Matt, et al:
Ok...oh boy...let's see if I can try to help explain things without confusing
people too much (maybe I will even get it right). I'll start by saying that I
have been working directly, on a daily basis, on federal transportation funding
issues for the last 6.5 years and still barely understand it. This is going to
be long and confusing...
The short answer to Matt's question about the 81.74% Rescission is that, as
an old boss of mine used to say, "it's not money until it's money." Which kind
of means...until you spend the money, it's really just numbers on paper.
In the case of federal transportation funding, the numbers on the paper get
shifted around, chewed up, spit out, shifted again...and sometimes...taken back.
The best summary of what I am about to say that I've seen is at
http://www.transact.org/library/decoder/ObligationLimit.pdf
More good stuff at: http://www.transact.org/library/decoding.asp
Here are the big words that I'll probably get wrong:
Transportation Spending Bill: This is a 6 year bill that often goes years and
years overdue for being passed (everybody kinda "wings it" in the mean time).
The last few were called ISTEA, T-21, and SAFETEA-LU. This is where the feds
set out the programs, like Transportation Enhancements, and say how much money
that they want to go into each program.
Appropriation: The Transportation Spending Bill doesn't actually have money in
it even though it has money in it (see...confusing, huh?). Congress still has
to pass an appropriation bill...I think annually...to spend the money.
Formula: The big national numbers set out in the Transportation Spending Bill
get chopped up into pieces for the states by a series of formulas...it doesn't
just get split 50 ways or even by population.
Obligation Authority: The states are also told, by formula, that even though
they supposedly have a certain about of money from the Transportation Spending
Bill...really they only have the authority to spend part of it...in Wisconsin's
case, about 85% usually. Though the Transportation Spending Bill might say
something like "no less than 10% of Surface Transportation Funds shall be spent
on Transportation Enhancements"...that doesn't really mean what it sounds like
it means...because states can choose to spend their OBLIGATION AUTHORITY more
in one program than in another. In theory, they could spend all of their
obligation authority for roads through the STP (Surface Transportation Program)
and none for Transportation Enhancements, for instance. Again, this is
illustrated wonderfully at
http://www.transact.org/library/decoder/ObligationLimit.pdf
State Budget: The state transportation budget goes through DOT, DOA, Governor's
office, Joint Finance Committee, and the State Assembly/Senate...hashing and
rehashing the spending...until we get what we get.
Rescissions: The feds come back and say...remember how we said you could spend
85%...you can't. Give us some back.
OKAY! ANYONE STILL WITH ME?
So...Wisconsin has never spent anywhere near all of its available obligation
authority in Transportation Enhancements...which is why we trail most of the
nation in that respect. So...if the feds take back obligation authority that
we weren't spending anyway...there is no actual cash that is lost. So it is
not an immediate tragedy...no projects that were going to be built are going to
suffer. The state was never going to use that obligation authority for
Enhancements anyway.
The bigger issue, perhaps, is WHY HAVEN'T WE BEEN SPENDING OUR TRANSPORTATION
ENHANCEMENT OBLIGATION? But that is a priority issue and a long battle.
And...as I hopefully have demonstrated here...really hard to understand,
explain, and structure a campaign around. It is easier just to say...put more
money in the state budget for Enhancements...which eventually has the effect of
raising the obligations in that category.
This is also why...it is hard to educate citizens on the process so that they
can write letters to elected officials and state staff that make any sense. So
we hear things like "citizen's just don't understand" or "the Bike Fed is
making misleading statements". Or a letter comes out of a state agency that no
one can make any sense of. It's very easy to get turned around on all of these
things...or for someone to make it SEEM like you're turned around.
Okay...I'm done for now. I'll leave it to the wonks to point out whatever I've
said wrong above. Oh, wait...that's right...I'm a wonk now too.
-Dar
>So I find myself gazing at this table:
>http://old-www.railtrails.org/TE%20Rescissions%20by%20State.pdf
>and noticing that "percentage of 2006 Rescission Taken From TE" in
>Wisconsin is the highest in the nation, at 81.74%. What is the
>significance of that number? Can you forward a link to help me
>understand this process?
---------------------------------
Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos._______________________________________________
Bikies mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
