians to sell back home

Representative Wayne Smith, who is the House author of SB 792 that unleashed market valuation on Texans, told Geoff Yarema, with the law firm that represents TxDOT in PPPs, that he’s having trouble selling market valuation to constituents. “Telling people that we’re extracting the maximum revenue from a toll road to go build more toll roads where we extract the maximum revenue is hard to sell back home, can you help us with that?” Smith asked.

You bet that’s hard to “sell” to constituents, because they recognize runaway taxation and gouging when they see it! They’re tired of being gouged at the gas pump and add market-based tolls on top of it, and you have an all out taxpayer revolt brewing. We tried to warn these guys market valuation is DISASTROUS public policy and we begged them to kill it, but lawmakers wanted to go home at the end of the last session rather than fight with the Governor over toll road policy. Some of them may well be going home from Austin for good when this mess hits the fan in the voting booth!

Reason Foundation infecting lawmakers

Robert Poole of the Reason Foundation again suggested that the federal law prohibiting the public and private sector from competing with one another on such contracts ought to be repealed. I repeatedly ran into the Reason Foundation lobbyists in lawmakers’ offices at the Capitol during the 80th Legislative session. They have infected the Texas Public Policy Foundation and other “free market” think tanks convincing them toll roads and privatizing infrastructure is free market and the best way to finance transportation. But for all the reasons laid out above and throughout this web site, toll roads as conceived under PPPs and the new policies under Bush and Perry are anything but free market or good public policy. It’s the MOST EXPENSIVE, monopolistic, runaway, Robin Hood form of taxation put into the hands of unaccountable bureaucrats.

O'Reilly: Fight back against gas price gouging

Link to article here.

Fight Back Against Big Oil
By Bill O’Reilly
Published in Texas Insider: 04-28-08
So now we have the presidential candidates running around telling voters that they will help solve the problem of high gas prices. Well, if you believe that, you’ll believe that Hugo Chavez drives a Yugo. It’s just bull.

Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are calling for “investigations” into “price gouging” by American oil companies. Good. There’s plenty of price manipulation going on and, under Presidents Bush and Clinton, little federal oversight. If a big oil company wants to tighten supply, for example, it’s a snap. Just slow down the refinery process by ordering extra “maintenance” or something.

But who is going to investigate Sens. Obama and Clinton on their opposition to oil drilling? The Democratic Party has consistently opposed new drilling and nuclear energy, as well. Even the dedicated liberal governments in France and Sweden bought into nuclear. But not the American left, no way.

On the Republican side, President Bush has done absolutely nothing about rising gas prices, which is part of the reason his approval rating is approaching 20 percent. He blames the Democrats. Fine. But the president should be telling all Americans to cut back their gas consumption by 15 percent. He should be urging us to use less gas. That would at least cut into big oil’s record profit margins.

Sen. John McCain proposes a gas tax “holiday” this summer. True, that would save the folks a few bucks, but it would also add to the massive spending deficit. The government better start balancing the budget soon, before Haagen-Dazs becomes more valuable than the U.S. currency.

The sad truth is that both political parties have sold out the folks. For decades, economists knew China and India were industrializing, and that those countries would demand much greater amounts of oil. Everybody knew that OPEC would slow down production and gouge the world if it could, and of course, now it can.

But if Americans would get angry and begin punishing the oil bandits, prices would drop. However, we are often a selfish people. We want those gas-guzzling Hummers and SUVs, and we’re paying a big price for that, above and beyond the sticker.

If I were president, I’d be on every program, leading the charge to buy less gas, urging folks to conserve energy in creative ways. I’d create peer pressure against the guzzle crowd. I’d name the names of greedy oil company CEOs making tens of millions of dollars while working folks suffer.

We need leadership on this energy business or it is going to cripple our economy. Our energy incompetence has already empowered our enemies.

So let’s get angry out there. We the people can do this. Big oil is not looking out for us. Let’s stop rewarding it.

Veteran TV news anchor Bill O’Reilly is host of the Fox News show “The O’Reilly Factor” and author of the book “Who’s Looking Out For You?”