Free Bus Fares for Everyone Because… Equity

Secretary of Transportation Shannon Valentine

by James A. Bacon

Once upon a time, Virginia built roads and bridges according to the quaint old principle of “pay as you go,” meaning that the state didn’t spend money it didn’t have. That idea went hand in glove with another quaint concept that the people who used public transportation infrastructure should be the people who paid to build and maintain it. People who walked (which a lot of people did in those days) or rode the trolleys shouldn’t pay for roads.

Now Virginians are much more sophisticated. We tell ourselves that such antiquated ideas originated with Harry Byrd Sr., who was a segregationist and racist, which therefore discredits everything he said and did. Not only do modern-day Virginians borrow billions of dollars to build transportation projects, government now operates bus, passenger rail and commuter rail lines, and we tax everyone to pay for everything. The link between who use and those who pays for transportation infrastructure has dissolved like a corpse in a vat of hydrochloric acid.

Virginia’s original bus lines, trolley lines, and passenger lines once operated for profit. They no longer do. The government owns them and massively subsidizes them — even more than roads and highways (which is a travesty in itself). But apparently those subsidies are not enough. Now the au courant thinking is that subsidized transit fares are a “barrier.” People who ride mass transit should not have to pay anything at all.

Thus, The Washington Post brings up the topic of transportation “equity” in an interview with Secretary of Transportation Shannon Valentine. Here is part of what she says:

COVID has shone a bright light on just how fundamental public transportation is to connecting people to essential work and food and medicine. It is truly vital.  … Some of our transit systems in Virginia had initiated fare-free options. What we’ve learned is that fares are and can be a barrier, so we’re developing pilots around Virginia to work with fare-free so we can expand that and see how we could address that particular barrier. The Transit Ridership Incentive Program that came out of the omnibus bill that passed in 2020 is looking at all the barriers, as well as the design of our routes and how we can better create that accessibility for all people, and in particular those who are underserved. We’re working very hard to do that.

And that’s how transportation become subsumed into the welfare state. Mass transit serving poor people is becoming another entitlement.

Needless to say, no one is talking about “equity” in regards to automobile ownership. No one complains how the the price of automobiles is a “barrier” to driving cars. Alternatively, no one is talking about expanding private-sector ride-sharing vans operated by the likes of Uber and Lyft.

Look beneath the surface, and you’ll see what is happening. White environmentalists like mass transit because buses and trains get people out of cars and, in theory (if not necessarily in reality) produce fewer CO2 emissions, thus advancing the war on global warming. But the public isn’t nearly as worried as white environmentalists are that the planet is over-heating and posing an existential threat. Shrewdly, mass transit advocates are re-casting their environmental wish lists to address “equity” and “environmental racism.” Same goals — decarbonizing the economy — but a new justification. In the era of Black Lives Matter, “equity” gets a lot more political mileage than “sustainability.”

Woke environmentalists show remarkable creativity in finding “equity” justifications for things that they wanted all along and a remarkable indifference toward achieving “equity” by means that don’t advance their environmental goals.

So, rest assured that Virginia’s transportation future will involve a lot more borrowed “free money” from Uncle Sam, as much debt as the commonwealth can absorb, and a lot of taxing Peter to pay Paul. Everything will be just dandy until the wheels fall off the spend-borrow-and-monetize-the-debt bus, as inevitably it will. Then things will go back to “pay as you go” because, when public debt markets collapse, that will be the only way to pay for anything.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

54 responses to “Free Bus Fares for Everyone Because… Equity”

  1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    So financing tax cuts for the rich (you know corporate subsidies) via debt was a-ok but the moment poor people might benefit from subsidies, it’s the “welfare state”, ‘“free money” from Uncle Sam’ and, “a lot of taxing Peter to pay Paul”. Might as well start screaming about socialism…

    1. DJRippert Avatar
      DJRippert

      If there were no “corporate subsidies” there would be a far smaller “green energy” industry.

      1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        I think you took my comment as a criticism of corporate subsidies. Alas, no, it was a criticism of Conservative hypocrisy.

    2. Publius Avatar
      Publius

      Classic abuse of speech by Leftists.
      “Corporate subsidies” – good when a favored Leftist industry gets paid money (and which inevitably benefits other Leftists, like all the green industry stuff)
      But “bad” when you allow a taxpayer to keep more of his, her or its money – that’s a corporate subsidy! And it reveals an interesting part of the totalitarian mindset – all money belongs to the government and you are lucky we let you keep any of it…peon!
      “Tax expenditure analysis” counts as “spent” money not collected by changing a tax law or reg. It also is static and assumes no changes in behavior by the taxpayers.
      Our ruling class is awful and is unfortunately not just the legislators but an army of bureaucrats, too.

      1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        Oh, so you are saying the deficit actually did NOT balloon after the last Republican tax cut for the rich… just as predicted by the OMB…?? So sorry then, my bad…

        1. Publius Avatar
          Publius

          Full troll – what numbers when? And now you care about deficits? So we can stop the infrastructure graft? Spending is the problem. As is the baseline budgeting. Our political class sucks.
          I was talking about the totalitarian mindset in terminology, and got the usual whataboutism from Leftists, but glad to know you agree that deficits are bad. And I guess that means you also agree with Jim Bacon’s point and with the Byrd Machine…which could make you a racist…

          1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Nope, Doc, as usual you twist the argument, it was JAB who lamented the debt not me. I simply pointed out the typical Conservative hypocrisy when it comes to the deficit.

          2. Publius Avatar
            Publius

            No, you are projecting like an IMAX because you are a Full Troll…much too modest!
            First, you make an assertion without any reference, insinuating that tax cuts cause deficits and conservatives are hypocrites because they cause deficits. A circular argument, ignoring the spending aspect, without detail on the tax cuts, not addressing the totalitarian mindset that not collecting taxes is an expense of the government, and in fact made in bad faith, because implicit in your calling out conservatives as hypocrites for deficits spending would be, if you were honest, your belief that deficits are bad. But you like deficit spending, don’t you? You just prefer it on wasteful Dem projects that are just payoffs to their constituencies and hidden under a deceptive name to make it sound ok…like infrastructure!
            Details on your OMB reference… and if this was during the shutdown…that might have been a decent little fact to know

          3. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            “…because implicit in your calling out conservatives as hypocrites for deficits spending would be, if you were honest, your belief that deficits are bad.”

            Ahh… there is that good old twisted Conservative logic. No, Doc, you can call someone out for hypocrisy without taking any position on the underlying issue for which they are hypocrites. Nice try, though.

          4. Publius Avatar
            Publius

            Lying …again… as usual. Still no details on OMB assertion. Still not saying whether he really does agree that deficits are bad. (He doesn’t. He only likes to use deficits to claim conservatives are hypocrites. Under current Leftist monetary “thinking,”the country can run up unlimited deficits and spend ourselves rich. But while we are at it, raise the minimum wage to $500/hr and every full time job will make everyone a millionaire!) Oh, and unicorns! Still doesn’t address the totalitarian mindset of letting taxpayers keep more of their money as government spending.

            So let’s try again Full Troll. I think deficits are bad. What OMB numbers are you lying about?

          5. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            I think deficits are good, Doc. Without them our economy would crash and burn. But you certainly don’t think they are bad when the rich are getting the handout like they did under Trump. Conservatives like you were like “put it on the tab!!” Hypocrite.

          6. Publius Avatar
            Publius

            Full Troll still trolling.
            1. No OMB numbers
            2. You like deficits. So if OK for you, why bad for conservatives? I don’t like deficits in all cases.
            3. It is a fallacy we can spend ourselves rich. 4. You are a horrible totalitarian in mindset. The government puts a gun to your head and says “hand it over…or else.” When the government says, “instead of $40, I’ll only take $30,” we are supposed to be grateful? That we got to keep our money and invest it in productive ways? Adam Smith’s invisible hand and Bastiat’s broken window fallacy might be instructive for you. Have you talked to self-employed the first time their businesses made money? The income tax and the self employment tax combined always comes as a huge negative surprise.

          7. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            “You like deficits. So if OK for you, why bad for conservatives? I don’t like deficits in all cases.”

            Clearly deficits are GREAT for Conservatives!! They just hate when anyone else benefits from them. You did not complain about the Trump deficit boondoggles so you clearly have no problem with deficits. Hypocrite.

          8. Publius Avatar
            Publius

            Still trolling. No OMB numbers to reference. No examples of what you call bad spending. Just hypocrite accusation, which means you have lost the point. When you resort to racist, conspiracy theory, anti science, anti vax, hypocrite, you have nothing substantive. And you really want to sell yourself for free bus fare and $1400 stimulus? Freedom is better.

          9. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Sorry but pointing out your opponent’s hypocrisy is far different from claims of racist, conspiracy theory, anti science, anti vax, etc. But I see why you wish to lump them together….

          10. Publius Avatar
            Publius

            Full Troll – still waiting for the OMB numbers from you.
            You see, people like you do not contribute to discourse. You are a de-tributor. I believe deficits are bad, whether incurred by left or right. I also believe in math – Assets = Liabilities plus Equity. Income = Revenue minus expenses. You put up a nonsequitur without the facts to back it up. Let’s say Trump had huge deficits. Was it “tax cuts for the rich” (a Marxist formulation) or spending or lockdowns? Prior to KungFlu the economy was growing at rates not seen in a long time. And Biden will have even greater deficits, but you’re OK with THAT.
            Hypocrisy – n. – The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

            Shoe seems to fit you.

          11. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            “I believe deficits are bad, whether incurred by left or right.”

            Not true. You can’t even bring yourself to criticize the Republican tax giveaway to the rich which increased the deficit in its first two years (i.e., to just BEFORE the Covid-19 pandemic) by nearly a third – that is WITH the so-called economic stimulus it generated.

            I have already stated, I have no real problem with deficits. I am not criticizing the deficit Trump created but am criticizing you and your Conservative friends for suddenly becoming deficit hawks now that it is the poor who are to benefit. So kudos to you for figuring out how a dictionary works but work a bit on that application bit. I am not wearing your shoe – it would be hard to do what with it being firmly lodged in your mouth.

          12. Publius Avatar
            Publius

            Full Troll – still don’t get it, on purpose, apparently because your job is to engage in Marxist dialectic. “Tax giveaway to the rich” is yet another phrase designed to cut off thinking. And stupid to boot…but when your politics is based on envy… You keep bringing up deficits…and putting a racial or poor person angle on it. Which has nothing to do with my comment on the mindset of totalitarians that all income belongs to the government and letting the earner keep it is “tax cuts for the rich.”
            And deficits don’t create wealth, except in Leftist unicorn world…, but you go ahead and hate people who earn more money than you and are jealous when they get to keep a little bit more.
            The deficits Trump created… cuz Congress has nothing to do with appropriations…baseline spending has nothing to do with it…entitlements.
            When you come up with something intelligent and cogent that reflects reality, maybe you can try something other than projecting like an IMax…

          13. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            You are correct. I chose not to follow your twisted rambling “argument” because it was meant to deflect from the point of my comments which is that Conservatives ceded the deficit hawk fiscal high ground when they chose to finance a tax cut for the rich on the federal debt to the tune of some $2.3T. By complaining now about deficit-funded benefits for the poor demonstrates that your REAL beef is with who benefits not how it is paid for.

          14. Eric, Is your goal to punish the rich or maximize tax revenues? If your goal is to punish the rich, then tax away. If your goal is to maximize tax revenue, then you need to do your homework and find out if the “rich” are paying a higher or lower percentage of income taxes than before the Trump tax hikes. You seem to be laboring from illusion that taxing the rich necessarily increases tax revenues. Depending upon the particular tax in question and the particular tax rate, higher taxes on the rich may yield more revenue. But if the tax engenders significant tax avoidance behavior, it might yield less revenue.

          15. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Money not taxed means other money has to be taxed more though. That’s way taxes are spread over different economic activities as well as at higher rates for higher levels of economic activity.

            It’s not about “punishing” anyone. It’s what humans do to provide infrastructure and services to everyone so that it maximizes production that in-turn adds to everyone’s life expectancy and quality of life.

            People do not get wealthy by themselves, independent of others.. They have to derive that wealth from others via transactions. No?

          16. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            My goal is to stop reading Conservative articles that treat deficit funded benefits to the poor as fiscal anathema when it is no worse than the benefits to the rich that were likewise funded through the deficit which Conservatives lauded. As simple as that, JAB.

            Btw, JAB:

            “One of the biggest results of Trump’s tax cuts was lowering the corporate income tax rate to 21% from 35%. This change appears to have benefited businesses greatly, because the corporate income tax payments collected by the IRS decreased by 22.4% from 2018 than 2017 . Looking just at year-over-year returns, businesses enjoyed an increase of 33.8% in tax refunds nationally from 2017 to 2018.”

            So…

    3. PeterTx52 Avatar
      PeterTx52

      sadly your ignorance is about tax cuts is outstanding. as for subsidies they are designed to encourage the development of an industry. if poor people are receiving subsidies what are they producing

      1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        Oh, so we need to develop an oil industry and a farm industry in the US… and here I thought they were doing so well on their own.

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Our Texican friend is suggesting that subsidies for the poor individuals are failures. These would be different from subsidies for failing or even successful businesses.

          1. I don’t recall the conservatives on this blog arguing in favor of business subsidies. I have frequently railed against subsidies and tax breaks for corporations in economic development deals. We are all foes of crony capitalism. The people who like to subsidize business are on the left side of the political spectrum. You are totally making stuff up.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Can you explain how some companies and wealthy pay zero taxes?

          3. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            PeterTx52 sais, “as for subsidies they are designed to encourage the development of an industry. if poor people are receiving subsidies what are they producing…”

            That sounds at worst neutral on business subsidies. But as to your comment of only the leftieslike ’em, I don’t like it and I’m on the Left side. I would like subsidies only in the form of tax breaks on a very stiff tax rate for R&D, since we do amazingly little of it anymore.

            BTW, do you recall which administration gave McDonald’s all that wonderful money for opening restaurants in China and Russia?

      2. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Then there should be a clear record supporting successful results for tax cuts and failures of subsidies for the poor over, say, the last forty years. Where, other than in the anecdotal dreams of conservative opinion writers, is it?

      3. WayneS Avatar

        More poor people?

  2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    Give us a break, Jim. Virginia abandoned “pay as you go” a long time ago.

  3. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    Jim Bacon is right about using labels as convenient ways to support or oppose something, even if those labels are not necessarily applicable. Case in point: Several years ago, jobs was an usually big topic at the General Assembly. I heard one lobbyist say, “All I have to do is get up and say, ‘This bill will hurt jobs’ and that is enough to kill the bill!”

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      tried and true and totally not true.

      For instance, if you put a sales tax on meals and it applies to all establishment, how does that “hurt” jobs?

      Yeah, yeah, they say that the restaurants will hire less workers and use automation – like they would not do that anyhow and especially in competition with others -no matter the tax.

      You could have NO meals tax at all – as is the case in more than a few places but competition is what drives using as few workers as possible including the use of automation.

      Has a study ever been done that compares total number of restaurant employees in one place with no meals tax compared to another place with meals taxes?

      When you go to a restaurant , do you purposely favor places where there is no meals tax on the premise the meals will be cheaper? 😉

  4. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    Ahhh … pay as you go. Another hallucination of former grandeur by the plantation elite. Under this particular crucible of confusion debt financing is always bad and politicians who refuse to use any amount of debt are idolized. While it’s certainly true that too much debt can be hazardous it is equally true that reasonable amounts of debt can catalyze progress.

    Byrd was also (at one time) the president of the Shenandoah Turnpike Company, a private road company. I’ve always wondered whether his connection to private transportation concerns had anything to do with his reluctance to use debt to build public roads.

    Perhaps Virginia should retire all its debt now and refuse to ever borrow again in homage to Byrd.

    1. Brian Leeper Avatar
      Brian Leeper

      No, absolutely NOT possible that Byrd’s connection to private transportation concerns could have anything to do with his reluctance to use debt to build public roads.

      That would be a conflict of interest.

      Everyone knows that Virginia politicians are now, and always have been, of the highest ethical standard.

      Because they’re Virginia politicians, and Virginia is the best.

      Just ask the plantation elite.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        So there many interesting concepts here, not the least of which is how public-use roads came to be, before the government got into the business of condemning private property for public use. It was indeed private-sector toll roads and what could be more “socialist” than the government taxing people to pay for roads on property they took from others no matter whether they wanted to sell or not?

        Was Byrd also a “socialist” because he took property from their owners ( and of course claimed to properly compensate them – but no choice on selling?)

        1. DJRippert Avatar
          DJRippert

          The original US Constitution clearly allows for the taking of private property by the government for legitimate public uses so long as fair compensation is paid.

          Socialism can only be understood as a continuum. All countries have some degree of government ownership of assets and means of production. No country has the government with 100% ownership of assets and all means of production.

          Jim Bacon’s article defines another episode of the creeping socialism that is defining today’s liberal thinking in America. The government already owns the means of production for public transportation (which includes the majority of mass transit). The more subtle trick up Ms. Valentine’s sleeve is to further control the means of production by taxing the income and profits of the productive to pay for FREE use of the government owned means of production.

          As of today, Luxembourg offers free public transportation as do the cities of Dunkirk, France and Tallinn, Estonia. Other nations require people to pay to use public mass transit.

          Moscow Metro fares start at 55 rubles for a one-way ticket, which is good for five days after purchase. You’ll pay more if your journey takes you outside of the central Moscow center city zones. 55 rubles is approximately $.70. So, a round trip ticket costs about $1.40.

          Congratulations to Ralph Northam and Sharon Valentine – they are trying to out-socialist Russia.

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Russia, in case you haven’t been paying attention, is waaaay less socialist than it used to be and is, by and equal amount, a RICO state.

        2. Brian Leeper Avatar
          Brian Leeper

          In many cases it was common for property owners to donate (yes, donate, they didn’t need to be coerced) a part of their property to form a road. They kinda got a benefit from the access to their property that they otherwise wouldn’t have.

          At least, that’s what happens when forward thinking individuals are involved.

          I don’t think anyone has ever accused the plantation elite of being forward-thinking. And it seems to be a trait in short supply in Virginia as a whole.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            They DID because it gave access to their properties but they would opposed roads for access to others properties through their property!

            But the essential point is that the government DOES take property for the use of all the public AND it does not necessarily even benefit those whose property has been taken, it might well be at their expense – like an interstate cutting a farm in half.

          2. Brian Leeper Avatar
            Brian Leeper

            “they would opposed roads for access to others properties through their property!”

            That’s a short sighted view of the situation. And an example of the lack of forward thinking that hampers progress.

            A road is most useful when it connects multiple properties and provides access to multiple properties along it’s length.

            And therefore a forward thinking property owner would have no problem allowing others to access their property through a road on their own property because it makes that road more useful to all concerned.

            This is kinda like cooperating with others to achieve a common goal, something that Virginians have historically not been very good at.

  5. PeterTx52 Avatar
    PeterTx52

    white environmentalists also want the densification of popullation (make cities look like NYC)

  6. James C. Sherlock Avatar
    James C. Sherlock

    On cue, the left writes “nothing to see here”.

    One references “corporate subsidies” as if it was not the governments of the left that passed them out. Amazon headquarters in the peoples’ republic of Arlington ring a bell? Sometimes I think that corporate subsidies are the only time the left can do a cost-benefit analysis.

    Another “pay as you go was abandoned long ago” as if that were a justification for continuing the practice.

    Not addressed are key questions about “barriers” to public transportation that do not involve the costs of the fares:
    – what is to be done if few will ride some of these projects even when they are free because they do not go where people want to go at a convenient time?;
    – who will operate them in an environment where people have not returned to such jobs? That was a gargantuan problem with public transportation under COVID. Hampton Roads Transit has had only about half of the drivers who left under COVID return; and
    – who will provide security and under what conditions with police departments already stressed?

    Public transportation is not an easy problem, and no way to predict the effect of free fares under the other variables listed above.

    Consider the Norfolk Tide. The fare has been $1.75. It has been written that ” The Tide moves from places you don’t work to areas you don’t wish to visit. It doesn’t stop at the airport or the world’s largest naval base.” At last reckoning it lost $6.63 per ride. That will rise to over $8 if the fares are eliminated and that does not bring increased ridership.

    Also written: “Because the light-rail cars are so empty, they use a huge amount of energy per passenger mile”—nearly 7,200 British thermal units, or BTUs, in 2014 compared with 3,600 for the average SUV.” Same contingency as above. Ridership will have to double to match the per passenger efficiency of an SUV.

    Ridership has declined markedly since 2014. There is no apparent online way to find out current ridership. It declined every year for the first five through 2016.

    Remember why the Tide went ahead so suddenly? “Free” state money was about to be reprogrammed. By Sentara’s new chief of staff.

    1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      “One references “corporate subsidies” as if it was not the governments of the left that passed them out.”

      I referenced tax cuts for the rich which were financed on the deficit as evidence that Conservatives actually do not care one iota about subsidies as long as the recipients are not poor people of color.

      1. Publius Avatar
        Publius

        Lying…as usual. How much of the so called corporate subsidies you favor go to poor people of color? Even the affirmative action contracting graft with set asides ends up going to wealthy POC…it is a shell game and a bad faith one. A tax cut, which if you aren’t an idiot Marxist is not giving away money, it is taking less away, falls equally at all tax levels. A white million gets the same break as a black million. Your problem with that? No opportunity for graft. But glad you now agree deficits are bad.

        1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
          Eric the half a troll

          The Republican tax cut gifts to the rich overwhelmingly benefit wealthy white folk…. Conservatives want my kids to pay for it. But give poor people of color a break and they become misers.

          1. DJRippert Avatar
            DJRippert

            Please read the linked article. It’s the Democrats in Congress who are trying to overturn Trump’s SALT cap. That cap clearly and unambiguously increases taxes on the top 10% who itemize their deductions.

            https://nationalpost.com/opinion/matt-taibbi-congressional-democrats-heroic-fight-to-save-the-rich

          2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            The SALT cap harms many in the middle class in high tax states. Seems like many GOP reps from those states also favor repeal. Some pretty particular cherry-picking there, btw.

          3. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            No it doesn’t, clearly you’ve not done any research on SALT. SALT only comes into play in VA when someone’s income is above $100K and the median income of a middle class family in VA is ~$93k because of the CoL in NOVA.

            “Some pretty particular cherry-picking there, btw.”

            Says the individual who without cherry=-picking would have even less arguments.

  7. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    “Once upon a time, Virginia built roads and bridges according to the quaint old principle of “pay as you go,” meaning that the state didn’t spend money it didn’t have.”

    Ah yes, the good old days when the majority of paved roads were privately owned and tolled.

    Pay as you go kept Virginia from suffering the ravages of the Great Depression. Well, only in the sense that you couldn’t tell the difference between before, during, and after. It was constantly depressed.

    Not entirely a tongue-in-cheek comment… a history for you,
    https://www.virginiadot.org/about/resources/historyofrds.pdf
    there’s even mention of Steve’s favorite tax. I’m guessing he remembers the 3 cent/gallon.

  8. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    There is something basic about debt whether it’s Govt or private and that is that debt spent is called investment and in the private sector those folks are called investors – and that is indeed how increased production can occur.

    Govt debt also can produce investments.

    The argument is really about whether or not GOOD investments actually result, i.e. increased production, and who benefits from that increased production.

    Tax cuts for the rich enhance their investments and production and wealth gathering.

    Taxes spent on government also can result in increased production in the economy. Building a new bridge where one is needed is a classic example.

    But paying child care for a lower income person can actually produce a worker where there used to be a sit-at-home entitlement taker in much the same way a govt loan to a farmer to buy a combine can increase his/her production.

  9. tmtfairfax Avatar
    tmtfairfax

    Mindless government idiots. Equity says free transit. But what about the hundreds of thousands of lower-income people who drive? I guess that means the progressives have segregated the poor into virtuous (transit) and non-virtuous drivers.

  10. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
    energyNOW_Fan

    Beyond the bickering we have the issue that COVID has thrown a monkey wrench into mass transit planning. The Fed’s (Secretary Buttigieg) has to the job to try to re-start mass transit. In this period of uncertainty, we need to reassess needs, but there will be momentum to continue with pre-COVID spending plans, because Dems like spending

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      so it’s a bit of a conundrum.

      for instance, flying airliners is mass transit.

      and here we have billions of dollars to be spent on transit in NYC –

      ” Two U.S. agencies on Friday said a planned $11.6 billion project to reconstruct and add a new tunnel between New York City and New Jersey reached two key milestones that will allow it to advance and receive federal funding.”

      ” Approximately 450 trains every weekday use the Hudson Tunnel and, before COVID-19, approximately 200,000 daily passenger trips took place.”

      In places like Asia, transit is the predominate mode of travel for most and supposedly, their transit systems make a profit although the govt let’s them develop the area around the stations to help fund the operation.

      But I do agree, we may well need to re-think how transit works.

      But if we are willing to invest in airports – then why not rail and transit?

      Who owns the airports and do they pay for themselves and if so, how?

Leave a Reply