This page was last updated on December 26, 2016.
Infrastructure investment benefits entire community; Mario N. Leone, Jr. (MNL); Beaver County Times; December 22, 2016.
According to the BCT, MNL is “Monaca Borough Manager.”
Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.
“Even in this hyper-political environment, there is one issue where both parties are in total agreement: Great nations build and invest in great infrastructure.”
[RWC] As you read his letter, see if you can notice what MNL doesn’t mention.
“A recent survey by the National Association of Manufacturers, which the Times published an article about on Dec. 7, (‘Survey shows nearly universal support for more energy infrastructure in Pennsylvania’), found that more than 80 percent of Pennsylvania, Ohio and Virginia voters support public and private investment in infrastructure. In Pennsylvania, 87 percent of voters believe these investments would have a positive effect on the economy.
“Look around western Pennsylvania and it’s easy to spot infrastructure in an alarming state of disrepair and in urgent need of strong investments. Our highways, railways, airports and river corridors all could use a boost. Even in the energy sector, we’re able to produce it aplenty here, but we still lack the infrastructure to deliver it to market.”
[RWC] The first thing to do is to figure out who should pay for what. Only local taxpayers should pay for local projects and only state taxpayers should pay for state projects. Federal taxpayers should not subsidize local and state projects. No taxpayers should subsidize private projects.
Here’s a simple example of pushing what should be a local responsibility onto commonwealth taxpayers. Within a few miles of my home is a small bridge across Raccoon Creek with daily average usage of about 312 vehicles according to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (PG). It’s not clear if the PG is talking about 312 unique vehicles or 312 trips over the bridge, though I suspect it’s the latter. Given this usage, why did state taxpayers have to pay for the bridge replacement ($1.9 million in 2011) instead of local taxpayers? If locals didn’t want to – or couldn’t afford to - pay for the bridge’s replacement and ongoing maintenance, the bridge should have been demolished.
There’s no reason the care and feeding of our Interstates and other U.S. routes shouldn’t be turned over to the states. There are undoubtedly cases where this wouldn’t be practical and the exceptions would be addressed on a case-by-case basis.
There should be a moratorium on new construction until we can fund the care and feeding of our current infrastructure.
As I’ve written previously, I’m all for placing tolls on all limited access highways where practical. We’d use the toll revenue collected for a road or bridge only for the “care and feeding” of that road or bridge. For example, tolls collected on the Monaca-Rochester Bridge could not be used for the Vanport Bridge. This isn’t farfetched. Those of us old enough to remember will recall the Monaca-East Rochester Bridge was tolled from its opening in 1959 until 1973.
Producers and consumers will take care of getting energy to market and taxpayers should not subsidize the projects.
“This is about more than just better roads and bridges, or about access to more affordable energy. When people are better connected, when communities have greater access to economic opportunities, when manufacturers have efficient ways to move goods to market, and when regions have access to a good water source and sound infrastructure, the quality of life rises, productivity soars and societies thrive.”
[RWC] Okay, what didn’t MNL mention? The letter told us “voters support public and private investment in infrastructure [and] In Pennsylvania, 87 percent of voters believe these investments would have a positive effect on the economy.” You probably noticed neither the subject story nor MNL put a price tag on this stuff and who would pay.
As you may remember, a lot of voters thought it was good idea to remove and replace Three Rivers Stadium, until they learned the price tag they’d have pay. In 10 Western Pennsylvania counties, there was to be a “temporary” sales tax increase of one-half of a percentage point for seven years to fund two stadia plus other “economic development, transportation and tourism projects.” Despite threats the Pirates and Steelers would leave without new stadia, voters rejected the plan. In classic form, however, government determined voters didn’t know what they were doing and figured out a way to fund the stadia without voter approval.
The pitch of a “temporary” tax was one of those “fool me once” moments. In 1936, the General Assembly levied the commonwealth-wide Johnstown Flood Tax (10% on alcohol). Sold as a temporary tax to help Johnstown rebuild/recover, JFT revenue instead went directly into the general fund. Unfortunately, the bill enacting the JTF didn’t include a sunset provision. The tax was increased to 15% in 1963 and 18% in 1968. The “temporary” JFT has now been in effect for 80 years. Remember the Johnstown Flood Tax when politicians talk about a temporary tax.
© 2004-2016 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.