As Americans in the year 2010, after all that has happened, we are understandably suspicious of what we call "bailouts." Well, it looks like another one is coming: this time for public transit agencies who are suffering from the lack of funding that is provided from our sorry excuse for a gas tax.
A group of senators have introduced a bill for emergency funding for transit agencies in the amount of $2 billion. There's no doubt that this money is needed, especially since ridership numbers are up all over the nation (and driving is down). But is there political will in an election year for yet another taxpayer-funded safety net for a private (or semi-private) industry? Honestly, I'm not sure. Although $2 billion is pocket change next to what was given out to the auto industry, Wall Street, and in the Recovery Act, it's the perception that counts; and the perception is that the taxpayers would be on the hook for funding yet another unsustainable industry.
When it comes to the automobile industry and the banks, I would agree with that notion completely, but the argument doesn't hold up with the transit problem for one big reason: It is only unsustainable because it is not on a level playing field. I'm sure those on the political right will score political points for coming out strongly against another bailout, but what they'll neglect to tell you is that we essentially bailout the automobile industry and its supporting infrastructure with almost $2 billion every day! The government subsidizes car travel with almost $600 billion per year, but it would be political suicide to be against that.
So, what is it going to be? Are we for some bailouts and not for others? Can politicians who call themselves conservative really say that the government should get its fingers out of all private business affairs? I would love to see someone come out and say that there will be no more subsidies for driving, corn, Wall Street, and Haliburton. No more subsidies for private business at all! Then maybe we could see what all of the hooplah about the "free market" is all about. But that will never happen, because it is these financially-loaded industries that buy our politicians, and they expect extreme loyalty in return.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Ryan, I love what you have to say in this post! Although I do not feel the same way towards a higher gas tax and bailing out a heavily subsidized industry, I couldn't be happier to hear you calling out the Republicans and their hypocrisy. They say they are against Big-Government, yet there are numerous programs and policies they support which add to Big-Government. You listed a few and I could list several more (immigration for one).
You mentioned nobody would actually support being against the policies and programs Conservatives or Republicans claim to be against because it is political suicide. I am one of those people that you believe don't exist and I am strongly influenced by a daily newsletter I receive called The Freeman.
I understand your views are probably polar opposite from the writers of The Freeman, but if your interested in what a non-hypocritical small government supporter believes I recommend checking it out.
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/
I hope we can have these discussions understanding that it is ok to disagree with one another. I truly enjoy hearing other points of view and sharing mine.
-Mitch
Interesting website, Mitch. I can't say that I disagree with a lot of it. I think that the market should be left alone in most cases, but I think Libertarians take their argument too far when they argue for no government intervention, just as Socialists take their argument to the extreme when they argue for a fixed market. Extremes never work.
For example, a Libertarian purist would eliminate all federal transportation subsidies. In essence, the argument is that a road or a rail will be built if the "market" wants it. But there are two problems with this. First, assuming all parties involved act ethically, who will have enough money to build the road? Without tax revenues gathered from a large group of people, it is difficult to imagine the private market being willing to pay several million dollars per mile of transportation infrastructure.
The second problem assumes that human nature indeed triumphs over ethics. Let's say General Motors realizes that public transit infrastructure is attracting people away from buying their cars. In a free market, what would unethical and unregulated GM rationally do? It would buy up the transit companies and shut them down (this really happened mid-20th Century, by the way). So, what was a free market where the people were choosing what form of transportation they wanted then became a distorted market where GM decided for them.
Here's my point: We have a distinct sense that, when refering to why we fight wars, "freedom is not free." This is entirely correct. There is a price to maintaining a "free" market, and that price is the limits (regulations) that government must place on the market in order for the rich to not take the freedoms away from the poor. My personal freedom ends where yours begins, at least ideally, but in an unregulated market, GM's freedom has no end while everyone else's barely begins (at least when it comes to transportation).
Have we taken government intervention too far? Yes. Is government intervention necessary? Absolutely.
I look forward to continuing this conversation, because there is much more to say. Thanks for your response, Mitch.
BIG DADDY'S back! I would like to respond to your post in two ways; (1) Was happy to read in your post that, "fighting for freedom is not free." I too beleive this is correct, whether fighting for your own freedoms or anothers. The popular beleif seems to be that those graduating from establishments of higher education are being brainwashed into thinking that fighting for any reason is wrong and world peace is attainable, no matter what you may have to give up to get it, "can't we all just get along," or diversity and the acceptence of everyone is the way. Probably stepping on a lot of toes here but I feel it is all too idealistic. The problem is, as with corporate greed and dominance, and human nature, there will always be someone or some group around who will want to take advantage and dominate. It's a good thing that we have those brave men and women in our services who will fight, and die, for not only our freedoms but others as well. Only wish that our govt. took better care of them. The only true world peace will come when Christ returns, and He is in control. Trouble is, many of those who want to acheive those ends, noble as thay are, don't beleive in the only one who can bring it about. But I digres.
(2)As a 30yr. transit worker who is presently fighting to retain my job and the securities it has given me to raise my family and provide a public service, I beleive that a transit bailout, or higher subsities, is in order. With unemployement high, along with gas prices, food, etc. public transit is more of a necessity than ever. GM use to manufacture transit buses, and good ones too. Instead of bailing out the auto industry with public funds the govt. could have required GM and Crysler to form a co-operative and revitalize the manufacturing of transit buses to compete with other manufacturers. Using public funds to build public transportation vehicles to reduce relience on oil and polution, save and creat jobs. Preventing the complete economic collaps of the entire city of Detroit and surrounding areas, not to mention the careers and retirement of tens of thousands of people. Now who's being idealistic!? But I do think that could have been acheivable. Not Big Government controling an industry but helping to creat or expand one. Oh ya, I forgot about ethics and human nature. Can they be possible where Big Govt. and Big Corporations are involved? Did I mention Christ will be coming.... some day?
Big Daddy,
Thank you for your comments and Happy Fathers Day again!
In response to your first comment: I'm not sure I would agree that college students are being brainwashed. I was a college student not too long ago, and I felt that college prepared me to think for myself. Brainwashing is the exact opposite of this. Instead, I think that one of the great things about this country is the freedom (there's that word again) of people to hold dissenting opinions. It's what makes our democracy better than a dictatorship.
I agree with you that idealism can be taken too far when it is not practical, but if we lose our idealism, we'll lose everything that is worth fighting for. We may have different ideals, but, again, that is what makes this country great. And if we wait for God to make it right without trying ourselves, what kinds of stewards have we been for him? He gave us the capacity for ideals, right? What good are we if we don't work toward them?
To your second point, I agree, but where do we draw the line for government support? It is likely that each person will draw the line according to his or her personal political leanings or, in your case, livelihood. But how does the government decide who to listen to? Should they listen to you and me but not Mitchell? Why? And how is a transit bailout not Big Government but other bailouts are? Is the definition of Big Government determined by the scale of subsidy or regulation or is it the fact that subsidies and regulations exist at all? And by the way, wouldn't "requiring GM and Chrystler" to do anything be anyone's definition of Big Government?
I'm not for or against Small nor Big Government; I'm for Smart Government, whether Big or Small, and I think supporting Transit over cars, as you suggest, is smart. I think that allowing corporations to go unregulated and letting our infrastructure deficit reach $4 trillion through promoting endless suburbia is Dumb Government.
Post a Comment