Get FREE NRO Newsletters

 

June 11 Issue  |  Subscribe  |  Renew

Close

New on NRO . . .

The Corner

The one and only.

Print   |  Text
 

The FAA Shutdown Showdown

With the debt-ceiling debate having sucked up all the political oxygen in Washington over the past several weeks, the ongoing fight over a funding extension for the Federal Aviation Administration has taken a back seat. But now that Congress has “solved” the debt crisis and adjourned for the month of August, the FAA showdown is allowing lawmakers to continue their griping with one another (and giving reporters something to write about).

Because Congress hasn’t been able to agree on a long-term funding regime for the FAA, the agency has spent the last several years operating under a series of temporary funding measures. On July 20, the House passed with bipartisan support a temporary measure that would have extended FAA financing through September 16. As you might expect, this was not simply a “clean” funding extension, as most Democrats have been calling for. It included about $14 million in cuts to commercial airline service to rural airports. Republicans also put forward a long-term funding bill containing language that would undo a recently instituted federal labor regulation making it easier airline company employees to unionize. Democrats are unhappy with both provisions.

But because the Senate failed to act by July 23, when the most recent FAA funding extension expired, the agency has been in a partial shutdown ever since. More than 4,000 workers have been furloughed and thousands of construction projects put on hold. Dozens of airport inspectors have been asked to work without pay. Millions of dollars in uncollected airline revenue has already been lost.

The Senate had ample opportunity to prevent this from happening, or at the very least to end the FAA shutdown by simply passing the House bill before adjourning on August 2. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) even urged his colleagues to do just that, saying “sometimes you have to step back and find out what’s best for the country and not be bound by some of your own personal issues.” Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood concurred, imploring the Senate to act. But when Sen. Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) offered a unanimous consent request on Tuesday to proceed to consideration of the House bill, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.) objected, effectively blocking the measure, after which Reid decided to throw in the towel and adjourn for the August recess, thus allowing the shutdown to continue.

Apparently, Reid had a change of heart on Wednesday, joining Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) and others at press conference at the Capitol to accuse Republicans of “hostage-taking” behavior for refusing to accept a clean FAA funding extension. Suddenly, it wasn’t such a good idea for the Senate to simply pass the House bill, rather it was up to the House to accept whatever the Senate sent them, even after both bodies had adjourned.

“Under the cover of the debt ceiling crisis, [Republicans] are holding these aviation workers hostage until they get everything they want,” Schumer told reporters. “They have taken brinksmanship again one step too far.” Democrats are now calling on Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) to call the House back into session and pass a clean extension by unanimous consent. President Obama did the same at a press briefing later in the day. “This is a lose, lose, lose situation that can be easily solved if Congress gets back into town and do their job,” the president said.

Boehner, meanwhile, was not amused. “All it will take to end this crisis is for the Senate to pass the House-approved FAA extension,” he said in a statement Wednesday. “The only reason so many jobs are at stake is Senate Democratic Leaders chose to play politics rather than pass the House bill.”

“If the Senate had significant objections, they should have acted on them, but they again did nothing,” added House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R., Va.). “With millions of Americans out of work, it is more than irresponsible for Leader Reid and Senate Democrats to continue to put partisanship over jobs.”

At Wednesday’s press conference, Democrats took their cue from the violent anti–Tea Party rhetoric that surrounded the debt-ceiling debate. “It’s as if someone is holding a gun to your head and saying give me your money,” Schumer said. “You can hurt innocent people by not getting your own way.”

Republicans blame the Senate’s failure to take up the House-passed bill on the Democrats’ subservience to airline unions, who currently have their eyes set on Delta, the only major airline that has yet to be unionized. Delta employees have repeatedly voted against unionization. However, the National Mediation Board recently introduced a new rule stating that employee referendums on whether to unionize can be approved by a simple majority of those voting in the referendum, as opposed to the old rule requiring that a majority of all affected employees vote in favor of unionization (i.e., a non-vote counts as a vote against). House Republicans simply overturned the rule in their long-term FAA funding legislation, which has turned out to the be the real sticking point in the debate.

The GOP sees one lawmaker in particular, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D., W.Va.), as the primary culprit. Rockefeller, who chairs the Senate committee that has jurisdiction over the FAA, is a loyal union ally. “The FAA partial shutdown is the work of one man — Jay Rockefeller,” writes a GOP source. “He’s putting 4,000 FAA workers and 70,000–80,000 construction workers out of work and costing the government $25 million a day in lost revenues in order to protect $16 million in rural airport subsidies . . . as well as protecting his union allies.”

Naturally, Rockefeller accuses Republicans of union-busting, and “clinging” to “the whole anti-worker thing that started in Wisconsin.”

And the shutdown showdown continues.

New on The Corner. . .


COMMENTS   50

EXPAND  

complete curmudgeon
   08/03/11 18:12

While the play by play descriptions of the inside baseball on this is interesting, the main point is missed.

There are a series of questions that have to be asked:

The FAA is shut down?

Who knew?

Isn't that really the point? This agency is only partially operational and virtually no one in America has noticed. So, here's the next question: We need the rest of the FAA's operation because____?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Sharon Ross
   08/03/11 18:30

because it's my husband's job at stake. Maybe if it was yours you would think differently.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/03/11 18:41

The FAA shouldn't exist to employ your husband. The FAA should employ your husband if he can do something that provides the public more value than we have to pay to employ your husband.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/03/11 19:08

>> The FAA shouldn't exist to employ your husband.
***

Well said, S Jens.

Nor does the FAA exist to provide all the conveniences and amenities of urban life (like airports) to people who choose to enjoy the charms of a rural life. Bless you good rural folks...but don't send your bills to town.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
newrouter
   08/03/11 20:04

why does the faa still exist? why can't states take care of this?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
JM
   08/03/11 19:06

The quintessential liberal argument. Continue to fund dubious government programs... so Sharon Ross's husband can keep his job.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Bnut
   08/03/11 18:53

So 70K construction jobs at American airports is nothing? Maybe you won't notice today, or tomorrow, but when these jobs are not completed maybe you will. And then blame Obama for infrastructure problems.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
John Shoemaker
   08/03/11 18:15

You left out the part about all the rural airports being defunded being in blue states. The red state welfare remains untouched.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
newrouter
   08/03/11 19:07

no. everybody gets this haircut.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/03/11 19:18

All public transportation including roads, rail, and air should be entirely financed by the users at the rate need to provide the facilities at the point of use and divided equitably among the users at that point...that airport, that air route,that stretch of roadway, that rail section, that rail station, etc. To the greatest extent practicable none of it should be funded from general revenues.

(This is more problematical with roads but can be approximated. And newer technologies are making it increasingly feasible for each user to pay for exactly what he uses.)

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
JayGeis
   08/03/11 22:09

Ed in Cary: I like your solution. I am a Transportation Engineer. What you say makes very much sense. Pay at the point service as much as possible.
In the case of roads, I like to argue that it is not difficult either. Appropriate tax on gasoline takes care of that. Gas consumption is directly related related to the rate of use of roads. So the more you use the roads, the more you pay through gas taxes. I like to take the opportunity and indicate that the gas tax has not changed since 1993. It has been around 18 cents per gallon. Two things has happened since 1993. First, the automobile technology has improved gas consumption significantly. So all vehicles travel a lot more on the same gallon of gas but paying the same tax. Second, the price of gasoline has gone up like any other commodity ( it is at least four times more expensive). With most every thing else, we are paying taxes proportional price of the good or service except for gasoline. So it is time to pay more taxes for gasoline that would go toward more roads, bridges, take care of our very aging condition of our roads and bridges, and pavements.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/04/11 00:03

I see what you did here.

So, if gas tax revenue is so necessary to maintaining infrastructure, why don't they push for lower fuel economy, instead of 54.5 MPG (CAFE average)? I mean, more tax revenue per mile driven, right? More revenue, better roads, right? Win/win!

You do realize that the guy who sells you gas makes about $.02 per gallon, and the guy who sells him that makes about $.02 a gallon, and they guy who refines it makes about $.02 per gallon, and the guy who drills it makes about $.02 per gallon. that's $.08 per gallon of filthy lucre throughout the production chain. It seems the only folks making any money per gallon on gasoline is government, at all levels.

You, of course, only talk about the federal gas tax, which isn't "Pay at the point (of) service as much as possible", is it? That would be state and local gas taxes. Most state taxes dwarf the federal take...and most infrastructure spending is at the state level.

So be more honest with your argument and don't discard inconvenient evidence. I would think a transportation engineer would be smart enough to not assume that other folks are too stupid to understand the rest of the story you ignore.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/03/11 21:43

Where are you getting this talking point? I'd like to see your source.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/03/11 18:48

I like Cantor's point, both on this issue and in general.

One could argue that the House is offering proposals that are too far away from what the Senate might consider passing. But that's better than nothing; the Senate should offer a counterproposal, and then they should negotiate. Instead we get the House passing a bill and the Senate whining that they don't like it.

If you don't like the Ryan budget, pass a Conrad budget and then try to hammer out the differences. If you don't like the Boehner debt limit bill, publicize a Reid plan that isn't just a couple of bullet points and actually take it up on the Senate floor. If you don't like the FAA bill the House passed, propose one that can pass the Senate and then actually get it through the Senate. The Senate doesn't just have to be where bills go to die, and if it is just that, it's not the House's fault.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Kevin Moriarty
   08/03/11 19:18

Mr. Stiles conveniently omits the loss of $350 million in revenue resulting from the impasse. The $14 million in subsidies is small change, especially when the loss to contractors working on FAA projects is factored in.

To pretend that this is anything other than the GOP holding out because of its hatred of unions is disingenous at best.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
JM
   08/03/11 19:27

To pretend the Dems are reneging on their word is anything other than unions pulling the puppet strings on Rockefeller and Boxer is disingenuous at best.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/03/11 19:48

The House, when it returns, should take up a bill to privatize the FAA. Most other countries have done so.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/03/11 21:41

Um, Stiles *did* say "$25 Million a day" in lost revenue.

And the Republicans are not instituting anything new - they're keeping the status quo.

To pretend this is anything other than Democrats holding out to favor a special interest is what's disingenuous.

Or, you could read it again for comprehension.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Kevin Moriarty
   08/03/11 19:36

I should also note that the airlines haven't reduced ticket prices to account for the federal taxes not being collected during the shutdown. The free market is just wonderful.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
JM
   08/03/11 19:42

Yes, let's institute wage and price controls, a proven winner. Intrusive, do-gooder government is just wonderful.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Load More Comments

Add a Comment

Already Registered? Log In Here.


The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.


* Designates a required field.
© National Review Online 2012
All Rights Reserved.
Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital

Gift Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital
NR Apps
iPhone/iPad
Android

NRO Apps
iPhone
Support Us
Donate
Media Kit
Contact