In a post entitled "Pay the fare, even if you don't ride," Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel columnist Patrick McIlheran "rails" against the folly of rail transit. Look at Chicago, he says, "as railed-up as a place realistically could be":
And it's still sucking taxpayer money at a nearly unfathomable rate.
Rail advocates often respond to this by asking, rhetorically, how much taxpayers must spend to keep up roads for cars. Quite a bit, in Wisconsin, certainly. But that's money collected specifically from drivers, who pay it via our gas tax. In Illinois, they additionally pay it via tolls, as well as having a gas tax that, in total, is higher than ours.
The sentence in bold pretty much ignores the last couple generations of federal policy as McIlheran tries to assert that only users of roads and freeways pay for them.
A) Does he mean to say that our spending on freeways, roads, parking, etc. is all supported by the gas tax alone? I beg to differ.
B) As the title of his post implies (I guess it's meant to fire up fellow conservatives who are loath to drop a dime outside their own field of need and want), is it some great sin to help subsidize a sensible, usable transit system - whether you use it or not - that will help get non-car owners to work, relieve congestion, and lower our dependence on foreign oil (the cost of which can be measured in dollars, lives, and limbs)?
Heaven help us if we toss dollars at anything that does not immediately and directly benefit us personally.
[As I write this, I note James Rowen at The Political Environment is on the case.]
Interestingly, an earlier post of McIlheran's states:
Lefties lately have been trying to contrast themselves with normal people by saying they're in favor of a "we're all in this together" ethic. By contrast, they contend, conservatives are about the idea that "you're on your own," which allows liberals to acronym it down to YOYO.
Whatever amuses their juvenile minds.
I hadn't heard of "YOYO" before, but I certainly believe what McIlheran describes. I listened to the local WISN midmorning radio host - - - who was, as per usual, following the lead of conservatives across the country (and directly lifting, it appears, this specific post) - - call Hillary Clinton "a socialist" and "dangerous" for expressing the "we're all in this together" ethos in a recent campaign speech. He was kind enough to look up and read the definition of "Socialism" for the listeners.
I'm no big fan of Clinton, but I can't disagree with the (fairly bumper-sticker) ideas she promoted. She said, in part:
"I prefer a 'we're all in it together' society. I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none."
The radio squawker (as well as the right wing blogosphere) pointed out that statement specifically. They were beside themselves that she should suggest such things - "simply un-American!"
Fascinating. I'll digress:
Right wing bloggers seem especially fond of relating battlefield stories of bravery and self sacrifice - there's something we agree on. The soldier who goes over the top to sure death in order to provide cover for retreating comrades; the courageous men at Normandy who stood at the front of the landing vehicle knowing they would shield the men behind them with their bodies as German machine guns fired at them utterly unimpeded; the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan who bare themselves to countless threats every day to clear roads for their fellow soldiers' convoys. These are heroes, no question.
At what point in their post-military debriefing are they told: "Now, toss that 'we're all in this together' crap over the side before you get stateside, or else you're a stinking Socialist ."
Comments