BCT Editorial – 6/18/07

This page was last updated on June 18, 2007.

No more free rides; Editorial; Beaver County Times; June 18, 2007.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Public officials cannot keep applying temporary patches to the state’s crumbling infrastructure.

“And state residents must realize that when it comes to roads and bridges, locks and dams, water and sewer systems, the free rides are over.

“Gov. Ed Rendell’s proposal to privatize the Pennsylvania Turnpike is an example of public officials looking for a quick fix instead of coming up with a long-term solution.”

[RWC] As you will learn, “long-term solution” means tax and fee increases. Nowhere does the editorial talk about spending cuts in other areas.

“Last week, the governor’s office decided to allow legislative leaders to see more than 500 pages of documents submitted by companies and other groups that have an interest in either leasing the turnpike or having a hand in the transaction.

“The Associated Press reported Rendell’s top aides had said they were keeping the documents private on the advice of an outside financial adviser who said releasing them could hurt the state’s chances of getting the highest possible bid to lease the 469 miles of tolled highway.

“But they decided to release the redacted copies to a handful of senior lawmakers to ensure that the possibility of a lease gets fair consideration by the Legislature.

“This represents the short-term approach to governing that far too many state officials - past and present, elected and appointed - have taken toward addressing the steady deterioration of the commonwealth’s infrastructure.

“Instead of doing what is best for the long-term good of the state and its residents, they look for short-term fixes that will take them past the next election cycle. That may be good for their political careers, but it is terrible for the future of Pennsylvania.

“There’s no way around it. If we want good roads and bridges, if we want clean drinking water and more efficient sewage systems, if we want safe dams and navigable waterways, we must pay for them.”

[RWC] What do taxes have to do with “clean drinking water and more efficient sewage systems?” Water and sewer system customers should cover the costs of their systems.

“That means taxes and fees that we will have to pay, directly or indirectly.

“In today’s tax-phobic political atmosphere, nobody wants to hear that. But the truth is that we have not been good stewards of the infrastructure we inherited from our parents’ and grandparents’ generations. Instead of building on what they accomplished, we’re running it into the ground.”

[RWC] Note the use of “tax-phobic political atmosphere.” As I’ve documented before, except for quibbling about a business tax here and there, Times editorials consistently tell us we have nothing to gripe about when it comes to taxes. “No excuses” and “Ohio envy” are two examples. Past editorials have also lobbied against using gambling taxes to offset property taxes.

The editorial failed to note something else “we inherited from our parents’ and grandparents’ generations.” That something else would be programs like Medicaid, Medicare, Socialist Security, welfare, PACE, et cetera. All of these wealth transfer programs consume taxes that previously could have gone for infrastructure needs. According to the Tax Foundation, in 1900 total taxes as a percent of income was only 5.9%. After “our parents’ and grandparents’ generations” added all their socialist programs, total taxes as a percent of income are now at 32.7%! (It was as high as 34% in 2000.) As a percent of income, we’re paying over 5.5 times as much as our grandparents did in 1900. Note, the 32.7% excludes hidden-in-plain-sight taxes like lotteries and the confiscatory tax rates on the gambling industry.

“The state’s political leaders and its residents must accept responsibility for the mess they have created and do something about it. A good place to start is to realize that the free ride is over and that we must pay our own way from now on.”

[RWC] Note the editorial didn’t lobby for spending cuts in other programs. Instead, it lobbied for more taxes, fees, et cetera.