Got to Pick a Pocket or Two
By John Hood, April 21, 2011
RALEIGH – Consider some of the stories making news in North Carolina in the past few weeks:
• Gov. Bev Perdue seeks a disaster declaration to make the state eligible for federal recovery funds in the aftermath of devastating tornadoes.
• Some Republican lawmakers in the General Assembly try to block North Carolina’s participation in a federal high-speed rail program they view as fiscally irresponsible.
• The GOP legislature passes a bill that both extends jobless benefits and approves a continuing resolution to keep state government operating past July 1 if there is no signed state budget. Perdue vetoes the bill, arguing that she shouldn’t have to agree to future state budget cuts in exchange for extending federally funded benefits.
Although these are separate events, they do have a common theme: the pursuit of federal funds for North Carolina projects. As Washington’s role in public finance has continued to expand, it’s difficult to find any state or local issue that isn’t touched by it. For almost every major state program – public schools, colleges, Medicaid, and transportation – federal funds play a large and growing role.
As a result, federal politician and bureaucrats have gained power at the expense of state and local ones. That, in turn, has accentuated the influence of special-interest groups – for whom it is less expensive to wield influence over central authorities in Washington than over dozens or hundreds of separate jurisdictions – and diminished the influence of average taxpayers.
Furthermore, the entire political debate has been distorted by the myth of “federal” funding. In a financial sense, there is no such thing. It is metaphysically impossible for “Washington” to fund “the states” with revenue that is not raised in the states, either immediately in taxes or by future taxes to pay off today’s federal borrowing.
In the case of the budgetary showdown between Perdue and the Republican legislature, for example, the governor and her allies insisted that there was no logical relationship between jobless benefits, extensions of which would be financed with federal funds, and balancing the state budget. They saw the legislation combining the two issues as little more than political blackmail.
Republicans didn’t see it that way. Yes, they were seeking to exercise some leverage over Perdue, who has been on a veto streak lately. But they also rejected the notion that extending North Carolina’s jobless benefits would have no impact on North Carolina taxpayers.
For one thing, the federal funding for extended benefits is a temporary feature of past stimulus legislation, not a permanent policy. In 2012, that extra federal funding disappears. A vote to extend benefits today could become a precedent for 2012 extensions that would have a fiscal impact on state government.
More importantly, however, all North Carolina taxpayers are also federal taxpayers, by definition. Directly or indirectly, they bear the incidence of federal taxes that flow to Washington and then (sometimes) flow back to North Carolina, albeit with a substantial debit for shipping and handling charges.
The “federal” funding for extended jobless benefits in North Carolina won’t come from New York or California. Those states also have unemployed workers receiving benefits. The funding will come from North Carolina. It will come out of the same pockets of the same households and businesses that would also be asked to pay higher taxes if Perdue’s state budget plan prevails over the GOP alternative.
That’s the connection. Perdue and her defenders seem to believe that if they insist loudly enough on the distinction between my left pocket and my right pocket, I’ll forget that both pockets are on the same pair of pants – and that regardless of which pocket gets picked, the money comes from the same bank account.
As I have previously observed, when politicians promise to fight harder to bring more “federal” dollars back to North Carolina, that’s like responding to chronic shoplifting or embezzlement at your store by hiring thieves to steal money from other stores. It would be better to hire guards to protect our own stuff in the first place.
That’s what North Carolina’s elected representatives ought to be doing.
Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation
http://www.carolinajournal.com/jhdailyjournal/display_jhdailyjournal.html?id=7667
Showing posts with label high-speed rail. Show all posts
Showing posts with label high-speed rail. Show all posts
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Repeat after me: Federal money is no gift.
Once again: Federal money is no gift.
Virtually every dollar arriving from “Washington” to state and local governments in North Carolina has either been collected in taxes from North Carolinians or borrowed with principal and interest to be paid by taxes from North Carolinians.
It is not “Washingon’s money.” It is your money – or your debt obligation. So if you hear about a proposed state or local project to be funded with federal dollars, ask yourself if you would be willing to give up some good or service you benefit from today in order to fund.
Consider the example of the nearly half a billion dollars the Obama administration is dangling in front of North Carolina for slight improvements to existing passenger rail service from Charlotte through the Piedmont to Raleigh.
Even the supporters of the idea admit that it would shave only a few minutes off the average travel time between the two cities. Would North Carolina taxpayers really want their government to spend $461 million for such a paltry payoff, while failing to address higher priorities? Not bloody likely
Read the rest in John Hood's Daily Journal: Taxpayers To Get Railroaded
http://www.carolinajournal.com/jhdailyjournal/display_jhdailyjournal.html?id=7602
Virtually every dollar arriving from “Washington” to state and local governments in North Carolina has either been collected in taxes from North Carolinians or borrowed with principal and interest to be paid by taxes from North Carolinians.
It is not “Washingon’s money.” It is your money – or your debt obligation. So if you hear about a proposed state or local project to be funded with federal dollars, ask yourself if you would be willing to give up some good or service you benefit from today in order to fund.
Consider the example of the nearly half a billion dollars the Obama administration is dangling in front of North Carolina for slight improvements to existing passenger rail service from Charlotte through the Piedmont to Raleigh.
Even the supporters of the idea admit that it would shave only a few minutes off the average travel time between the two cities. Would North Carolina taxpayers really want their government to spend $461 million for such a paltry payoff, while failing to address higher priorities? Not bloody likely
Read the rest in John Hood's Daily Journal: Taxpayers To Get Railroaded
http://www.carolinajournal.com/jhdailyjournal/display_jhdailyjournal.html?id=7602
Monday, September 27, 2010
Renew America
Beware: transportation extremists over the top
By Wes Vernon
Transportation issues — like any other debatable causes — can provide fertile ground for those who dash about with propellers atop their heads. This week, we spotlight examples of well-meaning but misguided efforts on both sides.
Case #1 — One extreme
This column takes a back seat to no one when it comes to the idea of providing "walkable [rail transit-friendly] communities" for those who want it. We would not want it forced on anyone. We are speaking of neighborhoods where one can live, shop, dine out, attend theatre, visit the doctor, and in some cases work in the same vicinity without having to drag a car into the mix.
There is nothing wrong with this, provided it is responsive to a level-playing field market. The very reason that living in such environments is hugely expensive is that government-imposed building codes have made it next to impossible to build them (red tape, expensive permits, etc.). Therefore, in response to the private market of supply and demand, walkable communities are "high-rent" districts — i.e., low supply/high demand.
Get rid of the building codes forced from the left by government-diktat (separating where we live from where we work from where we shop), and let's see if the demand rises to the point where abundant availability pulls down the cost of living in urban-style communities.
What this column does not support is government-diktat going to the opposite extreme: i.e., "You vill live een an apartment, Herr Vernon! You vill ride rail transit or inter-city rail, Citizen!"
Orders from on high
Don't laugh. There is such legislation on Capitol Hill that has been passed out of committee.
The Livable Communities Act (SB-1619) has been described by its critics as a measure designed to force you to live in a city whether you want to or not.
The screws will be applied to local governments to make sure they toe the "back to the city" line. Through government control of your hard-earned tax dollars, billions would be showered on local jurisdictions that agree to amend their zoning laws and curb any single-family housing projects planned for suburban or rural areas.
Any town or county refusing to go along can expect the "greenies" to harass its local officials for turning their backs on a "free" federal handout. You know the old line (Play it again, Sam): "If we don't take the money, some other town will. So we'd better get with it. After all, it's our money." Ah! Right! So why didn't the feds just leave it in our pockets and let us decide what to do with it?
Blogger Bob Livingston sees this as a plot to force us to submit to federal domination — to end local control.
Supposedly the bill would force your heating and air conditioning bills to skyrocket, pushing you to give up your suburban or rural home and move to the city. A part of that package would be to raise the cost of gasoline, compelling you out of your car.
I love mass transit, but I don't want others to be forced into using it by some top-down order from Washington.
The sponsor of SB-1619 is Senator Christopher Dodd, the scandal-scarred lame duck who rammed it though his Senate Banking Committee. This is parting revenge?
Case #2 — The other extreme
The push-back against the new plans for rail as a legitimate third leg of our passenger transportation network is revving up full force.
We're hearing old stale arguments about how rail is just too expensive and we can't afford it. Never mind that far more federal dollars have been bestowed on air and highway traffic than on train travel — both inter-city and local transit.
Truth be told, we need all forms of transportation. And those who would deny one of the three its rightful place in the mix are suspect of having some kind of grabby power or moneyed interest.
Critics of rail passenger travel cite an old study done by the Silver Dog (Greyhound) purportedly showing that long-distance travelers who have an aversion to flying should be forced into crowded uncomfortable buses. An old argument promoting that line was backed by the late Russell Long, a shill for the bus companies.
And here is the mirror image of the SB-1619 cited above: You vill obey the building codes imposed by our top-down hierarchy. You vill get into your auto and spend the $10,000 per year required to use and maintain eet. You vill live in der suburban sprawl or rural house, Herr Vernon. And no back talk, Citizen, or ve vill haf to force you to walk for miles.
When one owns a car, that person often will ride quality public rail transit. The minute a well-managed rail route — transit or inter-city — is replaced with a bus schedule, the person with a choice will most likely switch to his private automobile. This has been shown to be the case over and over again in study after study. Those who try to force us to ride a bus either do not have the wherewithal to understand that reality or deliberately ignore it since these studies were not bought and paid for by the Silver Dog.
It has been proposed that public dollars be withdrawn from all public transportation, and encourage jitney services which can use cell phones, computer routers, and GPS systems to pick people up and deliver them precisely where they want to go.
Translation: Let's get more rubber-tire vehicles out on the roads. We don't have enough traffic jams in cities anymore or enough vehicles on the Interstates. We need more, more, more. Pour on the concrete. Import more gasoline from nations that hate us. (Note: This writer favors "Drill here! Drill now!")
The pro-jitney argument was thoroughly discredited back in the seventies, as was Senator Long's ode to long-distance bus travel. But they keep hauling the old aging chestnuts out of the closet. Cell-phones, computers and GPS, which we didn't have in the seventies, are not likely to make much difference on this issue today. They would enable the jitney traffic to increase accordingly, jamming the highways and city streets all the more. Transportation would be a nightmare.
Lest we forget
The legendary Alfred P. Sloan of GM plotted a dummy corporation to buy up most of the streetcar systems in the nation so as to destroy them and replace them with buses, knowing that most who had patronized the trains would drive rather than ride a bus. (GM and others were found guilty in court of anticompetitive practices.)
Meanwhile, cities and other local jurisdictions taxed the streetcar companies to death (literally), while forbidding them to raise fares.
After World War II, President Eisenhower — faced with a recession in 1954 — vowed that — unlike Herbert Hoover, then the last preceding Republican president — there would not be a depression while he was in the White House. Not on his watch by God! The highway lobby — learning of Ike's concerns — said, "Well, Mr. President, have we got a program for you!"
That's how we got the Interstate Highway system. Like most of his successors, Ike concluded that the path to prosperity was to recycle federal dollars in government spending rather than the more logical path of tax cuts. But that's another story.
The result was that we had socialist highways (free marketers, please note). We had socialist subsidized highways competing with free enterprise unsubsidized railroads (free marketers, please note). That was the downfall of private-sector passenger trains. Unlike the railroads, I-95 has never had to navigate a profit-loss spreadsheet.
Oh, but aren't the personnel running the trains "civil servants"? Yup. So too are most highway planners and operators, air traffic controllers, and those who plan and in many cases operate airports and who make you take off your shoes at airports these days.
The only mainline transportation mode in the world that is completely in private hands (albeit regulated) is freight rail.
Bottom line
If you don't like it that passenger rail (inter-city and local) is in the public sector, you can blame the anti-competitive practices that nearly destroyed the railroads and the tax-happy jurisdictions that supplied the highwayman's trough. (No, your gas taxes over time have not covered full costs). But most of all, you can blame the federal government — as usual, seeking ever-more power.
Editor's note: Wes Vernon will be taking off a few weeks from his column. The column will resume toward the end of October.
© Wes Vernon
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/vernon/100927
By Wes Vernon
Transportation issues — like any other debatable causes — can provide fertile ground for those who dash about with propellers atop their heads. This week, we spotlight examples of well-meaning but misguided efforts on both sides.
Case #1 — One extreme
This column takes a back seat to no one when it comes to the idea of providing "walkable [rail transit-friendly] communities" for those who want it. We would not want it forced on anyone. We are speaking of neighborhoods where one can live, shop, dine out, attend theatre, visit the doctor, and in some cases work in the same vicinity without having to drag a car into the mix.
There is nothing wrong with this, provided it is responsive to a level-playing field market. The very reason that living in such environments is hugely expensive is that government-imposed building codes have made it next to impossible to build them (red tape, expensive permits, etc.). Therefore, in response to the private market of supply and demand, walkable communities are "high-rent" districts — i.e., low supply/high demand.
Get rid of the building codes forced from the left by government-diktat (separating where we live from where we work from where we shop), and let's see if the demand rises to the point where abundant availability pulls down the cost of living in urban-style communities.
What this column does not support is government-diktat going to the opposite extreme: i.e., "You vill live een an apartment, Herr Vernon! You vill ride rail transit or inter-city rail, Citizen!"
Orders from on high
Don't laugh. There is such legislation on Capitol Hill that has been passed out of committee.
The Livable Communities Act (SB-1619) has been described by its critics as a measure designed to force you to live in a city whether you want to or not.
The screws will be applied to local governments to make sure they toe the "back to the city" line. Through government control of your hard-earned tax dollars, billions would be showered on local jurisdictions that agree to amend their zoning laws and curb any single-family housing projects planned for suburban or rural areas.
Any town or county refusing to go along can expect the "greenies" to harass its local officials for turning their backs on a "free" federal handout. You know the old line (Play it again, Sam): "If we don't take the money, some other town will. So we'd better get with it. After all, it's our money." Ah! Right! So why didn't the feds just leave it in our pockets and let us decide what to do with it?
Blogger Bob Livingston sees this as a plot to force us to submit to federal domination — to end local control.
Supposedly the bill would force your heating and air conditioning bills to skyrocket, pushing you to give up your suburban or rural home and move to the city. A part of that package would be to raise the cost of gasoline, compelling you out of your car.
I love mass transit, but I don't want others to be forced into using it by some top-down order from Washington.
The sponsor of SB-1619 is Senator Christopher Dodd, the scandal-scarred lame duck who rammed it though his Senate Banking Committee. This is parting revenge?
Case #2 — The other extreme
The push-back against the new plans for rail as a legitimate third leg of our passenger transportation network is revving up full force.
We're hearing old stale arguments about how rail is just too expensive and we can't afford it. Never mind that far more federal dollars have been bestowed on air and highway traffic than on train travel — both inter-city and local transit.
Truth be told, we need all forms of transportation. And those who would deny one of the three its rightful place in the mix are suspect of having some kind of grabby power or moneyed interest.
Critics of rail passenger travel cite an old study done by the Silver Dog (Greyhound) purportedly showing that long-distance travelers who have an aversion to flying should be forced into crowded uncomfortable buses. An old argument promoting that line was backed by the late Russell Long, a shill for the bus companies.
And here is the mirror image of the SB-1619 cited above: You vill obey the building codes imposed by our top-down hierarchy. You vill get into your auto and spend the $10,000 per year required to use and maintain eet. You vill live in der suburban sprawl or rural house, Herr Vernon. And no back talk, Citizen, or ve vill haf to force you to walk for miles.
When one owns a car, that person often will ride quality public rail transit. The minute a well-managed rail route — transit or inter-city — is replaced with a bus schedule, the person with a choice will most likely switch to his private automobile. This has been shown to be the case over and over again in study after study. Those who try to force us to ride a bus either do not have the wherewithal to understand that reality or deliberately ignore it since these studies were not bought and paid for by the Silver Dog.
It has been proposed that public dollars be withdrawn from all public transportation, and encourage jitney services which can use cell phones, computer routers, and GPS systems to pick people up and deliver them precisely where they want to go.
Translation: Let's get more rubber-tire vehicles out on the roads. We don't have enough traffic jams in cities anymore or enough vehicles on the Interstates. We need more, more, more. Pour on the concrete. Import more gasoline from nations that hate us. (Note: This writer favors "Drill here! Drill now!")
The pro-jitney argument was thoroughly discredited back in the seventies, as was Senator Long's ode to long-distance bus travel. But they keep hauling the old aging chestnuts out of the closet. Cell-phones, computers and GPS, which we didn't have in the seventies, are not likely to make much difference on this issue today. They would enable the jitney traffic to increase accordingly, jamming the highways and city streets all the more. Transportation would be a nightmare.
Lest we forget
The legendary Alfred P. Sloan of GM plotted a dummy corporation to buy up most of the streetcar systems in the nation so as to destroy them and replace them with buses, knowing that most who had patronized the trains would drive rather than ride a bus. (GM and others were found guilty in court of anticompetitive practices.)
Meanwhile, cities and other local jurisdictions taxed the streetcar companies to death (literally), while forbidding them to raise fares.
After World War II, President Eisenhower — faced with a recession in 1954 — vowed that — unlike Herbert Hoover, then the last preceding Republican president — there would not be a depression while he was in the White House. Not on his watch by God! The highway lobby — learning of Ike's concerns — said, "Well, Mr. President, have we got a program for you!"
That's how we got the Interstate Highway system. Like most of his successors, Ike concluded that the path to prosperity was to recycle federal dollars in government spending rather than the more logical path of tax cuts. But that's another story.
The result was that we had socialist highways (free marketers, please note). We had socialist subsidized highways competing with free enterprise unsubsidized railroads (free marketers, please note). That was the downfall of private-sector passenger trains. Unlike the railroads, I-95 has never had to navigate a profit-loss spreadsheet.
Oh, but aren't the personnel running the trains "civil servants"? Yup. So too are most highway planners and operators, air traffic controllers, and those who plan and in many cases operate airports and who make you take off your shoes at airports these days.
The only mainline transportation mode in the world that is completely in private hands (albeit regulated) is freight rail.
Bottom line
If you don't like it that passenger rail (inter-city and local) is in the public sector, you can blame the anti-competitive practices that nearly destroyed the railroads and the tax-happy jurisdictions that supplied the highwayman's trough. (No, your gas taxes over time have not covered full costs). But most of all, you can blame the federal government — as usual, seeking ever-more power.
Editor's note: Wes Vernon will be taking off a few weeks from his column. The column will resume toward the end of October.
© Wes Vernon
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/vernon/100927
Monday, August 23, 2010
Is The United States Turning A Corner On High-Speed Rail?
Is The United States Turning A Corner On High-Speed Rail?
The Department of Transportation awarded $8 billion among 31 states to begin developing America's first nationwide high-speed intercity passenger rail service. Soon, Americans might find themselves rocketing along ribbons of rails at 200 mph in sleek, painted passenger cars -- never stopping until they arrive at destinations awake and refreshed, says CNN.
Despite funding and promises from the government, high-speed rail comes with its share of opponents, who say it is too expensive and will not save energy. Some even question if it will ever be built.
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=19734&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD
The Department of Transportation awarded $8 billion among 31 states to begin developing America's first nationwide high-speed intercity passenger rail service. Soon, Americans might find themselves rocketing along ribbons of rails at 200 mph in sleek, painted passenger cars -- never stopping until they arrive at destinations awake and refreshed, says CNN.
Despite funding and promises from the government, high-speed rail comes with its share of opponents, who say it is too expensive and will not save energy. Some even question if it will ever be built.
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=19734&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
