Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Back from the Dead: the Bacon’s Rebellion E-zine

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

The Jefferson Institute for Public Policy has published the Jan. 5, 2009, edition — its second — of the Bacon’s Rebellion e-zine. The highlights:

Privatization Can Transform the Delivery of State Psychiatric Services
by Leonard Gilroy

Wanted: A Virginia Land Inventory
by John Palatiello

The Ultimate Tax Cut that can Help President Obama get America’s Economy Moving Again
by Paul Goldman

The Right to Choose…Secretly
by Christian Braunlich

The Economic Mess
by James Atticus Bowden

Global Virginia
by Michael Cecire

Change We Can Believe In
Lawrence W. Framme III

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

22 responses to “Back from the Dead: the Bacon’s Rebellion E-zine”

  1. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    With the exception of J.A. Bowden, it is a shame that most of the authors of the “new” Bacons Rebellion are lobbyists or dogmatic public policy advocates pushing the same ideas that “privatization” is the panacea for everything in the Old Dominion.

    Unlike the “old” Bacons Rebellion, the points of view here are homogenized, straight-jacket pablum. This is basically all the same small government, anti-union right wing crap. The writing is boring –the arguments dull and pedestrian.
    It is a shame that after having contributed to the original and vibrant e-zine, I have to read a “new” one that is so badly done.
    Jim Bacon, can’t you do something? At least maybe make they rename this abortion “Musings of the Would-Be TJ?”

    Peter Galuszka

  2. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    What he said!–BKD

  3. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    if these ideas are implemented you could call it

    the op-ed page of VA’s last economy

  4. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I was hoping no one would bother to comment.

    It is not worth the effort.

  5. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I suppose Peter would prefer the works of Karl Marx.

  6. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Anonymous,
    Well at least Marx could make some interesting arguments. The new BR zine looks like it is a special advertising section written by marketing flaks, which it pretty much is.

    Meanwhile, let’s hope the privatization craze is running its course. It sure didn’t work when Rumsfeld-Cheney-Bush tried to privatize our armed foprces in Iraq.

    Peter Galuszka

  7. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Back from the Dead” or “Confirmed as Dead”?

  8. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Privatization is not working well for commuter trains in California or for building roads, toll roads or transit, especially is a shrinking economy.

    It is not who runs the operation that matters, it is how well it is run.

    If there is profit skimmed for private enterprises and reserves skimmed to insure against risk there is always less left for delivery of public services.

    What makes private entities look good is bad public management.

    That is easier to fix than trying to keep the fox out of the hen house.

  9. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Yes, road privatization has some issues in Virginia, too. The Pochantas Parkway just raised its tolls — right in the depths of a recession. Not many people use that road and probably fewer will now.
    The Shuchet idea for a privatizated bridge across the Elizabeth to replace the Jordan Birdge has its cockamamie aspects too. Tolls could be $5 each way, despite its grandly cheaper construction costs. So, is your average rigger or shipfitter working at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard going to happily pay $10 every workday just to make privatization work? Hell no, he’s going to take the toll-less downtown tunnel and back up rush hour traffic even more.
    Peter Galuszka

  10. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Right.

    And meantime, despite record high ridership, METRO finances are in a shambles.

    I guess you can’t take a loss on every fare and then make it up in volume.

    “Among the options they are expected to consider are cuts in rail, bus and paratransit service, layoffs and increased subsidies from state and local governments.”

    Subsidies from state and local governments really means from taxpayers, 95% (or more) of whom do not ride METRO, so the “externalitized costs” of auto drivers will be reduced once again.

    RH

  11. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    The comments attached to the WAPO article are illuminating. Almost all of them are bashing METRO operations.

  12. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    WMATA is a poster child example of total incompetence and mismanagement. It’s operating cost increases from year to year easily out-step county government’s cost increases.

    But, of course, the solution is give them more money!

    There’s no effective oversight for WMATA any more than there was effective oversight for contractors in Iraq.

    Government has too damn much money that it can afford to waste it. The waste may differ depending on who is in charge, but it just keeps growing and growing.

    Perhaps, the economic downturn will be a chance to weed out some waste at all levels.

    TMT

  13. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    Do we know (for instance) how cost-effective any government function is beyond WAMTA?

    For instance, VDOT?

    or the Department of Corrections (where I understand it costs 50K per inmate and the Department itself is the biggest single employer in the State of Virginia with more than 10,000 employees.

    VDOT used to be the top ..now it is second…

    VDOT has the equivalent of about 80 employees per county/city in Virginia.

    If you consider the fact that virtually all of actual road work is contracted out… ask yourself what the 8500 employees of VDOT actually do – that could also be contracted out?

    but… we get to this point –

    for anything that the Government does – do we know, do we consider it better, worse, or the same as WAMTA?

    I don’t know.

    I’m asking the question.

    Do we know for sure that WAMTA is the absolute worst – and if so – by what margin and what is the next worst government agency?

    What would be an example of a very cost-effective agency – and how would it compare to WAMTA?

  14. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    Does anyone have an opinion on the usefulness/utility with regard to the inauguration?

    Is it “boy are we glad we have a METRO” ?

    or is it

    “METRO is irrelevant” ?

  15. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Do we know (for instance) how cost-effective any government function is beyond WAMTA?”

    Good question. As a general rule, I susect the answer is, no.

    Yet, in some areas government goes to great lenghths to “prove” its cost benefit analyses. Since these do not always correspond equally in value, it seems as if we will eventually be able to compile a “catalog” of projects and benefits. At least “As originally advertised” benefits.

    Then the issue will be to go back and measure or estimate how much of those benefits actually materialized. With polio, for example, it is pretty easy, since the disease has pretty much been eradicated. Smallpox and leprosy, likewise.

    On the other hand, if you hope to reduce certain debilitation by reducing the manmade component of naturally occuring pathogens you may have a much harder improvement to measure.

    Still, you have an incipient problem. One agency may be advertising a benefit of a billion dollars and another a benefit of 10 billion. If the second one costs 20 times as much, then it isn’t as good a deal.

    You may wind up with agencies competing for funds by advertising false or misleading claims. We have the same problem with special interests advertising false, misleading or incomplete externalities when promoting their cause.

    ———————–

    Recently, i saw a post where the author claimed to be an envionmental economist. he said he though we should tax the pants off of coal externalities.

    It is hard to disagree with the sentiment, from an environmental perspective. Except that, the correct amount to tax negative externalities is only up to the actual cost of them, no more. Anything else is bed far the economy AND the environment.

    Same goes in the opposite direction when giving credit for positive externalities. WMATA should probably get credit for SOME congestion reduction. However, all the other externality arguments about “you cannot build your way out of congestion” or “induced traffic” also apply.

    I’m inclined to believe that we already spend way more on WMATA and other transit authorities than they are actually worth. As far as the inauguration goes, no one would suggest that we should build and operate WMATA for thirty years just so it can relieve some of the congestion related with an historic event.

    RH

  16. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    More Disneyland on the Potomac. WMATA is a mess and cannot handle what it is supposed to do with the funds it has — which, by the way, regularly increase by more than what Fairfax County, for example, increases its spending. And there’s room to cut in Fairfax.

    In this environment, the Feds just approved, subject to Congressional appropriation, a huge expansion of WMATA’s rail lines. Sounds like the auto bailout. But it’s stupid economics and public policy.

    Wouldn’t we all be better off if the Feds were to hold WMATA’s feet to the fire to fix its operational and management problems first before expanding the system? If, on the other hand, WMATA cannot fix its problems, why would any thinking person give it more capital to become larger?

    The Bush Administration caved for the lobbyists. Will the Obama Administration do the same — or will it deliver some of the change it campaigned on? I don’t know; let’s see.

    TMT

  17. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    A sad day for functional development devotees…

    Let me be the first to say that I am no expert on the history of Arlington County. However, I did live there for a number of years in the early 1980s and I have always been impressed by the progress that’s been made along the Wilson Blvd corridor. My understanding is that much of this progress was driven by Mrs. Ellen Bozman – who served as the Chairperson of the Arlington Board of Supervisors. Mrs. Bozman was, as I understand it, the longest serving member of the Arlington County Board of Supervisors ever. Sadly, Mrs. Bozman recent passed away. Here obituary is here:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/08/AR2009010803691.html?wprss=rss_metro%2Fobituaries

    It seems a pity to me that few current Virginia county politicians show the foresight that Mrs. Bozman demonstrated during her long tenure in Arlington.

  18. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    Out of the 20 or 30 National transit systems – where does WAMTA rank?

    We need to distinguish between folks who are opposed to transit in any form – anywhere as “wasteful” and thus use that as a reason to oppose WAMTA and those that believe that transit is needed core function, but that it is vital to have it operate cost-effectively.

    For the folks who are opposed to transit – it won’t matter about ranking…. because.. they are not interested in where WAMATA actually ranks …

    they are, instead, opposed to the concept.

    I think it is important to distinguish this… because if the general public believes that a tax-funded function is useful – and a majority of them are willing to pay for it – then one, of course, can be the loyal opposition, but you’ve lost the battle of whether or not it is a needed public function.

    If..on the other hand, one believes that it is a needed public function but there are good and bad ways to operate it..then the focus would be on where WAMATA is really bad and needs to improve – relative to it’s comparative to other systems.

    so.. I’d ask… where does WAMATA rank – and especially so on the specifics?

    Are there good parts of WAMTA and bad parts of WAMTA or is the whole operation terrible by comparison with other systems that are operated much more cost-effectively?

    In other words, are we really concerned about WAMTA operation or are we concerned about transit in general or transit in Tysons?

  19. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Good questions, Larry. I might fall into a third camp: I regard heavy rail (and light rail) as useful transportation options that are in some cases represent a more effective investment of public dollars. However, I think transportation options of all types ought to be compared on a ROI basis. Ideally, all forms of transportation should be able to stand on their own two feet. Otherwise the decision on whether to invest dollars isn’t a financial/economic one, it’s a political one — and politically driven decisions are rarely economic.

    As for WAMTA, we have a sunk investment. We can’t un-invest. So that debate’s over. Therefore, the questions are (a) how do we operate WAMTA as cost effectively as possible, and (b) do we invest in expanding the system?

    Unfortunately, as a government-run monopoly, WAMTA is not a paragon of efficiency. It needs improvement.

    As for expanding the system, as in Dulles Rail, those decisions cannot be divorced from land use decisions. If we simply expand WAMTA without making the necessary land use changes across the system to maximize ridership, we creating a financial black hole.

  20. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Jim – you are absolutely correct about linking land use and Dulles Rail. But what does that mean for Tysons?

    Assuming that the Silver Line will be built as proposed, Fairfax County’s TOD policy would concentrate development within one-quarter mile of the four Tysons’ stations. But the Tysons Land Use Task Force has recommended extending mega-density as far as one-half mile from the stations and granting significant increases in density even further away.

    Let’s assume that this were to happen. What will we likely see? Development will begin farther away from the stations because the land would be cheaper there. Moreover, GMU has projected that, despite the hype from the Task Force, Tysons will not develop all at once, but will continue to absorb growth at or near historic rates. Plus, we have competition from other parts of Fairfax County.

    The bottom line is that Tysons is likely to see donut development. More density away from the stations and lower density, at least initially, at the stations. The very goal of transit oriented development fails.

    So tell me why we should spend billions of taxpayer and Dulles Toll Road dollars to build this system!

    We may not have Blago, but Virginia and Fairfax County are close in their level of corruption to Illinois. Our crooks — both in and outside government — are more sophisticated than those in Chicago and the WaPo is in bed with the crooks, but the corruption is here and in spades! It is just hidden.

    TMT

  21. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “We need to distinguish between folks who are opposed to transit in any form – anywhere as “wasteful” and thus use that as a reason to oppose WAMTA and those that believe that transit is needed core function, but that it is vital to have it operate cost-effectively.”

    HUH?

    It is wasteful wherever it does not operate cost effectively.

    Show me smeone who is opposed to transit that pays its own way.

    Then show me a transit system that does that.

    Winston and Shirley have said that roughly 2% of our transit is cost effective. And I think they list those that are most effective.

    That pretty much gives you New York, Chicago, and BART, with everyone else a distant 50th.

    ————————–

    “in some cases represent a more effective investment of public dollars. However, I think transportation options of all types ought to be compared on a ROI basis.”

    Bacon has it right, here.

    But the ROI basis is not straightforward. There are people who are extremely self righteous abut not owning a car. They think they are paying huge external costs for everyone who does, including road construction costs. They ignore the huge amount of funding that is provided to transit users, that comes from car drivers. And when they call the fire dept or police, they expect them to arrive swiftly by road, not belatedly by rail.

    And there are autoholics who see things exactly the opposite. Ignoring all the negative asspects of autos.

    So the first thing we have to do is STOP MAKING RED HERRINGS about those who are opposed to transit or those who are opposed ot autonombiles. Stop pointing fingers at anyone who doesn’t think exactly as we do, as if they are the enemy.

    The second thing we have to do is stop being opposed to them, and recognize the modalities for their own strenghts and weakneses without overplaying either one.

    That’s the only way we can begin to figure out what the ROI is. WMATA doesn’t carry very much freight, and it earns very little ROI in that category. You cannot count standing room only as the same level of service as an individually adjustable seat, so let’s not pretend that every transit rider eliminates one car.

    Let’s not pretend or believe that rail can carry passengers at 5% of the cost of autos, just because they are theoretically more efficient: it isn’t a real contribution to ROI.

    And let’s also recognize that there is a limit as to how many people you can bring to one place and time via auto.

    But, since auto is a necessary part of any multimodal system, this implies that even if auto is augmented by peak-heavy mass transit, and short range, but nimble, bicycles, and decent pedestrian facilities, then there is a limit to how much development is desireable, supportable, and sustainable in one spot.

    You solve that problem, and THEN you can begin to zero in on the overall best transportation ROI.

    Once we recognize (and AGREE) that there are only certain things we can do that make sense, that there are some transportation limits we cannot exceed, well, then it will be easy to see that only corruption would attempt to get us to do things that don’t make sense.

    Right now we have cohorts who are opposed to transit in any form, and other cohorts who are opposed to autos in anay form, and others that support transit in any form.

    They are all crazy as loons, and in their own way, each of them makes it easier for crazy things like Tyson’s to happen. The corruption we get is facilitated by lunatics, each of which wants “their side” to “win”.

    ————————-

    What does all this mean? ROI means that I GET BACK SOMETHING FOR MY INVESTMENT.

    If my side “wins” it means I think I got more of an advantage than I paid for. And that is perfectly all right – as long as it does not come at someone else’s disadvantage. We need Kaldor-Hicks optimization, not just Pareto optimization.

    And that is where the failure comes in linking land use to transportation, or demanding urban development areas.

    From a practical standpoint, creating LEGAL winners and losers is very little different from corruption. So, if we believe that UDA’s are “more efficient” and they provide all of us with a positive ROI, then we bettter darn well make sure there are no “losers” in the process.

    And how do you do that? Well, Kaldor-Hicks is one way, but that’s the hard one. The easy way is to define more precisely what it is that we own, and make sure the law defends it.

    ————————-

    Larry and TMT think that Existing Residents lose something that they own when new development results in higher taxes.

    Do Existing Residents really own the right to permanently stable taxes? Certainly, they could go buy up the land to be developed and prevent development, but then they would have higher costs AND higher taxes.

    So instead, they want to control someone elses property, and not have to own it. They want their ROI on someone else’s investment.

    Of Course This Cuts Both Ways.

    Developers don’t want to have to pay for previous underfunding and bad behavior by ER’s. They dont want new and higher standards imposed which were never enforced before, and won’t be paid for retroactively.

    ——————–

    We can argue this endlessly. But it eventually comes down to who owns what, and how is it protected. (And maybe, when was it acquired, as in when do we get so hard up we have to actually start selling air?) This is the first, and maybe the only task of government.

    It seems to be the one thing we are about to forget, wholesale, while we sell our future down the river in a vainglorious attempt to account for every unuuterable slight and unpriced externality.

    If we could sort that out, then the kind of corruption that TMT worries about could not happen: it isn’t stealingif you buy it on the open market from a willing seller.

    And, the kind of corruption that EMR frets over – wouldn’t make any differenence.

    RH

  22. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I suggest a new name:

    “Bacon’s Capitulation”

Leave a Reply

Read More