BCT Editorial – 11/16/06

This page was last updated on November 20, 2006.

Looking ahead; Editorial; Beaver County Times; November 16, 2006.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“For the future, Pennsylvania must be willing to invest in its transportation needs

“Pennsylvania residents have a decision to make.

“Are they willing to fund adequately the commonwealth’s transportation needs so that it can compete in the 21st-century global economy, or do they want to see the state’s roads, bridges and mass-transit systems continue to erode toward Third World status?

“A transportation commission study issued earlier this week certainly got people’s attention. It said the state needs to raise roughly $1.7 billion to improve the state’s highways and bridges and to fund mass transit systems.

“To do that, the report called for increasing the 19-cents-a-gallon oil franchise tax by 11.5 cents and raising various motor vehicle registration and license fees to generate an additional $900 million for highway and bridge projects. (The oil franchise tax is levied on the wholesale price of gasoline and passed on to consumers as part of the gasoline tax.)”

[RWC] Hmm, funny how that call for higher taxes happened to come out less than a week after the election, isn’t it?

“The report also calls for raising $65 million for bridges and highways owned by counties and municipalities through an additional 1-cent increase in the oil franchise tax.

“The Associated Press reported the commission is also recommending a combination of state and local taxes to raise an additional $760 million for mass transit. The state would raise its $576 million share by raising the 1 percent realty-transfer tax by less than 1 percentage point; counties and municipalities would raise their shares by imposing local sales, earned-income or realty-transfer taxes.

“The report’s ‘gulp’ factor can’t be ignored. That’s asking quite a lot of Pennsylvania motorists and taxpayers.”

[RWC] “‘Gulp’ factor?” How can that be? Haven’t Times editorials constantly told us PA is not a high tax state? I believe the most recent are “No excuses” and “Ohio envy” from March 1^st, “Too political” from May 7^th, “Wrong priority” from May 22^nd, and “Red herring” from July 11^th.

“But the problem can’t be ignored, as the American Society of Civil Engineers’ 2006 Report Card for Pennsylvania’s Infrastructure showed.

“ASCE noted that ‘with an aging infrastructure and inadequate funding for maintenance and upgrades, the Keystone State is crumbling.’ After rating the commonwealth’s infrastructure in nine areas (aviation, bridges, dams, drinking water, navigable waterways, rail, roads, transit and wastewater), ASCE gave the state an overall grade of D. (Roads received a D, transit a D-plus and bridges a C. See the following editorial.)”

[RWC] This, and today’s companion editorial, represent at least the 8^th and 9^th editorials 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,” “Cutting corners,” “Look ahead,” and “Attack of the E. coli.” At least three of the editorials conjured up images of a “Third World” country.

“Finger-pointing does no good here. The sorry state of the commonwealth’s infrastructure didn’t happen overnight. It’s occurred through years of neglect by lawmakers and governors, Democrats and Republicans alike.

“The past can’t be controlled. However, we can do something about the present and the future. It’s going to take a close examination of spending needs - are state tax dollars better spent on a $1 million turf field for a football stadium or using it toward rehabilitating a bridge? - as well as increased revenue to address the problem.”

[RWC] $1.7 billion represents 1,700 artificial turf fields. To be honest, I don’t know how much money we throw away via walking around money. I suspect, however, merely eliminated WAMS, which must be done anyway, would fund the transportation repairs.

Note the editorial never floats the idea that the people who use mass transit should be the ones to pay for mass transit without subsidy from those of us who don’t use it. Wow, that was a really bad sentence.

“What we decide to do today will go a long way toward determining Pennsylvania’s future.”