BCT Editorial – 3/25/08

This page was last updated on March 25, 2008.

Root-beer pockets; Editorial; Beaver County Times; March 25, 2008.

This editorial subtitle is “Funding difficulties light-rail proposal will face gives us a glimpse at the future.”

You have to give the Times credit. Crying crocodile tears about fiscal responsibility in one editorial doesn’t stop the Times from publishing another editorial asking for more spending.

The Times has no credibility on this topic. In an editorial entitled “Missing the point,” the Times claimed spending $255 million on the white elephant James E. Ross (D) Highway (Toll Route 60) was a good “investment.” In another editorial, the Times claimed spending $91 million to put interstate signs on local intrastate roads “will be worth every penny.”

As seems to be standard operating procedure, this editorial doesn’t ask if the economic benefits will ever outweigh the project’s construction and ongoing costs. Incredibly, the editorial doesn’t even mention the project’s price tag! I think we can guess why.

The editorial says, “In addition to easing traffic congestion, it would give commuters a viable and inexpensive alternative to driving.” First, would it ease “traffic congestion” by getting cars off the streets, or by replacing busses? Second, how can the editorial talk about the project being an “inexpensive alternative” without mentioning the project’s cost? Here’s a hint; the Times is counting on heavy taxpayer subsidies to keep fares “inexpensive,” as is done with the BCTA, PAT, et cetera government-run bus systems.

Let’s look at the following paragraphs.

“Look at the proposed fiscal 2009 federal budget. Of the $2.93 trillion budget, 22 percent will go toward Social Security, 20 percent for defense, 14 percent for Medicare, 8 percent for interest on the national debt and 7 percent for Medicaid and State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

“That leaves less than 30 percent of the budget (about $859 billion) for the rest of the federal government’s operations: homeland security, disaster relief, prisons, energy, education, national parks, roads and bridges, etc.”

Did you notice how many of these items are extraconstitutional? Of the 13 items, all but defense, homeland security, and prisons are extraconstitutional. The remainder is simply a group of programs whose intent is to enhance government control over our lives and/or to get someone else to pay for stuff we want but aren’t willing to pay for. I included “roads and bridges” in this category because there’s no reason the states can’t fund the roads traversing their territory.