Republicans Have Unveiled Their Solution To The 'Highway Shutdown,' And Conservatives Already Hate It - Yahoo Finance

Republicans Have Unveiled Their Solution To The 'Highway Shutdown,' And Conservatives Already Hate It - Yahoo Finance
JohnButts@JBMedia - Reports:
The House Ways and Means Committee unveiled its plan to shore up the Highway Trust Fund, providing a proposed solution to what many on Capitol Hill view as Congress' next big looming crisis.

The House Republican plan, which was given a thrust of public support by House Speaker John Boehner on
Wednesday, would provide federal financing for federal construction projects through next May. The plan would be financed through unusual offsetting, revenue-generating measures such as a method known as "pension smoothing" and various customs user fees. 

The proposal is viewed as an early step toward an eventual congressional deal. A Senate committee spearheaded by Democrats is expected to introduce its own plan on Wednesday. 

Lawmakers have warned that the Highway Trust Fund, which helps support tens of thousands of construction projects across the country, will be insolvent by the end of the month if Congress does not act to replenish it. The federal

highway program itself is also set to expire on Sept. 30. The House committee's plan, however, was met from immediate resistance by some prominent Senate Democrats and some conservative groups who argue it amounts to a federal "bailout."

"I know these policies are not perfect, but they are viable, have been used by the House and Senate before and should pass both the House and Senate quickly," House Ways and Means Chair Dave Camp said in a statement. "With these policies, we can steer clear of another crisis showdown, and we should."

The highway funding bill would add inject a cash infusion of more than $10 billion into the Highway Trust Fund, which Camp said would fund projects through next May. The main objection from Democrats will likely be the length of the extension.

Democrats want to extend highway funding through the end of the year, which would allow for debate on a long-term solution sooner — and while they still have guaranteed control of the Senate. Republicans want to extend it so that it could be addressed again when they potentially control both chambers of Congress next year. 

"The timing difference of three months versus eight months is not one of policy, but politics: the GOP

could be in charge of the Senate next May after the midterms and the Republicans are looking for maximum leverage in the negotiations next year when highway spending could also line-up with the debt ceiling," Chris Krueger, a political analyst at Guggenheim Securities, wrote in a research note Wednesday.

Indeed, two Senate Democrats on the Environment and Public Works Committee (from which the Senate's version of the highway bill will emerge) said their main objection was the length. Both Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-California) and Tom Carper (D-Delaware) said it would only "create another fiscal crisis next year."

"This ill-conceived proposal would prolong uncertainty for business, local governments and the states and would create another financial crisis right before the next construction season," Boxer said. "Passing a long-term transportation bill this year would provide a real boost for our economic recovery." 

However, Sen. Patty Murray (D-Washington), who has been Democratic leadership's point person on the issue, said Republicans' proposal left her "hopeful" about an eventual solution, though she didn't comment on the length of the extension.

Some conservative groups also came out in opposition, providing a signal of the potential challenges House leadership faces in getting the bill passed before Congress leaves on a month-long recess in August. Dan Holler, a spokesman for the group Heritage Action, called it a "bailout" and said House Republicans were

succumbing to "the Obama administration's reckless rhetoric."

The administration has warned it will start slowing financial support to states by next month if Congress does not replenish the fund. Heritage argues that wouldn't be a crisis, since state and local governments would still provide funding for construction projects.

It eventually wants to wind down the gas tax, which finances the Highway Trust Fund, and hand off control of infrastructure projects to state and local governments — something the conservative group Club for
Growth also supports.

The House bill is financed through two main provisions, both of which have received bipartisan support:

• "Pension smoothing," which  permits employers to delay contributions to employee pension plans, thereby increasing taxable corporate income and generating revenue for the Treasury ($6.4 billion).

• Customs user fees, a provision in last year's bipartisan budget deal that allows the  Bureau of Customs and Border Protection to collect certain fees ($3.5 billion).

Analysts see the likely eventual end game being the preferred solution of Democrats — an extension through the end of the year.

"We also suspect that Senate Democrats will look to their House Democratic colleagues to keep the end-of-year option open," Krueger said.

"It is very unclear if the House GOP can pass this bill (or any highway bill) with only Republican votes, which means the influence of the House Democratic leadership

should not be overlooked – particularly given the recent shake-up in the House GOP leadership. This is another reason why we suspect that the Senate Democratic plan of an extension to the end of the year seems the most likely destination for the current highway bill vehicle."

States look to gun seizure law after mass killings - Yahoo News

States look to gun seizure law after mass killings - Yahoo News
JohnButts@JBMedia - Reports:
As state officials across the country grapple with how to prevent mass killings like the ones at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown and near the University of California, Santa Barbara, some are turning to a gun seizure law pioneered in Connecticut 15 years ago.

Connecticut's law allows judges to order guns temporarily seized after police present evidence that a person is a danger to themselves or others. A court hearing must be held within 14 days to determine whether to return the guns or authorize the state to hold them for up to a year. The 1999 law, the first of its kind in the country, was in response to the 1998 killings of four managers at the Connecticut Lottery headquarters

by a disgruntled employee with a history of psychiatric problems. Indiana is the only other state that has such a law, passed in 2005 after an Indianapolis police officer was shot to death by a mentally ill man.

California and New Jersey lawmakers are now considering similar statutes, both proposed in the wake of the killings of six people and wounding of 13 others near the University of California, Santa Barbara
by a mentally ill man who had posted threatening videos on YouTube.

Michael Lawlor, Connecticut's undersecretary for criminal justice planning and policy, believes the state's gun seizure law could have prevented the killings of 20 first-graders and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School in December 2012, if police had been made aware that gunman Adam Lanza had mental health problems and access to his mother's legally owned guns. "That's the kind of situation where you see the red flags and the warning signs are there, you do something about it," Lawlor said. "In many shootings

around the country, after the fact it's clear that the warning signs were there."

Gun rights advocates oppose gun seizure laws, saying they allow police to take people's firearms based only on allegations and before the gun owners can present their side of the story to a judge. They say they're
concerned the laws violate constitutional rights. "The government taking things away from people is never a good thing," said Rich Burgess, president of the gun rights group Connecticut Carry. "They come take your stuff and give you 14 days for a hearing. Would anybody else be OK if they just came and took your car and gave you 14 days for a hearing?"

Rachel Baird, a Connecticut lawyer who has represented many gun owners, said one of the biggest problems with the state's law is that police are abusing it. She said she has had eight clients whose guns were seized by police who obtained the required warrants after taking possession of the guns.

"It's stretched and abused, and since it's firearms, the courts go along with it," Baird said of the law.

But backers of such laws say they can prevent shootings by getting guns out of the hands of mentally disturbed people.

"You want to make sure that when people are in crisis ... there is a way to prevent them to get access to firearms," said Josh Horwitz, executive director of the nonprofit Education Fund to Stop Gun Violence in
Washington, D.C.

Connecticut authorities report a large increase in the use of gun seizure warrants involving people deemed dangerous by police over the past several years. Officials aren't exactly sure what caused the increase but believe it's related to numerous highly publicized mass shootings in recent years.

Police statewide filed an estimated 183 executed gun seizure warrants with court clerks last year, more than twice the number filed in 2010, according to Connecticut Judicial Branch data. Last year's total also was nearly nine times higher than the annual average in the first five years of the gun seizure law.

Connecticut police have seized more than 2,000 guns using the warrants, according to the most recent
estimate by state officials, in 2009.

Police in South Windsor, about 12 miles northeast of Hartford, say the law was invaluable last year when they seized several guns from the home of a man accused of spray-painting graffiti referencing mass shootings in Newtown and Colorado on the outside of the town's high school.

"With all that we see in the news day after day, particular after Newtown, I think departments are more aware of what authority they have ... and they're using the tool (gun seizure warrants) more frequently than in
the past," said South Windsor Police Chief Matthew Reed. "We always look at it from the other side. What if we don't seize the guns?"