Module 3: Deal Funds Highways and Airways

Not only am I fascinated with the politics of transportation because its the industry I work in but also because it is a very unique consideration in the political battles in DC that blur party lines and affect local and federal politics moreso than most issues. The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has a bill ready that would authorize funding for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) through January and surface transportation laws through March. This is interesting for so many reasons so let me break it down here.

First, the FAA has been a huge point of contention in congress for a few years now but seems to be reaching a boiling point. In fact, as many of you probably remember, the FAA was, for the most part, shut down for two weeks temporarily putting 74,000 employees out of work. The result? A temporary extension of funding. As we are nearing the repeat of this showdown in October, congress has taken proactive action in ensuring the same scenario does not play out again by passing another bill that extending FAA funding into early next year. The solution? Another temporary extension. This is nothing new to the FAA through. Over 20 extensions have been passed since the permanent funding expired back in 2007. 35,000 feet below on our nation's roadways, a much less controversial funding bill is also being passed by providing $41.7 Billion to the Highway programs. This is many times more than the $5.4 Billion needed by the FAA. So why is our aviation system having to fight tooth and nail for the simple priveledge to operate? The answer is that the politics of transportation is anything but simple.

The major points of contention in the FAA reauthorization bill are first and foremost, repealing recent National Mediation Board (NMB) that made it easier for employees to unionize. Second, cutting the funding for rural airport subsidies that provide money to airlines to serve smaller communities that the market otherwise would not support often resulting in taxpayers paying to fly empty flights. The labor issue is a unique one in the rail and airline industry that does not exist in the highway considerations adding complexity to the negotiations. However, there is another unique aspect to this drama.

Everyone in the U.S. who owns an automobile directly benefits from highway transportation funding. It is a vital aspect of our infrastructure. Everyone also benefits from aviation funding regardless of whether people fly or not but these benefits are not as direct and obvious as highway benefits. The moment someone drives to the grocery store, they are experiecing the benefits of the highway funding due to the very roads they will likely drive on to get to their destination. When someone receives their package from Amazon or the medical supplies they ordered overnight, the idea that they have just benefited from aviation funding probably slipped their minds. This is where the local versus federal aspect of politics play a part. Highway funding and projects are one of the most tangible ways for a local politician to show their constituents that they have benefited the local community. Therfore, when a politician from Biloxi, Mississippi flys, yes flys, to Washington DC to vote on a transportation bill, it will be much easier to justify spending on highways than it would be for spending on aviation because everyone will see the direct benefit of the highway spending and credit the local politician. The same cannot be said if a local politician supports spending taxpayer money on aviation infrastructure due to their perception of such money as a waste especially in today's economic climate. What does a politician's ultimate goal in the decision they make in voting? Reelection. This concept applies to both Republicans and Democrats.

My local representative, Sam Johnson, does in fact support the FAA reauthorization bill but interestingly did not support the Tranportation Appropriations. I believe from what I know about local voters that these positions appeal to local voters. This area tends to be of a conservative influence yet aviation is so important to jobs in the local community that many if not the majority would back Johnson's stance on the FAA bill while Texas often prefers to fund its own highway programs but not to say entirely without federal funding.