Transportation Socialism
(latest posts at the bottom)
Posted 8/14/05
The massive transportation bill is so laden with special interest projects it took both President Bush and Rep. Hastert to lift it. (AP/Wide World Photos)
Hey Big Spenders: Highway Bill Shows Republicans are Addicted to Spending
8/10/05 Financial Times
There was a time when Republicans raged against wasteful federal spending and fought tenaciously to cut the size of government. Not any longer. The $286.5bn (£160bn) highways bill President George W. Bush will sign into law today epitomises the transformation of the party in Washington from an anti-government "insurgency" into a ruling majority unable to kick its addiction to spending.
From the Washington Post: "There are nearly 6,500 member-requested projects worth more than $24 billion, nearly nine percent of the total spending," executives from six taxpayer and conservative groups complained in a letter to Bush urging that he use his veto pen for the first time. They noted that Reagan vetoed a transportation bill in 1987 because there were 152 such special requests, known in the parlance of congressional budgeting as "earmarks."
So, as expected, we have another example of government abusing power, as it does with any power it is given. When government is put in charge of doing something it will abuse, misuse, politicize, and perform the given function with customary incompetence.
Why does the government have power to fund highways? Why are roads public? Under what authority does the government seize our money and spend $8.5m for seven local transport museums and $4m for a parking facility in Oak Lawn, Illinois. ?
From the Constitution? Not hardly. The (primary) author of the Constitution, James Madison said:
If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.
Since we don't have post roads today (only a bloated, overpaid, and unionized Postal Service that should never have been created and which has a government monopoly on certain classes of mail), then it follows that government regulation, ownership, and, especially, thievery of money for upkeep and expansion of roads, is unconstitutional. In a just world, this bill would immediately be declared unconstitutional and the federal department of transportation would be abolished. If states want to waste their taxpayers' money on roads they would be free to do so, but hopefully they would realize that roads fulfill a valuable commercial function and, as such, should be left to private enterprise.
Now, some of you are probably thinking how 'extreme' it is to suggest the privatization of roads. Why do you think it is extreme? The most prolific and amazing feat of transportation construction, upkeep, and growth came about in the late 18th century when private American railroad companies built hundreds of thousands of miles of networking rail that helped propel the United States into superpower status. Do you think any of these railroad companies would spend $220m for a bridge to connect an island with a population of 50 people to the Alaskan mainland. ?
Today the Federal government gives us Amtrak, a unionized, subsidized, government owned railroad that looses over a billion dollars a year.
The oft cited example used against privatization of roadways is the 19th Century Germany princes who charged exorbitant fees all along the Rhine river, which resulted in the stifling of commerce until their tolls were made illegal under a united Germany. This is a faulty example for a few reasons. First, unlike a river, roads aren't set structures and can be built just about anywhere. If a group of road tyrants are extorting travelers, besides being bad for their business as less people will travel that road, there now exists ample incentives for alternative cheaper routes to be used and, if none exists, for alternative cheaper routes to be constructed. Second, the princes were sovereign governments in and of themselves and thus, by definition, thieves; political calculations/disruptions were often an integral part of traffic problems along the Rhine. Third, private commercially oriented (as opposed to power oriented [government/princes]) individuals would quickly realize that by regulating themselves there was an enormous opportunity for profit by increasing trade along the river.
Another objection, and one which helped lead to the demise of railroads, is that differing rates for different people and routes is 'unfair'. Farmers complained that they were being 'extorted' by railroads. Contrary to what we're taught in our public school textbooks, this was patently untrue. Only government extorts, private businesses enter voluntary contracts. Any given railroad had every interest in seeing their farmers prosper. The more the farmer prospered the more freight he would have to sell and the more money he would have to spend, which would result in an economic boom for the area, drawing more people and customers for the railroad's service. By putting a farmer out of business by charging high rates the railroad is self destructing. Unlike private business, government does this all the time without penalty, for example, by raising taxes and then being surprised when tax receipts plunge (Ex: Great Depression).
When you buy a few hundred bars of soap at Sam's Club you get them for much cheaper than buying them individually. So why did farmers and others object when railroads charged according to economies of scale too? It isn't 'unfair' when the little guy gets charged more than the big guy, it's good business and common sense.
Opponents also argue that those that live in the countryside will be disadvantaged because there is no incentive for a private company to build or upkeep roads to their area. So? Why should government?!? Why should government steal tax dollars from your family so that someone can live in the countryside? If you choose to live in the countryside you should do so without subsidies from the rest of us (gas, internet {Many broadband customers will pay new universal service taxes akin to those on their telephone bills if Congress bows to suggestions from rural ['Republican'] legislators...}, power, roads are all subsidized). Even Milton Friedman falls for this argument, calling it a 'market failure'. Interestingly, because those in the countryside are so punished by the Federal Government in other ways, they tend to be more politically Libertarian than city folk, despite these massive subsidies thrown their way (probably because other 'interest group subsidies' [the subsidies never end!] outweigh the 'distance subsidies' they receive).
Another central point, as illustrated on this website, is that whenever there is a shortage/waiting list of something that people are willing to pay for there is but one culprit: government. From Canadian Health care, US organ donors, cadavers, the vaccine shortage, Soviet Bread Lines, North Korean shortages of everythings, visas, energy/sewage/phone shortages, government meddling, regulations, and ownership lies at the festering core of the problem.
This pattern also emerges in our current road system: Traffic. Traffic is a shortage and drivers hate traffic. In fact, I bet people would pay a pretty penny to turn a 20 minute daily commute into a 10 minute daily commute. If roads were privatized and not burdened with regulations there would be little or no traffic. If you own a toll booth, your worst nightmare is a traffic jam, which would severely cut into your profits. Too many cars are on the road. The solution? Raise the rates. Raise the tolls until the traffic is flowing - heavy, but fast. Do you think the carpool lanes that feel-good politicians build for us accomplish anything? Now you have real incentive to carpool because it hits you in the pocket book. How much cleaner would our major cities be without the daily traffic jams? Where are the environmentalists rallying to privatize the roads? Why aren't the rail and (private) bus companies lobbying government to stop supplying the populace with a free (poor quality) service that directly competes with their products? (like public schools also do to private schools)
But won't the poorest people suffer the most as they won't be able to pay the tolls? No. As always, the poorest people benefit the most from a defeat of socialism. The nearly $300 billion in taxes returned to the American people, as well as a more efficient and innovate road structure (boosting productivity), will result in an economic boom that will create jobs. The new road companies will add billions of dollars to the national GDP through rising stock prices. Everyone will benefit, rich, poor, and middle class.
What will the new road system look like? How will people pay for it? How many companies will own the roads? Are you sure it will succeed? To the last question I answer: YES! To the others I will answer: I have not a clue. I don't presume to know what will result when the boundless creativities of a free people are unleashed. It doesn't matter what the system will look like or how it will run, but it will run. No doubt there will be massive consolidations and 'robber baron' capitalism buyouts and economic battles over the new roads. People don't like to pay tolls every few miles, so perhaps something like an expanded EZ pass will exist. But it will work, because it always has, whenever it is tried, whenever the apathetic people rise up to limit the power of tyrannical government and snatch it back to where it belongs.
Posted 8/15/05
Added to 'Transportation Socialization'
A few tentative good signs:
US Congress seen paving way for private toll roads
6/30/05 Reuters Looking for ways to finance highway projects without hitting the public trough, the U.S. Congress appears set to pass a proposal to encourage private ownership of new toll roads. The provision, part of the highway spending bill now being hammered out by a Senate and House conference committee, would allow private companies to raise up to $15 billion for highway projects with bonds that are exempt from federal income taxes. [A horrible way to encourage this] Notice the rest of the article is cautiously editorializing against the idea...
Texas Thinking Big on Transportation
1/4/05 Liane Hart
Times Do not mistake the Trans-Texas Corridor for a mere superhighway.
Both of these stories illustrate the current shift in government policy spawned by the realization that government has no business owning or building roads. I have not done research on the Texas project and, unfortunately, there does seem to be a lot of government meddling in the plan, as well as ample use of eminent domain, but, if these blemishes could be excluded, it would seem to me what Gov. Perry is doing is an excellent example of what every government official should be doing. They should be assessing the needs and ideas of citizens and businesses and bringing together interested parties on a voluntary basis for their profit and for the prosperity of all citizens. Government should not be spending the peoples' money, but rather facilitating the financing of important community and business projects by connecting the pertinent private individuals.
Also, a point of clarification on my previous post. Highways and connecting rural roads was the main focus of my privatization proposal. It is likely that cities and towns would probably retain local control over what we would consider city roads, although I don't foresee any large problems with privatization of them too. My hope was that states would not seize control of all roads within a state. But the main point was that without federal involvement in financing roads, the nearly $300 billion the Federal government currently spends each year would be eliminated. Thus, government would be smaller, less corrupt, and better able to focus on the limited functions for which we require it.
Posted 11/18/05
Young won’t forget slight over bridge
11/18/05 The Hill Details threats made by pork barreling Republicans from Alaska over the 'bridge to nowhere', publicized by Club For Growth elected members Jeff Flake and Tom Coburn.
According to witnesses, Young warned Flake and Musgrave that he planned to stay in Congress a long time and would not forget the stinging defeat.
Another lawmaker present said Young directed more fire at other members at the meeting for not defending the projects, derogatively referred to as “pork,” in the transportation bill, despite having received millions of dollars in funding for projects in their districts.
Young called Flake “ungentlemanly” and, “out of the blue,” hurled angry words at Musgrave, another fiscal hawk.
Who is ungentlemanly? A thief or the one exposing the thief? But the most galling part of this is yet to come:
House leaders have killed the project by adding language to the transportation appropriations bill erasing instructions funding the bridge that were in the authorization bill Congress passed this summer. Local Alaska officials now have a free hand to decide how to spend the more than $400 million slated for the bridges.
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, who with Young put together the transportation authorization bill, said that merely the name of the bridge had been deleted. He noted that Alaska would still get the money. Inhofe said that Stevens supported the proposal he showed him deleting reference to the bridge in the authorization bill.
So, they have not 'killed the project', they have just changed the wording so that the 'bridge' is not mentioned. Why have they done this? Because they have contempt for the American people. They believe that the American people are so stupid that we will believe our Congressmen when they say they 'killed' the funding for this wasteful porkbarelling bridge. They believe their deception will make this story go away.
A rocky mountain news editorial explains:
[This] means campaigning members of Congress can argue, with a straight face even, that they "killed" the bridge to nowhere. And if you believe that, they have a bridge to sell you.
Added to 'Transportation Socialism', 'Government Condescension', and 'Club for Growth; Defending Liberty'.
Posted 3/6/06
3/6/06 Atlanta Journal Constitution
They knew it was dangerous.
"We could have really been hurt," said one of the Atlanta college students after their experiment. Some strange scenes, including a car passing in the emergency lane, were the product of Georgia State students simply following the speed limit.
"I was pretty sure that I was doing something stupid," said another. That may be true. But, young and brash, they had a plan.
They wanted to go the speed limit on I-285.
In four cars, on all four lanes, the students from Georgia State University and other local colleges paced the entire midmorning flow of Perimeter traffic behind them at 55 mph for half an hour. They call it "an act of civil obedience."
David Spear, a spokesman for the state Department of Transportation, said if the students weren't blocking emergency vehicles and were going the speed limit, "they didn't do a thing wrong." Spear added that the speed limit was lowered to 55 because it saves lives. "In Atlanta, the actual effect of it is we expect the people going 75 to move over so the people going 95 can have the right of way," he said.
By its innate nature, government is risk adverse to more than a fault. Sure, you can 'save lives' by lowering the speed limit. The safest speed is zero, but is it practical? By government owning the roads, the government, not the people determine what the speed limit should be. A private company would be much more realistic and practical in providing services for their customers.
Here is another interesting story on the arbitrarious nature of speeding tickets.
Posted 3/31/06
Transportation Socialism Comments
8/25/05 Three Legged Stool I thought I had added this a while back to 'Transportation Socialism', but I had not. Bangart and I seem to agree on most everything except the power of monopolies. I've been meaning to follow up on this.
3/21/06 Three Legged Stool An interesting story and analysis of how Indiana is leasing, unfortunately not selling, some highways to a private company.
This reminds me of the Trans-Texas Cooridor:
Everything's big in the Lone Star State, but the term "superhighway" barely begins to describe Texas's transportation plan for the 21st century.
Called the Trans-Texas Corridor, it is the most ambitious highway project since the Eisenhower administration introduced the interstate system in the 1950s. The $184 billion, 50-year plan calls for building 4,000 miles of roadways up to a quarter-mile wide. Each corridor would contain six high-speed toll lanes for cars and trucks; six rail lines and easements for petroleum, natural gas and water pipelines, as well as electric, broadband and other telecommunications lines.
The price would be minimal to taxpayers, say state officials, who are seeking private companies to finance, develop, build and maintain the corridor in exchange for the right to charge tolls for half a century.
Why not forever?
Posted 4/18/06
Undredged
Channels Limit Shipping on Great Lakes
4/17/06 AP
Shippers say the situation is getting worse as lake water levels decline and federal budget constraints are felt at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which is responsible for dredging the nation's ports and waterways.
I think this story is interesting for a number of reasons. The first question we need to ask is why the government is even in charge of dredging these lakes? Why can't the shippers all pitch in and get a private company to perform this task? It would doubtlessly be cheaper and, of course, much more competent (as government is incompetent by definition). If, however, the price is so exorbitant that the shippers cannot afford to do this, then we have to wonder why the government is bothering to do it in the first place. Why should the government subsidize something that is a known money looser?
The key here in this line of reasoning is the premise that private industry's judgment is the best objective assessment of the validity of a given expenditure. Thus all infrastructure spending should be left to private industry.
Posted 1/17/07 (By Travis)
1/11/06 Three Legged Stool
Bangert writes a succinct proposal to keep the gas tax, but remove the Federal Government from management and building of our nation's highways. While I disagree with the need for gas taxes, and perhaps Bangert is just being politically savvy in his support of their continuance, I certainly can support relieving the Federal Government from control of the nation's highways. Unlike many, I view President Dwight Eisenhower's construction of our national highway system as a national abomination rather than some sort of national treasure. Not that I have any particular objection to highways or roads; I think we can agree that there was a 'need', if it's worth contemplating, for expanding infrastructure at the time. Yet private entities, or at worst, collaborative state governments, were and are plenty capable of fulfilling our transportation 'needs' - by the way, I really hate to use that word 'needs' as it provokes the wrong connotations; no one can know our 'needs' until after they have been met, as the process involves limitless interactions and an existential like vote tallying of freely acting individuals, beyond the predictability of any individual and certainly over the head of any government entity.
Regardless, Bangert's view regarding the value of state corroboration brings up some interesting points. First, beyond transportation, this sort of state cooperation can replace the bumbling actions of the Federal Government on many levels. I hesitate to use this example, as I am opposed to licensing laws, but if we are going to have them, they might as well be uniform and, by uniform I don't mean 'imposed' by the distant Feds as some now advocate. There are mutual benefits inherent in states coming together, voluntarily, to facilitate the movement of various professionals across state lines:
The
Nursing Licensure Compact is a mutual recognition model of nursing licensure that allows a nurse to
have one
(Added to 'Transportation Socialism' and 'Gasoline and Government')
Posted 8/16/07 (By Travis)
The
New Privatization
States and cities are selling their roads, bridges, and airports for eye-popping sums.
Summer 2007 City Journal
A 2002 government study in the United Kingdom, where public-private transactions are more common, found that 70 percent of public construction undertaken by the government ran late and that 73 percent of it finished over budget. But when government contracted projects to private firms, just 24 percent of them were late and only 20 percent were over budget.
In a study that Daniels commissioned after taking office, Indiana found that it spent 34 cents to collect every 15-cent toll. “We would be better off using the honor system,” Daniels quipped.
Within three months of closing the deal, they had installed an electronic toll-collection system to help zoom traffic along and assigned additional collectors during rush hour to gather cash more quickly. The result: reduced wait times, boosted Skyway use—and more money coming in. Chicago didn’t bother with any of these reforms when it managed the road, a Macquarie managing director testified before Congress last year. Unlike the city, he said, Macquarie was “heavily incentivized” to run the road efficiently.
...employs about 2,000 people, including 500 administrators, to operate the 537-mile road. “The turnpike commission has traditionally been a patronage cesspool,” says Matthew Brouillette, president of the Commonwealth Foundation, a Harrisburg-based think tank that supports the lease.