This page was last updated on May 9, 2012.
Anger won’t fix pipes; Chris Sarson; Beaver County Times; May 9, 2012.
Three previous Sarson letters I critiqued were “Industry should be taxed for protection,” “Global warming is beyond ‘bigot’,” and “No reason to bar gays from military.” Two letters I did not critique were “Taxing the pavement” (9/8/11) and “Do the benefits outweigh the risks?” (10/5/10). The latter letter is no longer on the BCT website. In “Taxing the pavement,” Ms. Sarson appears to imply she believes in manmade global warming.
Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.
“The frustration of Aliquippa residents who have had their water cut off because of breaks in the main is understandable. I’m sure life is more than inconvenient for these residents.
“But the fact of the matter is that the taxes and water/sewer rates that we pay are a tiny fraction of what it would actually take to update our century-old infrastructure and keep it in good, reliable working order.”
[RWC] For the sake of argument, let’s say this is true. Aren’t the voters of these local municipalities responsible?
“Nationally, the deficit between what is spent and what is needed for continued provision of drinking water is approaching $102 billion.
“There has been a significant decline in federal infrastructure spending in the past several decades, and the burden has fallen on local and state governments that, especially in southwestern Pennsylvania, do not have the tax base to keep up with infrastructure deterioration. If we get the small, powerless federal government we are clamoring for, this will be amplified.”
[RWC] Providing local services is not a federal responsibility and never has been. The U.S. Constitution enumerates the federal government’s responsibilities and providing local services like water supply isn’t among those responsibilities. In Federalist Paper #45, James Madison (a Founding Father and fourth President) wrote, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments [and the people] are numerous and indefinite.” The intent described by Mr. Madison is why the 10th Amendment states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.”
Beyond the legality issue, why should federal and/or state taxpayers be on the hook for providing local services? Pushing local responsibilities onto commonwealth and/or federal taxpayers is not a “free lunch” but is a guarantee the price will increase. The farther away the spenders are from the taxpayers, the easier it is to spend someone else’s money because the spender won’t run into the taxpayer at church, school events, while buying groceries, and so on.
As for the “small, powerless federal government” comment, I suspect the letter is talking about limited government. My definition of limited government is the level that coincides with maximum effective individual liberty. Limited government does not mean no government/regulations. Government should provide a civil and criminal legal environment, law enforcement, national security, some elements of infrastructure like roads, et cetera.
On the other hand, government has no business confiscating the fruits of one family’s or municipality’s labor and giving them to another. Programs like Medicaid, Medicare, Socialist Security, Obamacare, farm welfare, subsidies, et cetera, fall into this category. In an 1816 letter to Joseph Milligan, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers [sic] has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, ‘the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it.’” Democrats like to brag Mr. Jefferson was a founder of their party, but can you imagine how they would treat him today if he were alive and expressed the same position?
“Be thankful the government in Aliquippa is still providing water, whether through the main or a distribution point, despite the fact that we don’t even come close to paying them back for it. Anger will not fix the pipes.”
[RWC] If “[customers] don’t even come close to paying [the government in Aliquippa] back for” water, who makes up the difference?
© 2004-2012 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.