WHAT ARE THEY THINKING?

While vast majority of the correspondence we receive is informative and supportive, on line we hear primarily from the League of Tiger Riders. Their activities were profiled in our last column “Riding the Tiger.”

One has to wonder: “What are they thinking?” On the other hand, it should not be surprising that we do not understand how “Not Ed Risse” and others think.

In a 2 June 2008 post on BR Blog POLITICAL WISDOM AND CONVENTION NOTICE we note a Wilfred Owens quote:

“There are no transport facility (or we always add, transport facility finance schemes) that will solve transport problem – there are only settlement pattern solutions.”

We heard from “Not Ed Risse” at 5:39 PM, he commented:

“Ed Risse’s ultimate nightmare is closer than he thinks.

“Unlimited, cheap, non-polluting fuel!

“Watch this video on TED.

“http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/227

“In early 2008, scientists at the J. Craig Venter Institute announced that they had manufactured the entire genome of a bacterium by painstakingly stitching together its chemical components. By sequencing a genome, scientists can begin to custom-design bootable organisms, creating biological robots that can produce from scratch chemicals humans can use, such as biofuel.

“Human ingenuity and freedom will lead to unimaginable prosperity for everyone.”

Lets go over this remarkable “response” item by item:

“Ed Risse’s ultimate nightmare is closer than he thinks. Unlimited, cheap, non-polluting fuel!”

No, E M Risse’s ultimate nightmare is not there will be “unlimited, cheap, non-polluting fuel” his nightmare is that more than a small minority are foolish enough to believe that “Unlimited, cheap, non-polluting fuel” will make the world a better place in any way, much less preserve the potential of maintaining democracies with market economies.

EMR’s hope is that this minority stays below the 20 percent threshold per the 60 % / 20 % / 20% Rule. About the same percentage as believe that the Earth is flat would be fine.

Not Ed Risse goes on:

“Watch this video on TED.

“http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/227

“In early 2008, scientists at the J. Craig Venter Institute announced that they had manufactured the entire genome of a bacterium by painstakingly stitching together its chemical components. By sequencing a genome, scientists can begin to custom-design bootable organisms, creating biological robots that can produce from scratch chemicals humans can use, such as biofuel.”

Let us all agree that there a lot of smart folks with a lot of great ideas burning through billions in research dollars on what in The Shape of the Future we call “frontier science.” “Frontier science” is the pursuit of arcane answers to cutting edge questions for which someone believes there is a big payoff – not necessarily a big benefit. Among them is Dr. Venter’s team at JCVI.

With respect to “bootable organisms” JCVI has another long, difficult step to achieve their goal.

But if JCVI or someone else on the same track, does completed the quest, where will the feedstock to produce this biofuel come from?

Who will pay for the processes that generates a new fuel?

Who will control the processes?

One thing for sure, the product will not be “cheap.” One might as well count on Brazilians selling its new found petrochemical resources at below market price.

How about the Hydrogen economy? How about cheap nuclear power? Better yet just hope that Thomas Gold was right about spontaneous generation of hydrocarbons. Or perhaps cold fusion, you get the idea…

Finally, “Not Ed Risse” says:

“Human ingenuity and freedom will lead to unimaginable prosperity for everyone.”

Lets look at both ends of this “freedom and unimaginable prosperity for everyone” pipe dream.

On the front end, long ago, right here on Planet Earth humans had wonderful biological robots that did just what Dr. Venter would like these new ones to do. These servants of man spent tens of millions of years creating a cheap – and if intelligently used – non-polluting fuel. What happened?

Humans have burned through most of the easy-to-access Natural Capital including the work of these microscopic petrochemical beavers in a little over a hundred years. To make matters worse – much worse – humans polluted the air, water and marine resources in the process.

What is more, humans and their Organizations do not have the collective intelligence to conserve (as in to be “conservative” about resource consumption) what is left of the petrochemical reserves for important products like pharmaceuticals and specialty materials. Instead humans, especially in the US of A are wasting it on needless to-ing and fro-ing to overcome dysfunctional settlement human patterns.

Note: Human settlement patterns were made dysfunctional to meet the short-term interest of a few at the expense of the many and this in spite of what the market would support if citizens were offered a choice.

On the other end of the “freedom and unimaginable prosperity for everyone” pipe dream:

What has the last 35 years (since the 1973 Wake-Up Call that was ignored) of unprecedented wealth and consumption done for “freedom and unimaginable prosperity for everyone?”

Well for starters the top five percent of the economic and social Ziggurat have gotten much richer but not much happier.

The middle forty five percent are Running As Hard As They Cans (RHTCs). They have run up record setting debt and have been responsible for most of the resource burn. RHTCs are clearly not “better off” than their parents were in the 60s. Back then, one could pay for a year of college with a summers work fighting fires and clearing trails. One could buy a good car with a summers work in a grocery store.

RHTCs own bigger-than-they-need houses, many in dysfunctional locations, and own dozens of “must have” gadgets. No single person on the cutting edge of “prosperity” knows how to use all the “modern technology” that they already own, much less all the new technology and other consumption items that MainStream Media advertising tells them they “need.”

What is worse, these RHTCs are not better off – not better educated, not healthier, not longer living and not happier – than citizens in other First World nation-states that have spent half as much of that “cheap” fuel.

And the bottom 50 percent of the economic and social Ziggurat?

By some measures, some citizens are, thankfully, better off. But most are falling farther and farther behind. The Wealth Gap is widening at an alarming rate. The Quality of Life is eroding and the ladders to self improvement are rotting away.

You may have noticed that citizens are demanding “change.” If one understands what happens in democracies that create conditions of massive disparity it is clear that it will not be long before over 51 percent will vote for demigods who promise easy solutions. That will end the gravy train for all but those on the “central committee.”

Humans have not shown the ability to achieve “freedom and unimaginable prosperity for everyone” with the resources they have burned through since 1870. What would cause “Not Ed Risse,” or anyone else, to think they will do better with some new gift house, if one actually arrives?

What are the members of the League of Tiger Riders thinking?

What is even more scary is that everyday comes a new barrage of misinformation and emotionally loaded defenses of Business As Usual and the mantra of the Tiger Riders. (See the discussion of Institutions in THE ESTATES MATRIX.

Have a nice weekend.

EMR


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

  1. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “his nightmare is that more than a small minority are foolish enough to believe that “Unlimited, cheap, non-polluting fuel” will make the world a better place in any way,”

    Well, I prefer cheap fuel to hard manual labor. I think it makes my world a better place.

    This weekend I burned 50 gallons of fuel. The equivanet labor or production would have cost much more, any other way.

    RH

  2. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “are wasting it on needless to-ing and fro-ing “

    Agreed. Now, who gets to decide what is needless?

    ———————-

    “Well for starters the top five percent of the economic and social Ziggurat have gotten much richer but not much happier.”

    I really don’t spend too much time worrying about the happeiness level of people who are a thousand or more times well off than I am.

    ————————

    “The middle forty five percent…. have run up record setting debt “

    In the face of record setting inflation, debt might be a good strategy. You act like debt is necessarily bad.

    ——————————

    “a new barrage of misinformation and emotionally loaded defenses”

    I’ll say.

    RH

  3. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    I agree with EMR about the wealth gap and the inevitable consequences of that gap. However, I wonder about human settlement patterns being a big part of the solution. Beyond that, I believe the wealth gap needs to be solved long before a more rational settlement plan can be implemented. For example, there is a trend among Americans of European extraction to apply for dual citizenship with the European country of their heritage. Of course, as a citizen in any EU country you can live in any other EU country. America is aging. That’s a demographic fact. However, the wealth is aging faster and this is a bigger issue. If you look at the percentage of national wealth held by Americans of different age levels – the older are getting richer relative to the younger over time. The biggest socio-economic change is the shift in wealth to the elderly (or relatively elderly). The elderly retire, they stop getting salaries, they have more flexibility as to where (and how) they live.

    Bottom line – it’s not the Top 5%ers vs. the RHTCs. It is the Americans aged 20 – 40 vs. Americans aged 41 – 60. And the capital owned by those in retirement or close to retirement is mobile. So, first you have a wide wealth gap. Then, 51% of the population elects a demigod. Then, the elderly wealthy move their capital (and, perhaps, themselves) to countries that don’t have a demigod as president / prime minister. Then, the US is done.

    Tell me where I am wrong here.

  4. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I long since decided I should retire elsewhere. As you point out, it makes good economic sense. But I think you and I are more comfortable with other societies than many Americans, who are unlikely to leave “home”.

    Still, there are large expat communities in Mexico, Costa Rica, and even Poland. I wonder if that will continue as the dollar continues to slide?

    RH

  5. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “unimaginable prosperity for everyone”

    Despite the wealth gap, You don’t think that the prosperity of a loborer today would have been unimaginable to a laborer of 500, 200, or even 75 years ago?

    RH

  6. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    And this is one of the the areas where I really have agruments with some on this board – countries compete. They compete for everything. They compete for capital. They compete to be location for production. They compete for brain power. And they will soon be competing for the capital of relatively elderly retired people.

    Some on this blog believe that Virginia can stand still and yet prosper. It can’t. It’s a lot easier to lose jobs then to get them back. Ask Buffalo, NY.

    Economic stagnation = economic death in a globally competitive world where capital is mobile.

    I constantly read how we need to slow or stop development. Those are code words for slowing or stopping economic growth. That will be suicidal for Virginia. Look at California. They knew what they didn’t want (congestion, over-development) but they never figured out what they did want. That state (sadly) seems to be in a free fall.

    Assuming the “no growthers” succeed and create an economic “dead zone” in Virginia – what will happen?

    The jobs will leave.
    The tax base will shrink.
    The public services will get worse.
    The education system – at all levels – will decline.
    The people with “mobile wealth” will leave.
    Lather, rinse, repeat.

    If the “descendants of Pocohontas” manage to choke growth in Virginia, I’ll sell my house for what I can get, take my money and move to Ireland. My kids have sufficient trusts to let them move somewhere that the “political class” hasn’t ruined their future. They can come visit me in Ireland.

    What will you do?

    More importantly, what will your children do?

  7. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    “Despite the wealth gap, You don’t think that the prosperity of a loborer today would have been unimaginable to a laborer of 500, 200, or even 75 years ago?”.

    Today’s laborer is much better off than the laborer of the past – especially of you measure in hundreds of years. The problem is that there are so few laborers as a percentage of the population. Five guys digging a ditch get replaced by one guy driving a backhoe. That’s progress. Unless you are among the four guys who used to have a job digging. One hope is that they all get jobs driving backhoes. But that pre-supposes the need for lots of ditches. When there is strong economic growth – maybe. When there is economic stagnation – no way.

    RH – I agree with you about cultural issues with many Americans going to other countries to retire. Most won’t. But, under an ever widening wealth gap, a small percentage of Americans can move a large percentage of the wealth.

    Then what?

  8. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “I constantly read how we need to slow or stop development. Those are code words for slowing or stopping economic growth.

    Assuming the “no growthers” succeed and create an economic “dead zone” in Virginia – what will happen?”

    In my copius free time this weekend I attended a cookout for the graduating children of several local families.

    In the face of yet another no-growth initiative in Fauquier, the father of one of the children asked virtually the same question.

    “Sooner or later”, he said “these people will begin to see the results of what they are doing. Then it is going to be a big Oh S___ moment.”

    And this is a guy that can afford to do pretty much as he pleases.

    ——————————

    “I’ll sell my house for what I can get”

    Precisely.

    I’ve been told (by an active practitioner) that is the real name of the no-growth game: get land cheap, for those that have enough money they don’t need to care about growth.

    RH

  9. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “One hope is that they all get jobs driving backhoes. But that pre-supposes the need for lots of ditches.”

    Or repairing backhoes. But that presupposes a higher level of skills.

    RH

  10. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Omigod. The world is a petri dish and we are running out of agar.

    Let’s draw a clear edge around so we won’t use the agar on the outside.

    Fewer people get to use more resources.

    Like Groveton said, “What’s so hard to understand about this spiral?”

  11. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    The problems currently facing the United States will, sometime within in the next 20 years, precipitate a crisis. So, what differentiates a crisis from a national calamity? The willingness and ability to change.

    Many will say that the US can’t change because its institutions are a hidebound series of organizations controlled by special interests. Real change would require a bunch of amendments to the US Constitution and the “business as usual” special interests will never agree. They control Congress and they will block any wholesale change.

    Fortunately for us, the framers of the US Consititution envisioned the possibility of an unresponsive national Congress. Therefore, they provided two different ways to modify the Constitution within Article V:

    Two thirds of both houses must approve an amendment – then it goes to the states. Then, three quarters of the states must approve.

    Two thirds of state legislatures call for a constitutional convention, which must be held. Amendments are agreed to by the state delegations and then are sent to the states. Three quarters of the states must approve.

    Here is the actual text:

    The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

    I predict that the question of proposing a new constitutional convention will begin to be asked of candidates to the state legislature in many states.

    What say ye? I say it’s time.

  12. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Willingness and ability to change.

    The Ability to change is a technical matter: do we have an energy source to switch to, for example

    The Willingness to change is an economic matter: is this worth doing; what are the trade-offs?

    I don’t see this becoming a constitutional issue, however there may be a time when government can offer very little help with either the ability or willingness to change. AS EMR says, we are squandering the resources we will need to pay for change.

    This is going to come as great shock to some.

    The irony is, that the more the wealth gap widens, the more Republicans will become responsible for a bigger welfare state.

    RH

  13. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “An excerpt from Charles Krauthammer:

    You want more fuel-efficient cars? Don’t regulate. Don’t mandate. Don’t scold. Don’t appeal to the better angels of our nature. Do one thing: Hike the cost of gas until you find the price point.

    Unfortunately, instead of hiking the price ourselves by means of a gasoline tax that could be instantly refunded to the American people in the form of lower payroll taxes, we let the Saudis, Venezuelans, Russians and Iranians do the taxing for us — and pocket the money that the tax would have recycled back to the American worker.

    This is insanity….

    But instead of doing the obvious — tax the damn thing — we go through spasms of destructive alternatives, such as efficiency standards, ethanol mandates, and now a crazy carbon cap-and-trade system the Senate is debating this week. These are infinitely complex mandates for inefficiency and invitations to corruption. But they have a singular virtue: They hide the cost to the American consumer.

    Want to wean us off oil? Be open and honest.”

    “we let the Saudis, Venezuelans, Russians and Iranians do the taxing for us ”

    And now the Australians.

    “But instead of doing the obvious — tax the damn thing — we go through spasms of destructive alternatives, such as efficiency standards, ethanol mandates, and now a crazy carbon cap-and-trade system”

    Oh yeah, and an expensive, bureaucratic toll system.

    —————————–

    Meanwhile new York has added four additonal people to its team of under cover pooper scooper snoopers to write tickets to those who don’t clean up after their dogs.

    Unfortunately, it is so hard to catch people doing this that each under cover agent writes an avarge of one $200 ticket a day.

    The law was originally passed at the insistence that dog poop spread ringworm among poor children. This is true, but much less prevalent than originally claimed.

    ————————-

    Just two examples of how we waste resources.

    RH

    Krauthammer quotes from Greg Minkiw’s blog.

  14. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “The structure and regulation of an economy is conceptually separable from tax and transfer policy. Of course, it is really all one system, and taxes and transfers affect economic performance by affecting labor supply, etc., but this is relatively distinct from the body of law that defines the parameters and rules of the economic game. You could in principle have buck-wild laissez faire together with fairly high taxes and lavish social insurance. Nobody does do this, exactly, but it’s possible.

    Optimize the basic economic structure for maximizing wealth creation, not for creating a pattern of distribution, and then use the political institutions to take care of redistribution after the wealth is created. Because then there will be more wealth.”

    Will Wilkinson, from Division of Labor Blog.

    EMR (and Larry) seem to like what Mike Hammock calls “stick-it-to-the-man bias,” which is to say that “it surely won’t cost me anything to force this guy to do this thing for me via regulation.”

    People notice taxes, but the costs of regulation are harder to see.

    As Groveton points out, the result of regulation is less wealth. That is not necessarily the same as less inequality in the distribution of wealth.

    RH

  15. Darrell -- Chesapeake Avatar
    Darrell — Chesapeake

    You need to reconsider that Constitutional Convention idea. You think we have problems with politicians now? Heck, look at the mess with delegates for the party. If you give them the opportunity to change the constitution, can you imagine the crooked crap that would go on? Unlike an Amendment for a specific subject, a Convention is free to alter any and all of the original framework. We really don’t want to go down that road.

  16. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Darrell:

    You may be right. However, the alternative seems to be “no change”. There have only been 5 amendments ratified over the last 57 years.

    23rd (1961) DC residents vote for president.

    24th (1964) No poll taxes.

    25th (1965) Presidential succession, temporary removal of President, etc

    26th (1971) 18 years old to vote

    27th (1992) Congress can’t vote itself a pay raise (pay raises do not apply until the next term)

    Only 2 of these amendments were substantial (24th and 26th).

    I see two possible explanations:

    1. There is no basis for change (contrary to what the founding fathers wrote – into the Constitution and elsewhere).

    2. The necessary changes are being made by other means. Like Congres usurping power through scams like the interstate commerce clause or the Supreme Court designating itself a legislative body.

    Drastic problems call for drastic solutions.

    Interesting side notes to the 24th Amendment –

    When the amendment was passed (1964) only 5 states had poll taxes. Needless to say, Virginia was one of the 5 miscreants.

    The “descendants of Pocohontas” weren’t stopped by a mere amendment to the US Constitution. It took a Supreme Court case in 1966 to finally establish the extent of the law against poll taxes in Virginia. Ann Harper, a Virginia resident, filed suit against the state of Virginia for being required to pay a tax to register to vote. It seems the “descendants of Pocohontas” figured they could get around the poll tax amendment by taxing registration to vote. The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of Ms. Harper writing, “a state violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution whenever it makes the affluence of the voter or payment of any fee an electoral standard. Voter qualifications have no relation to wealth.”.

    Those of you who think that the “descendants of Pocohontas” have stopped playing their games in Rich Mound ignore a vast body of history.

  17. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: taxing (or tolling) for effect

    so Ray thinks it’s okay to tax the bejesus out of gasoline but not toll the bejesus out of folks to achieve the same result?

    why are taxes okay and tolls not?

    re: change

    I’m with Darrel on this…

    I’m not opposed to change but would point out that yes.. we still do live in a Democracy where elected officials still do (at least pretend) to represent citizens and yes.. we do see folks who insist on being a Bush-lover get summarily thrown under the bus – with relish…

    so..the system does work.. in some kind of a fashion… and tinkering with it.. needs to be an arduous process – as the folks who set it up (our forefathers) .. did set it up.

    If we think other countries are better.. I’d invite you to where Chiquita bananas was doing business.. and HORRORS.. the had to pay bribes to guerrillas to stay in business….

    but in this country, we are so much more civilized.. we just pay bribes to our elected without any messy bloodshed…

    🙂

  18. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Well, I prefer cheap fuel to hard manual labor. I think it makes my world a better place.”

    If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. Wm S.

    Get over it. There is no source for “cheap fuel,” None.

    There are alternative sources but NONE are “cheap” now and they never will be.

    Anon Zeus

  19. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “are wasting it on needless to-ing and fro-ing “

    Agreed. Now, who gets to decide what is needless?

    You may recall that a fair allocation of all location-variable costs will solve that problem.

    Tired of RH’s tritness

  20. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: no sources of “cheap” fuel

    let’s clarify

    what is not true:

    it is NOT true that fuel is so expensive that we cannot afford to use it – period – for anything.

    Fuel IS more expensive than it used to be and yes.. some… SOME things may no longer show a positive gain from using fuel over labor but that certainly leaves a whole bunch of territory… where even more expensive fuel is still cost effective – even if more expensive.

    No one.. I repeat no one is going to get rid of backhoes and go back to men with shovels even if fuel toes to $10 a gallon.

    I think we lose perspective on these issues .. and have a tendency to approach these issues as binary in their effect.

    What happens to the price of pickles when they are shipped and gasoline goes up 25%?

    He’s what won’t happen.

    What won’t happen is that we no longer can afford to ship pickles so no.. the world with respect to pickles will not change forever because of fuel prices.

    Further – what percentage of the price of pickles is due to fuel anyhow?

    It’s not 100% for sure.

    Second, what happens if, in response to higher fuel prices, pickles are shipped in lighter weight containers.. with less volume and liquid?

    re: needless

    the person who decides “needless” is not a judge or anyone acting in behalf of people .. the person who decides “needless” is the person who spends the money for the service/product.

    as such… it will be the folks who “needlessly to and fro” who will actually decide if their “to and fro-ing” is “needless”..

    … not some planner .. no some elected official..

    .. so.. if long-distance commuting …solo at rush hour everyday is thought to be needless “to-ing and fro-ing” and “unfair” allocation of location-variable costs – one is entitled to such an opinon

    ..but the folks who actually do the commute will make the actual decision…

    and .. it won’t be to no longer commute…

    let me repeat.. it will not be – to no longer commute…

    and .. it will not be to move closer to work…

    let me repeat.. some (many?) will NOT choose to move closer to work.

    Some (many?) may well choose from dozens of options, those options that reduce their net fuel costs while still doing their commute.

    The most obvious way is to either carpool or hop on a bus or vanpool.

    Buses and Vans ARE.. very flexible..mass transit…

    you don’t need rails and you don’t need fixed stations with fixed “headways”.

    the responses to higher fuel prices will not be binary.

    We will not suddenly go from a society that commutes to/from suburbia to one that lives in dense settlement patterns…

    .. no matter how fervently.. those that believe that “needless” to-ing and fro-ing is wrong, wasteful, immoral, (choose your favorite sin) needs to stop.

    I get weary from the dogma about things like this – that emanate from – both sides…

    It’s not about what we think is “right” .. it’s about realities and the reality is that fuel, the availability of fuel and it’s costs is NOT binary….

    there is no “on” and “off” spigot.

    the world as we know it – will not end – if fuel goes to even $10.00 a gallon.

    My view is that those that think this need to “get a grip”…

    In 2020, when gasoline actually is $10 or perhaps even $20 a gallon – there will STILL be folks who commute from scatterization suburbia and the Jetson world of dense urbanity will still be a cartoon.

    trust me.

  21. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    “so Ray thinks it’s okay to tax the bejesus out of gasoline but not toll the bejesus out of folks to achieve the same result?

    why are taxes okay and tolls not?”.

    Larry – I can only assume that you are just being a pain in the butt. You know the answer:

    A gas tax would apply to everybody who buys gas (i.e. all “users”). The tolls, as envisioned in Virginia, apply to only to a tiny, tiny percentage of the drivers.

    Something like the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) tax would be fine and dandy. However, selling a tiny, tiny percentage of the public’s roads to private enterprise respresents another confiscatory tax on a very few citizens – regardless of their economic status.

  22. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    “so..the system does work.. in some kind of a fashion… and tinkering with it.. needs to be an arduous process – as the folks who set it up (our forefathers) .. did set it up.”.

    The framers didn’t think it would be an ardous process. They thought it would happen on a regular basis.

    For example:

    “No society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation…”

    Charlottesville resident Thomas Jefferson

    “It would give me singular pleasure to see first announced in the proceedings of the U. States, and always kept in their view, as a salutary curb on the living generation from imposing unjust or unnecessary burdens on their successors.”.

    Orange resident James Madison

    “The warmest friends and best supporters the Constitution has, do not contend that it is free from imperfections; but they found them unavoidable and are sensible, if evil is likely to arise there from, the remedy must come hereafter; for in the present moment it is not to be obtained…”.

    NoVA resident George Washington

    ” … and, whenever any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to those purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, inalienable, and indefensible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such a manner as shall be judged most conductive to the public weal.”

    NoVA resident George Mason, writing in reference to Virginia’s Consitiution

    The Virginia based framers of both the Virginia and US Constitution felt that the document was imperfect and would be changed frequently. In one memorable quote, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “…every lay, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not an act of right.”.

    The idea that the framers of the Constitution thought of their work as a divinely inspired, inviolate document is a modern myth.

  23. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    And it is a myth perpetuated by the entrenched “political class” who stand to benefit from a continuance of the status quo.

    If reform were in the interests of the existing “political class” they would be undertaking such reform on an unrestrained basis. Rather, they dig mental and philosophical fox holes in which to hide. In some ways, the fact that Constitutional reform has been slow – especially in modern days – is evidence that reform should be embraced by those outside the established “political class” because it is so abhorrent to those inside the established “political class”.

  24. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “respresents another confiscatory tax on a very few citizens – regardless of their economic status.”

    doesn;t the Virginia constitution have something to say to the effect that taxes have to be levied equally?

    RH

  25. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “No society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation…”

    Which is why some states have laws against perpetual conservation easements. When the county buys building rights and turns them over to a nongovernment agency in the form of conservation easements, the supervisors are effectivel abdicating their obligation to manage land use, for themselves and all their successors.

    RH

  26. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: butt pain et al

    “A gas tax would apply to everybody who buys gas (i.e. all “users”). The tolls, as envisioned in Virginia, apply to only to a tiny, tiny percentage of the drivers.”

    a toll would apply to anyone and everyone who benefited from a road that would not be possible without tolls.

    The idea of the gas tax or even a VMT tax while it seems equitable is not equitable if those revenues are not allocated back to those who pay on at least a proportional basis.

    Worse – it leads to neverending advocacies to INCREASE taxes because what has already been collected was deemed not sufficient for “needs” – where “needs” are not those defined by the folk who actually paid the taxes but instead.. unelected and unelected folks who determine those “needs” by … NOT using a rational need-based process but instead arbitrary and politically-influenced methods.

    Groveton -you’re the guy who said that the best taxes are those that are collected locally where citizens have a better opportunity to see how they are spent.

    Perhaps, Groveton and I both AGREE that a State level gas tax should be replaced (done away with) by a local option gasoline tax where each locality and region can decide how much they want to pay for.

    Are not tolls the “ultimate” in local taxation where those that pay essentially don’t even have to wait until the next election to say no to more….

    What I consider to be “confiscatory” is taking the money I pay for gas tax and never properly accounting for it.

    Bob and Ray and Groveton – all 3 talk about how transportation money is “diverted” and not spent for it’s intended purposes.

    Would ya’ll not agree that ..that is essentially taking money under false pretenses?

    do ya’ll really think “reform” will change this?

    I don’t.. and that’s why I think the current gas-tax mechanism is so broke that it needs to be trashed completely.

    Hey.. even the top DOT official in the country – Mary Peters says this also.

    I actually think.. most of us agree, that the current road funding tax methods – to include ALL the various taxes on autos is broke…..

    every tax on autos .. no matter where it is assessed or how it is assessed …ends up in the same …broken process.. where someone else decides to take your money and spend it on something you don’t agree with – like transit.

    and yet.. you continue to support this process as more “fair” than tolls.

    why?

    why stick with a system that you agree ..is broke?

  27. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “There are alternative sources but NONE are “cheap” now and they never will be.”

    As long as fuel is cheaper than hard manual labor, it will always be cheap. Cost is a hard number, but value is relative. You believe that high prices for urban residences show that this is what the market wants. High prices for fuel, then, must show that the market wants fuel.

    I think that the market wants cheap fuel and affordable homes, but they aren’t available, so people make accommodation.

    ————————–

    “You may recall that a fair allocation of all location-variable costs will solve that problem.”

    I recall that someone said that. I don’t recall that it has ever been shown to be true. Even if it is true, all you’v done is substittute te problem of who decides what is “needless” travel for the problem of who decides what is a fair price for location variable costs.

    A fair price is what willing parties will agree to at a given place and time, so the idia of location variable costs is an oxymoron to begin with. We already have a system for establishing prices.

    I’m truly sorry you think being sensible, and favoring freedom, is trite.

    RH

  28. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “a toll would apply to anyone and everyone who benefited from a road that would not be possible without tolls.”

    logical fallacy.

    Come on Larry, you know better than that. This is no argument at all.

    RH

  29. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: political reform in Va.

    Groveton – if you want to give more power to citizens in Va and at the same time take power away from those that are currently abusing it…

    consider – a citizen campaign to get the right of citizen-initiated referenda.

    In states where this is allowed.. there are the occasional messy referenda involving inappropriate questions but in the main – the rights of citizens to hold overrule legislators is a powerful democratic tool.

    We need it in Virginia to counter the so-called “free speech” money that runs rampant in our GA.

    The citizens “free speech” is the ability to petition referenda.

    That single thing – a single movement across Virginia could accomplish what you advocate…

    …. and the first step is advisory referenda – conducted by citizens at the polls on election day…

    … we’ve done that locally.. and the results encouraged the BOS to act on issues that they were reluctant to act on prior to seeing those poll results.

  30. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Buses and Vans ARE.. very flexible..mass transit…”

    So are carpools, but they have all failed, in a sense, because the “price” (in labor mostly) is still too high.

    Eventually high fuel prices will cause a shift, because that labor gets cheaper and cheaper (relatively speaking).

    RH

  31. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    a “shift” will occur not because of cheaper labor.. but because sharing vehicles is cheaper than solo-driven vehicles.

    How do this have anything at all to do with “labor”…

    perhaps I’m missing your point.

  32. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    “a toll would apply to anyone and everyone who benefited from a road that would not be possible without tolls.”

    Illogical. All roads are possible without tolls if taxes are raised sufficiently. No roads are possible without tolls if taxes are eliminated for transportation.

    If you like selling public roads to private enterprise – let’s do it at scale. Virginia should offer all the roads for sale. It will be an auction. All roads can be purchased. All over the state. If no private enterprises bid on a particular road, then the state has to continue maintenance and provide new construction from the tax base.

    Larry – the fatal flaw in your argument is that this idea should only be implemented “elsewhere”. It is a lousy idea and you know it. Yet it allows you and your neighbors to preserve an inadequate gasoline tax that hasn’t been raised in 20+ years. On the day you send a letter to your state representatives asking that the roads in Fredricksburg be sold to private enterprise – I’ll stop arguing with you. But that day will never come becuase you’d never personally agree to this scam.

    “Groveton -you’re the guy who said that the best taxes are those that are collected locally where citizens have a better opportunity to see how they are spent.

    Perhaps, Groveton and I both AGREE that a State level gas tax should be replaced (done away with) by a local option gasoline tax where each locality and region can decide how much they want to pay for.”.

    OK by me but the monies raised have to stay in-region. By Constitutional amendment. I don’t trust the GA (surprise, surprise).

    In response to your post entitled, “re: political reform in Va.” – I agree. However, I noticed that the Democratic candidates for Delegate in the last election (Vanderhye and Sullivan) both agreed that referenda were “unnecessary” during their primary (non) debate. The Republican candidate never mentioned the matter that I saw.

    How did you get an advisory referendum on the ballot in your neck of the woods? What is the process?

  33. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: gas taxes verses tolls

    how about if the choice is sales taxes, property taxes, extra fees on autos verses tolls?

    you guys keeping talking about gas taxes but the reality is virtually all of the increased taxes and fees collected from autos ..ostensibly to be used for auto infrastructure – has NOT been the gas tax.

    Given this reality and your choice is sales (and other taxes) verses tolls.. do you still choose TOLLS?

  34. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    drat! .. do you still choose TAXES (of any flavor except the gas tax) over tolls?

    Make the case for a sales tax rather than tolls..

  35. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “the gas tax or even a VMT tax while it seems equitable is not equitable if those revenues are not allocated back “

    They are allocated from statewide sources to statewide priorities, so thay are allocated back. You just don’t like the allocation. or the process for allocation.

    I agree that we need a better way to set priorities, but to do that we need to understand and agree on who benefits from state roads that anyone can use freely. No one seems to be willing to even undertake that process or discussion.

    I think it is because they know there is no way it can support their particular agenda as well as they would like. They want something for nothing. They want more than what they can get by spreading the money around even halfway fairly. This is about power.

    If you really believe that only those who ay the toll benefit from roads built from their money, then what you have is an extremely strict allocation scheme, one that offers no flexibility as opposed to the present scheme which (may) offer too much.

    Considering what it will cost, I don’t see this as any improvement at all.

    The best taxes are those that are collected locally where citizens have a better opportunity to see how they are spent, but those taxes face a much higher hurdle when it comes to sufficiency. It is much harder and more painful to raise all the money locally for big projects. Fundamentally, it means that needed projects will NEVER get built, which is the true goal of some who argue for only local taxes for local spending. It is APF on steroids: a way to prevent more than enable.

    The gas tax accounting may be sloppy, but that doesn’t make it more or less confiscatory. You think it is sloppy because you can’t see where YOUR dollar goes and whether it goes to YOUR district. But that was never the process in place.

    Sure, I may not agree that money taken from motorists is used for transit, but it is still transportation. What I don’t agree with is taking money from motorists and then acting like they don’t pay their way.

    But with tolls we will ostensibly put “user fees” in place to pay for specific projects, and still divert the money unaccountably. It is all a shell game anyway, as we have seen with regions that get increased state school funds, and then lower their local taxes.

    You assume the present system is broke, and then ask why say with it, but that assumption is not proven: we do not know how the benefits flow from the free state transportation system.

    But that is apparent is that the new system will be no less broken, and it will cost a few people a whole lot more. The system itself will be more expensive, even if it becomes somewhat more universal.

    That, by itself, makes it more unfair, and less cost effective.

    I don’t care how many high powered executives are sucking on the toll road bong, they are all blowing the same toxic smoke. I have no problem standing toe to toe, nose to nose with any of them and tell them they are wrong on this: it will cost more and provide NONE of the promised benefits. It is a stupid way to deal with unused HOV and breakdown lane capacity.

    If you recall, we had a long and determined history of prominent people who thought that isolationism was the right idea. Isolationism with respect to roadways, is no better.

    Larry, a toll IS a tax. Get over it. The same projects cost the same money and it comes out of our pocket. What you name it makes no difference whatsoever. The only thing dumber than the tolls is property taxes: it makes no sense to tax capital. Tax the cash flow on freely traded transactions: that is all the money that is really avalailable.

    And despite what you claim, a toll tax is NOT a freely traded transaction.

    RH

  36. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    you guys keeping talking about gas taxes but the reality is virtually all of the increased taxes and fees collected from autos ..ostensibly to be used for auto infrastructure – has NOT been the gas tax.

    No, you are the one that keeps saying the gas tax can’t pay the bills. We are the ones that keep saying that it doesn’t, and was never ntended to. We use a variety of sources to keep the base as broad as possible for a reason: one that toll advocates conveniently ignore.

    RH

  37. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    It’s not tools vs. taxes, it’s narrow vs. broad.

    If the tolls were used on a widespread basis to generate revenue – that could be fine. But they are not planned for widespread implementation. They are planned for narrow implementation.

    The gas tax was supposed to be the major source for transportation funding and it hasn’t increased in 20+ years. Meanwhile, the costs of maintenance and construction have increased – a lot. That’s the problem.

  38. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    nice try… but you are avoiding the question.. methinks

    Does a sales/property tax fit the equitable ideals that you cite for a gas tax or VMT tax?

    this is an important question as Bob has cited and you agree about the “abuses” of collected property taxes on cars but not spending it on infrastructure for cars.

    Should the sales tax be collected from everyone regardless of how much they drive to pay for car infrastructure?

    Does that fulfill the intent of taxing gasoline?

    Do you not ..have to step away from the equitable aspects of the gas tax if you support the sales tax?

    If you compared on an equitable nexus basis the sales tax verses tolls.. which better meets the definition of “user pays”..

    see.. I keep asking the question about Kaine’s one billion dollar budget – in terms of do we need it and second.. where should the money come from..

    should the money come from the sales tax?

  39. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    In Fact – how about this..

    RANK the various taxes (tolls) as to which ones BEST meet the goal of “user pays”.

    Here are your choices:

    gas tax
    sales tax
    tolls
    real estate tax
    property taxes
    income tax (General Fund)
    license fees

  40. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    In order – primarily from the broadest to the narowest.

    Sales tax – roads are all about commerce

    Income tax – income is derived from commerce

    Gas tax – A narrower form of sales tax, but also an nducement for conservation

    Property tax (on income producing property) – revenue producing trucks, ahould pay more, and at least it is a little related to commerce.

    Real esate tax (on income producing property) – roads and commerce and land use are inseparable. If it is income producintg prperty, tax the income, not the property. If it isn;t income producintg property, then this is really an income tax, so tax income and keep things simple.

    License Fees – these are user fees for obtaining the license, not revenue sources. If it is a user fee, it isn;t a revenue source, unless you ae overcharging.

    Twenty years ago, mass transit was hardly an issue. If we want people to have choices then we should have a broad tax base, so that user pays does not artificially lower the choices.

    RH

  41. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    How about this?

    Whatever your EZ pass expenditures are become deductible from your state taxes.

    Local users still pay for local roads, but the rest of the state doesn’t get to glom onto the rest of the taxes they pay.

    Since the EZ pass fares are deductible, it is revenue neutral and the tolls are not a new tax.

    Everybody happy?

    Only problem?

    No new money.

    RH

  42. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    you weaseled…

    I asked you to RANK them according to which ones best met the true definition of user-pays and you basically did a rope-a-dope blather.

    try again.

    re: EZ-pass

    I’d support something along those same lines – conceptually – depending on some specifics.

    For instance, I’d not allow ALL of the tolls to be written off.

    You get a standard exemption and it’s up to you to figure our how to maximize it’s benefit to yourself.

    I’d also allow people who use LESS to keep some..i.e. a refund…

    Part of the problem with the congestion pricing paradigm is that excess revenues are gained from congestion – and that money not necessarily plowed back into congestion reducing infrastructure or.. some folks will claim that it is – but it’s horribly un-cost-effective.

    How much of the congestion tolls should be REQUIRED to be plowed back into the road that is tolled and how much should be used for other purposes?

    and if it is a trade off between rebating the excess revenues to the EZ-pass folks and spending it on other demand reduction measures how is that decided and by what criteria?

    Right now.. it appears to me in the DTR case and the HOT Lane case that the decisions about how to equitably distribute the excess congestion revenues are not based on any well-known, well-understood criteria..

    I mean.. for instance, who decided the “cut” for Metro and VRE?

    What process was used and what criteria was followed?

    It seems pretty arbitrary to me.

    don’t forget to rank the taxes…

  43. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I put them in order, you want numbers on them, too?

    RH

  44. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “and if it is a trade off between rebating the excess revenues to the EZ-pass folks and spending it on other demand reduction measures how is that decided and by what criteria?

    Right now.. it appears to me in the DTR case and the HOT Lane case that the decisions about how to equitably distribute the excess congestion revenues are not based on any well-known, well-understood criteria..

    I mean.. for instance, who decided the “cut” for Metro and VRE?”

    Finally.

    That’s the question I have been asking. People like me get paid to figure that stuff out.

    The right answer is the one that produces the most public benefit at the lowest cost, and also minmizes arbitrary wealth transfer.

    Right now, we not only don’t have a way or procedure to figure that out, we don’t even have a mechanism in place to agree how to decide what the procedure whould be.

    If we had that, then the tolls/taxes argument would be moot. Most rational people would agree, in the end, that the formula pretty much means that everyone has opportunities, and no one gets screwed.

  45. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    rank that NOT from the widest to the narrowest but according to how they each .. BEST MEET the basic tenets of “user pays” – for ROADS.

    In other words, you and Groveton and Bob claim that the gas tax is far superior to tolls in terms of “user pays” and so I am asking you if the other taxes..like sales taxes and are also better.

    If the gas tax is NOT one of the available choices what would be the next best available way to charge for roads that best meets the concept of “user pays”?

    Do you think the sales tax is a superior “user pays” way of funding roads than tolls?

    Should we have instead, not put tolls on the CBBT and instead pay for it out of the State sales tax as a better “user pays” method?

  46. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: “The right answer is the one that produces the most public benefit at the lowest cost, and also minmizes arbitrary wealth transfer.”

    geeze louise Ray.. how the heck do you figure this out?

    is your answer that we can’t do tolls until we figure it out?

    and if this is how you want to figure the equity for tolls then how come you don’t want to follow this same procedure for gas taxes?

  47. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “how the heck do you figure this out?”

    There is a whole industry that works on this stuff. Unfortunately they mostly work for special interests.

    First you have to get people to agree that this is a reasonable goal for government to attempt.

    At present, government is ONLY allowed to make decisions based on their effect on government coffers: neither individual nor collective well being comes into play, except when a mob appears at a public hearing.

    With tolls, there is nothing to figure out, because the answer is so obvious. it isn’t high enough on the list to spend much energy examining.

    Otherwise, it is just as you say; you make a list of tasks and prioritize them, according to a set of rational rules, known to provide good (but not perfect) results.

    You do not need perfect information to do this, but it helps if you at least have a range of uncertainty for the data you do have.

    You won’t always get a perfect answer, but the procedure needs to be rigorous enough so that reasonable people can agree that the process isn’t totally crooked. That means you need some target for how close the answers need to be, and a budget for running the procedure.

    Consider the recent power line problem.

    The principal benefit is the same no matter what route the power line takes: more ability to transmit power where it is needed.

    Absent major geographic hurdles, the cost of the power line itself is so much a mile, the more it deviates from a straight line, the more it costs, now and in future transmission losses.

    After that, it is just a real estate problem. The best way to work this is to assume that you had to buy every parcel that is significantly affected. (The Coase Theorem syas it doesn’t matter who has the property rights, as long as they are assigned to someone, the same ultimate solution will be reached.)

    You can sketch in a few routes and figure the construction cost and transmission loss costs for each.

    Then, look up the properties that are for sale or have been sold along each route, to get an average price. Add up the costs for all the properties needed for each route, and add it to the other costs.

    The lowest total is the one that will have the least impact on electric bills. There is no wealth transfer because everyone on the route gets paid in full for the loss of property, and the cost of doing that is included inthe electric bills.

    That’s pretty easy, so how did it get so screwed up? Politics.

    There were three main routes examined. The straight line route went through expensive estates, many under conservation easement. (After you get done, you can reorganize parcels and sell the unused areas to neighbors who wish to increase their holdings. Since this is done post construction financial damages from the construction accrue to the power company, and those that get more land, get it, voluntarily, at the new gong rate.) Because someone owns the conservation easements, there are multiple owners who each need to be paid full value for their losses.

    The longest route paralled an existing route, and went through a much poorer, and more commercial area. It didn’t degrade scenery, because the scenery was already degraded by the previous line. (There is a logical fallacy here, but ignore it for now.) More parcels were involved, so there would be more transaction costs, but each parcel was less valuable.

    If each owner was actually paid full value for their land, plus maybe a small premium like 10 to 15% for aggravation of a forced sale, then no REASONABLE person would have much basis for complaint. Sure, they are losing great grandpas estate, but that probably happens regardless of the route chosen , so maybe it isn’t a discriminator.

    I think that REASONABLE people outside the immediate area could see that a fair attempt at assessing total costs was made, even if they recognize some people will still feel an injustice has been done.

    But the owners weren’t going to be paid anything, really. They get paid only for an easement. If they are really upset and want to sell out and move, they take th loss in property value. And if the easemnt didn’t cross your land, you got nothing. If it did, it was still your land, and you get to pay taxes on the power companies easement.

    No wonder politics got involved, the actual process used violated or ignored all kinds of property rights, and the existing situation on the ground. Artificially pricing only the power line easement, could only lead to a wrong answer.

    Clearly, you could embellish the process of figuring out the total costs, but as a rough outline, this ought to show how it is done. All the losers get paid full price, plus a small bonus for their losses, and all the beneficiaries pay full price for the benefits recieved. If it turns out that the power company cannot competitiviely sell the power at a price to cover these costs, then there is no net public beneifit and the project should be abandoned.

    All it takes, for the most part, is a strict property rights interpreation of what is going on.

    What about the logical fallacy? The long route is favored because it will have less costs associated with scenery disruption. The problem is that the original scenery disruption was never paid for.

    Finally, there are future effects. The users get the lowest cost power for decades to come. The power company gets profits for decades to come, but the affected landowners get paid once. They suffer continuing opportunity costs because they will never resell their land for as mush as they would absent the power line, and the delta could grow over time. Their losses in the future could turn out to be greater that what they are paid for now.

    Theefore, Under some conditions, it might be argued that they should also get a royalty for power that crosses their land. If the power comapny subleases their easement to other users, then the property owners should get a piece of that new action as well.

    But, assuming the power company actually bought up all the properties and resold the unused portions later, then you could make the argument that all future losses are already accounted for, in the expectations of the new owners.

    ————————

    In the case of HOT lanes, there are essentially no public benefits, and this shouldn’t even make the list of things to be analyzed.

    You have existing HOV lane(s) that are underutilized. You will get a new lane at the cost of your breakdown lane. As a result of higher usage you will move a few more cars, but some of this will come at the expense of losing car pools. The benefit to the other lanes will be small or none, because of latent demand.

    The public as a whole gets no benefits, but they bankroll the risk.

    The HOT lane users get benefits, which they overpay for, primarily because there is no real competition. The overpayments are used to grant special benefits to a small segment of the remaining public.

    It isn’t worth thinking about.

    —————————–

    Gas taxes are more complicated. First you have to consider all transportation revenues, not just the gas tax. or look at just the gas tax and consider it on a marginal basis: it doesn’t pay for everything.

    Considering only roads might be fairly easy. We know that VMT and GDP are closely tied, so you could make an argument that the only thing worth considering with roads is the commerce they will produce. That is your ranking system, and anything else is down in the noise.
    (Excepting truly gross environmental problems).

    You would need to have some understanding of what the trickle down effect is from high commerce areas to low commerce areas, so that the low commerce areas would not overpay for benefits elsewhere.

    As long as the gas tax provides a large enough commerce benefit, then it is justified. The costs and benefits will not be perfectly smooth, so there may be some losers who are not fully compensated because of their location or something. But, those losses will be small, and self correcting over time.

    I don’t see that this is so hard, except that the current process is so heavily politically weighted.

    (And incidentally, the VMT/Commerce rule would also applies to HOT lanes, but I doubt if it is enough to make much difference.)

    RH

  48. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    BEST MEET the basic tenets of “user pays” –

    I stand by my ranking. The benefits of roads are so wide that they need the widest possible support.

    HOT lanes do not meet the tenets of user pays, because the whole purpose is to generate excess cash flow – for other purposes.

    Tolls, generalized tolls, could do that. It would be an expensive way to do our accounting, and offer little in the way of other benefits. Then you still have to figure out how to raise new funds for new projects. but tolls are not as environmetally friendly or reduce consumption as much as the gas tax does.

    RH

  49. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: the process

    the process is NEPA

    If you go read up on NEPA – you’ll see that the goal is to gather info – lots of info and NEPA only requires that any/all info be part of any decision.

    It includes alternatives including the “no build” and it includes cost-benefits for each alternative.

    EIS’s are not perfect by any stretch but they do what you are advocating.

    In smaller issues – we have public hearings – and a public record –

    you and anyone else is free to present your argument to support what you think is the proper decision and you actually have the right to challenge arbitrary and capricious.

    you dismiss out of hand the public benefit of HOT lanes – which is not true.

    There are benefits and some would disagree with you on what they are and whether they are worth it and they have had EIAl and multiple hearings and input from a wide variety of citizen and industry groups – that support HOT Lanes.

    re: “user pays”

    you have blinked.

    you’ve talking mightily about how the gas tax is superior because it is the ultimate “user pays” tax

    and yet when pushed.. you bail out completely from the concept and go to the “wide” that benefits the most people concept…completely abandoning the ‘user pays’ nexus.

    You’re advocating general taxes – for general expenditures to include roads without any justification about how much should go to roads and why.

    When you abandon “user pays”, then road funding at any level is fair game to oppose..

    for every person like you who believes that any level of tax for roads is justified -there are others who will see it as a giant slush fund administered through political influence and not needs-based.

    The only thing that made roads special was the claim that cars paid for themselves.

    Once you abandon that concept – cars are just like any other expenditure… arguable and debateable.

    you just shot the lockbox idea in the butt.

  50. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “they have had EIAl and multiple hearings and input from a wide variety of citizen and industry groups – that support HOT Lanes.”

    I admit to being outnumbered. I don’t admit to being wrong. Ten years after HOT lanes are installed we will have all the same problems we have now, and the HOT lane owners wll have all our money. The NET public benefits of HOT lanes will be a negative number, and wew ill wonder what the heck we were thinking.

    ——————————

    without any justification about how much should go to roads and why.

    I think the main purpose of roads is to suport commerce, that we all need to live, and live well. Roads (transportation in a broader sense) and commerce are inextricably connected. Therefore the benefits of roads can be closely tracked by following the amount of commerce.

    1). Pay for the roads primarily with sales taxes.

    2) Expend the money where it will support the most existing and new commerce.

    3) Let the general economy redistribute the benefits.

    Now you have a self correcting system with feedback. The areas with the least commerce pay the least taxes, the areas that generate the most commerce get the most roads. That commerce supports the entire economy, proportianately to the taxes paid.

    The gas tax is a special case of a sales tax (which should be dollar based not gallon based) and it also encourages thrift when using fuel. It is at once a sales tax, a user fee, and a thrift inducer.

    Therefore it is far superior to tolls.

    When you abandon “user pays”, then road funding begins to make some sense. instead of following the user, follow the benefits (usually dollars), and tax them.

    —————————

    “The only thing that made roads special was the claim that cars paid for themselves. “

    That was never a claim, but a counter claim to the (false) idea that they DON’T pay their way. We could not rationally hold that idea and then turn to cars every time we need more revenue (for something else.) Raise taxes, raise fines, raise tolls, raise fees, raise parking.

    Cars don’t pay their way or not. it was a dumb argument to begin with to claim they don’t. Commerce pays for cars, it pays for roads, it pays for environmental protection.

    Tax commerce to pay for roads, and distribute the money similar to how you collect it: where it generates or supports the most commerce.

    RH

  51. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: “1). Pay for the roads primarily with sales taxes.”

    sales tax for transportation

    that’s the proposal

    and just like the current 1/2% sales tax – it allows the use of it for transit.

    How would you require it to be ONLY spent on roads?

    re: tax commerce

    we do. and it pays for a lot more than just roads…

    it pays for transit also

    right?

    the point I’m making is that if you tax everyone instead of just cars then you have a much more difficult case to make that general revenues should be restricted to only roads.

    the gas tax was the best way to make that argument

    the next best way is what?

    and tell me why your next best way is better than tolls.

Leave a Reply