BCT Editorial – 5/21/06

This page was last updated on May 21, 2006.

Rebuild and repair; Editorial; Beaver County Times; May 21, 2006.

This is at least the fifth editorial on this topic since March 13, 2005. In chronological order, the previous editorials were “Woe are we,” “Sound the alarm” (a companion to “Woe are we”), “Falling down,” and “Cutting corners.”

As I noted in my critique of the first editorial, “I have no reason to doubt the ASCE findings, but we need to recognize a conflict of interest. The more government spends on infrastructure, the more it benefits members of the ASCE. I believe it’s fair to speculate the ASCE will never issue a report saying we spend enough on infrastructure regardless of the amount we spend. If the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) issued a report saying our cars were too old and should be replaced immediately, would we accept the report findings?”

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“State’s infrastructure is slipping toward Third World status

“Pennsylvania residents’ complaints about the quality of the state’s roads turn out to be just the top of the infrastructure iceberg.

“The American Society of Civil Engineers had given Pennsylvania an overall grade of D for its infrastructure. But don’t feel too bad. In 2005, ASCE’s national grade was a D, too.

“ASCE looked at nine infrastructure areas and handed out grades running from A (exceptional) to F (failing). Each category was evaluated on the basis of condition and performance capacity vs. need, and funding vs. need.

“Although it has been issuing a national report card for several years, this was the first time it graded a state. Here’s how Pennsylvania did: Aviation, C-plus; bridges, C; dams, C-minus; drinking water, D-plus; navigable waters, D-minus; rail, B; roads, D; transit, D-plus; and wastewater, D-minus.”

[RWC] Note how this editorial treats allegedly poor rankings in this area vs. how other editorials treated poor rankings in the tax area.

If you recall, a recent editorial told us we’re “Doing OK” because PA’s tax burden ranked anywhere from 18 to 26. When “Ohio envy” reported PA had the “35^th lightest” (16^th heaviest) “local and state tax burdens for 2005,” the editorial told us “Pennsylvania residents don’t know how good they have it.”

“While the Rendell administration has been putting more money toward road and bridge maintenance, for instance, increasing the number of bridges either under reconstruction or preservation from 211 in 2003 to 666 last year, the problems are on such a widespread scale as to be almost insurmountable.

“For instance, the federal Environmental Protection Agency estimates that the state will need to spend $12.7 billion over the next 20 years to replace existing sewerage systems and build new ones to meet increasing demand.

“However, in 2005, the federal government cut funding for wastewater management for the first time in eight years, and the Bush administration wants a further reduction of 33 percent - to $730 million - for fiscal year 2006.

“As the ASCE report dryly noted, ‘Federal assistance cannot be expected to meet Pennsylvania’s needs alone.’”

[RWC] Why should federal taxpayers pay for any of this? Shouldn’t local and state governments be responsible?

“Even the state’s one decent grade, the B in rails, isn’t much to brag about. That’s because, as The Associated Press reported, large- and medium-sized railroads in the state are able to finance their own improvements.”

[RWC] So, the only area that got a decent grade was the only area handled by the private sector?

“It’s important to understand that this is not just a Pennsylvania problem. It’s a national one as well, which was reflected in last year’s national grade.

“In the coming years, the state’s leaders are going to have to commit enormous sums of money to meet the commonwealth’s infrastructure needs, and the state’s residents must be willing to shoulder the costs of doing so.

“If they don’t, Pennsylvania will end up with a Third World infrastructure that will make it that much harder to compete in the global economy.”

[RWC] A lot of alarmists use the “Third World” tactic. Do any of these folks really know what Third World countries are like? Once again I’d like to point out the Times publishes editorials decrying the use of “fear tactics” yet it has no problem using the tactic itself.