BCT Editorial – 6/23/11

Subtle subsidy; Editorial; Beaver County Times; June 23, 2011.

Some previous name-calling editorials were entitled “Freeloaders,” “Leeches,” “Welfare leeches,” and “Welfare queens” [7/7/09 (No critique - I was on vacation - and no longer on the Times website), 5/21/08, and 8/14/07].  On top of those we had editorials where these descriptions were used but didn’t appear in the title, as in “Double dipping.” 

“Welfare queen rip-off” says, “The wealthier parts of the commonwealth — especially well-to-do communities in the southeast and Allegheny County — have been subsidizing public services in poorer rural areas for decades.”  The editorial failed to note local taxpayers in “poorer [not-so-]rural areas” Aliquippa, Big Beaver Falls, New Brighton, and Rochester school districts pay substantially less than 50% of their total revenue.  Of course, noting that info would have messed up the evil rural “Republican T” storyline.

The editorial says, “The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports lawmakers are looking at levying impact fees on drillers, with some insisting that the money be used locally and not for general state programs.  If that were to happen, the parts of the state that have been subsidizing the so-called T won’t get a cent of the Marcellus shale revenue — and the rural welfare queens there will have ripped them off again.”

If you’re familiar with the BCT, you won’t be surprised the editorial omitted some relevant info inconvenient for the BCT narrative, like the purpose of the impact fee and what local communities could spend it on.  In case you don’t know, the stated purpose of the impact fee is to mitigate local impacts of drilling, such as increased bridge/road wear and tear and increased loads on water and sewerage systems.  A PG story said, “Most of the money collected would still be reserved for local governments, and could be spent on roads, bridges and water and sewerage systems.  Other revenues would go to statewide infrastructure projects, and starting in 2012, $1 million would be set aside for emergency responder training and equipment.”  In other words, the stated intent of the impact fee is to address local infrastructure issues specifically related to drilling, not to create a slush fund for redistribution throughout the commonwealth.

I don’t know if the claims in “Subtle subsidy” are correct, but if they are I would be against those subsidies.

As I’ve written previously, here’s a radical – and probably “mean-spirited” – idea.  Whether we live in urban, suburban, or rural areas, why don’t we all just pay our own way for education, law enforcement, transportation, et cetera?  As individuals we must be willing to pay for our individual life and lifestyle choices out of our own pockets.  Nothing good comes from trying to pick another taxpayer’s pocket.