Posted on 12/18/2001 11:42:31 AM PST by Publius
It's a concept called a Nation, best exemplified by the Latin motto, E pluribus unum.
Amen. A government junkie and economic illiterate.
Sadly that's what this country has become. A nation of people trying to suck the government teat fast enough to get thier share of the milk. They have bought into the notion that wealth is going to be redistributed anyway so why fight it? Suck harder and make youself well instead of reclaiming our heritage of freedom. It's a sell out that almost no one recognises anymore. Sad
Stated succinctly and eloquently. Because of the strong belief in a government role in "internal improvements", the government has been using its "hidden hand" since Madison's presidency. The author wants us to accept that fact and go to the next level -- subsidizing the railroads because it is cheaper than further subsidies for the highways.
People are oblivious to the fact that there was a huge and intricate interurban rail system in the east, midwest and west, since the time of the Civil War, and before, and its contribution to the growth of the US is immeasurable.
And it really didn't start to atrophy until after WW2.
And government subsidies, in one form or another, have existed from the time of the Eire Canal, and before, for various transportation projects.
Can you imagine what it would cost to fly, if the ticket actually represented the costs of the airport, the FAA, the air traffic control system, the costs of training pilots, etc.
I would add that much of the Canadian identity is tied up in the not-so-trivial task of uniting Canada's remote towns with the Canadian Pacific in the nineteenth century.
Anyone who is dumb enough to vote for a thief deserves to have his pocket picked.
However, I think his argument is stronger when it is used to justify reducing government support for the airline industry and highways than to increase taxpayer support for passenger rail.
And it really didn't start to atrophy until after WW2.
The railroad industry has nothing to complain about, since they were one of the earliest beneficiaries of government largesse in the transportation industry. The government has simply decided to subsidize someone else these days.
Canada actually has an interesting history as far as the railroad is concerned. British Columbia refused to join the Canadian confederation in the 1860s until the Canadian government promised to connect the province to the rest of the country via the railroad.
As a libertarian, I support that in principle. But let's look at it in practice.
The airlines could create a consortium to take over the air traffic control function and then buy all the airports. The cost of air travel would skyrocket, and there would be a lot of airline bankruptcies, but as Joseph Schumpeter has said, that's just "creative destruction". Only those who could afford to fly would do so -- until the costs were amortized.
We could end the highway subsidy by installing a transponder in each automobile. Once a month, the motorist would get a bill for his travel on local and county roads, which would remove the need for a property tax for local and county road-building. He would get a bill from the state for his travel on state-maintained roads, which would permit repeal of the gasoline tax and other car-related taxes. And he would be billed for his travel on the former interstate highways, now sold to private entrepreneurs, that would permit the end of federal gasoline taxes. But the motorist would raise holy hell, and FReepers would start muttering about "the Communists trying to track our movements and herd us all into the cities to control us."
Which level playing field works best? A totally private transportation infrastructure, or a mix?
Gas tax revenues are generally only used for capital projects, not operating expenses. The cost of plowing or resurfacing a road is normally paid out of general tax revenues.
In every state in the Union, the state gasoline tax pays a bit less than half the cost of building and maintaining state highways. Other car-related taxes and contributions from the general fund (sales taxes and income taxes) make up the remainder.
Automobile drivers are heavily subsidized by the taxpayers in their respective states. It's one of the dirty little secrets of the transportation game.
The cost of training pilots is already in there. The airlines also pay the airports for gate access and landing fees. These are also already in your ticket, although I have no idea if the costs truly reflect what it costs to run the airpot. Even if I were to concede that air travel costs would go up if the whole system were privatised, I do not have a problem with that. There is no reason why non-fliers should subsidize fliers, particularly since fliers are on average wealthier than non-fliers.
The average company in the US pays an incredible amount of corporate tax.
Do away with that stifling influence, and the rails would thrive.
Is it considered a 'subsidy' if it is simply the absence of murderously high taxes?
Look what happened to e-tailing and e-commerce in general, helped in part by absence of taxation on internet transaction.
The central lesson is, don't tax it, and if it is remotely feasible, in the United States of today, it will thrive.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.