BCT Editorial – 6/8/08

This page was last updated on June 8, 2008.

Paying the piper; Editorial; Beaver County Times; June 8, 2008.

The editorial subtitle is “Higher gasoline prices will change the way Americans live, work and play.”

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“The marketplace is doing what the government could not — gotten people to drive more fuel-efficient cars and use public transit.”

[RWC] Is that a problem? Notice the editorial didn’t mention the active role the government played in inhibiting domestic oil and gas exploration and production.

“For years, Americans have been warned that they were too dependant [sic] on cheap, imported oil. And for years, efforts to impose higher gasoline taxes as a way of getting people to conserve (and to help fund road and bridge work) were roundly rejected. Likewise, calls to increase the mileage of cars and trucks were ignored. When it came to their cars and trucks, Americans liked them big and inefficient.”

[RWC] The “to help fund road and bridge work” comment is BS. We objected because we recognized increased fuel taxes would be used for purposes completely unrelated to “road and bridge work,” with subsidies for government-run bus/train systems being one.

“Americans liked them big and inefficient?” Sorry, Americans simply want safe vehicles large enough to carry something more than a family of four with short legs.

Note the editorial doesn’t address the economic ramifications of artificially raising energy prices for U.S. consumers via taxes. For example, if a U.S. widget factory had to pay more for energy than its competitor in another country, how long do you think that widget factory would remain open?

“But now that the price of gasoline has topped $4 a gallon, Americans finally have gotten the message.

“Sales of gas-guzzling SUVs and trucks have plummeted, as witnessed by General Motors decision to close four pickup truck and sport utility vehicle factories, while at the same time announcing a new small car that could get 45 miles per gallon.

“GM is not alone. Smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles are flying off lots.”

[RWC] Hmm, did you catch the data source for the “more fuel-efficient vehicles are flying off lots” comment? Even if true, doesn’t this contradict the editorial “Hard times” from just two days ago? After all, how could “more fuel-efficient vehicles be flying off lots” when “Food banks and soup kitchens are doing a booming business” and “Despair is in the air?” As I wrote in my critique of “Hard times,” “Never let it be said the Times worries about factual and logical inconsistencies – or employing hyperbole – when trying to promote its economic, political, and social agendas.”

“Public transit, the ignored and abused stepchild of transportation funding, has turned into Cinderella. Mass transit systems around the country are reporting significant increases in ridership as higher gasoline prices make riding the bus or train a more attractive — and inexpensive — alternative to filling up their cars or trucks two or three times week at $50 a pop.”

[RWC] “[T]he ignored and abused stepchild of transportation funding?” Translation: Riders don’t want to pay the full cost of their ride, so we car owners who do pay the full cost of our ride are meanies for not wanting to subsidize government-run transit monopolies.

“The high cost of gasoline could also change housing patterns. Car-culture driven urban sprawl has been eating up the countryside as Americans moved farther and farther away from cities.”

[RWC] Why did Americans move “farther and farther away from cities” in the first place? Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t see myself rushing back to live in Aliquippa again because of gas prices anytime soon.

“This sprawl and the lifestyle it generated are heavily dependent on the personal mobility that cars and trucks provide. But they are so heavily car-dependent that in many suburbs you literally can’t get there from here without a vehicle. People can’t walk to the grocery store, bank, post office or church.”

[RWC] That’s also true in cities. I guess the members of the editorial board never had to struggle with grocery bags on the bus, or had to walk from 20^th & McLean in Aliquippa to St. Titus on Franklin Avenue.

“Higher prices also could rejuvenate cities and inner suburbs by making them more attractive places to live and work. In addition to being more compact, they often have the advantage of being served by mass transit.”

[RWC] Now for the politically incorrect portion of this critique. Those of us how live outside of cities tend to have higher incomes than those in many “cities and inner suburbs.” When “the rich” decide they want to live closer to the city, guess who gets pushed out?

“Suddenly, owning a home in Bellevue, Avalon and Ben Avon with a short bus ride into Pittsburgh looks a lot more attractive than it did just a few months ago.”

[RWC] For whom? I don’t know if the Times gets it or not, but cars are about freedom. With a car I can go wherever I want whenever I want. When I have to rely on a government-run bus system, the government dictates when and where I can go.

“Will any of this happen? One thing is certain. High gasoline prices are here to stay, and they’re going to change the way Americans live, work and play.”

[RWC] If you were born before the late-1970s, this paragraph should sound familiar; we’ve heard it before. Will it be true this time? Who knows?