Privatization cp ddi 2012 1 Privatization + Coercion 1
Public transit uses social engineering to expand the power of the government to coerce the riders
Download 1.35 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- More evidence
- Inland waterways are funded by a disproportional lock tax that undermines any waterway system
Public transit uses social engineering to expand the power of the government to coerce the ridersO’Toole (an American public policy analyst, senior fellow @ Cato Institute) 10/10/10 (Randal, “Fixing Transit The Case for Privatization”, http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/PA670.pdf) chip American cities have millions of people traveling between millions of homes and millions of other destinations. Instead of relying on “small-box transit” that caters to these travel patterns, as dial-a-ride would do, many transit agencies have gone in the opposite direction and focused on big-box transit using obsolete technology that serves a very limited set of destinations. For example: •In the 1970s, Atlanta, Washington, DC, and the San Francisco Bay Area built subway/elevated systems using technologies dating back to 1904, when New York City installed the first electric-powered subway. • In the 1980s, San Diego, Portland, Buffalo, and other cities built light-rail systems using technologies dating to 1939, when virtually identical light-rail transit connected Oakland with San Francisco. • In 2001, Portland started the streetcar fad, using technologies dating to 1888 when Richmond, Virginia installed the first successful electric street railway. Since then, Cincinnati, Dallas, Tucson, and numerous other cities are planning or building streetcar lines. Since people do not live in patterns that 13 Instead of relying on “small-box transit,” which caters to modern travel patterns, many transit agencies focus on big-box transit using obsolete technology that serves a limited set of destinations. 26327_Marker_1stClass:PaMaster.qxd 10/21/2010 11:31 AM Page 13are conducive to successful big-box transit, transit agencies have become social engineers, trying to use the power of government to coerce people into living patterns that will lead them to ride these expensive trains more frequently. Enticements come in the form of subsidies to so-called transit-oriented developments: high-density, mixed-use developments that combine housing with shops and are usually located near a rail station. 74 Coercion comes in the form of urban-growth boundaries that drive up the cost of singlefamily housing, which most people prefer. 75 These policies have not been successful: despite these policies, rail transit continues to carry less than 1 percent of passenger travel in Portland, San Diego, San Jose, Sacramento, and other regions that opened their first new rail lines after 1976. 76 More evidenceO’Toole (an American public policy analyst, senior fellow @ Cato Institute) 10/10/10 (Randal, “Fixing Transit The Case for Privatization”, http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/PA670.pdf) chip While private transit operators had a simple goal—earn a profit by providing transit where people would pay for it—Lave pointed out that public agencies were expected to reach a “complex and nebulous” set of goals, including “solve urban problems, save the central city, provide cheap mobility for the poor, transport the handicapped, and so on.” 14 Perhaps just as important, public agencies cast their tax-collecting nets wide, charging sales, property, or income taxes over as broad an area as possible. But this left them obligated to provide transit service to many areas that had few transit customers. Whether it was to meet nebulous goals or to justify broader taxation, “routes were extended into inherently unprofitable areas,” noted Lave. 15 One result is that the average number of people on board an urban transit bus declined from 12 in 1977 (the earliest year for which data are available) to 9 in 2008, while the number of people boarding a bus, per bus mile, declined by nearly 40 percent from 1964 to 2008. 16 Link – Energy The government wastes billions on energy research. Edwards 10- Director of tax policy and Writer for the Cato Institute, reaches privatization and the effects it has on T.I. “Department of Energy Proposed Spending Cuts” http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/sites/default/files/energy-spending-cuts.pdf cma Department of Energy research activities should be terminated. The private sector is entirely capable of funding its own research into coal, natural gas, nuclear power, solar power, and other forms of energy. Businesses will fund new technologies when there is a reasonable chance of commercial success, as they do in other private industries. Federal energy subsidies impose a burden on taxpayers, and they can be counterproductive if they steer the marketplace away from the most efficient energy solutions. Furthermore, federal energy research has a track record of poor management, cost overruns, and wasteful boondoggles. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve and the Power Marketing Administrations should be privatized. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission should be terminated. Ending all these activities would save taxpayers about $18 billion annually, as shown in the table. Link – Waterways Inland waterways are funded by a disproportional lock tax that undermines any waterway systemAmerican Waterways 5/22/2009 (“Obama Administration FY10 Budget Continues to Push Lock Tax”, http://www.americanwaterways.com/press_room/newsletter/2009/05-22-09non.pdf) The Obama Administration’s¶ detailed Fiscal Year 2010 (FY10)¶ budget, released May 12,¶ continues to include a proposal to¶ replace the inland waterways fuel¶ tax with a lock usage tax, as¶ previewed in the¶ Administration’s February 26¶ budget blueprint. A similar¶ proposal by the Bush¶ Administration was soundly¶ rejected by the 110th Congress.¶ Members of the 111th Congress and¶ AWO continue to urge the Obama¶ Administration to reconsider the idea of¶ replacing the fuel excise tax with a lock¶ usage tax that would impose a regionally¶ disproportionate tax burden on vessels¶ traversing the northern boundaries of the¶ inland waterways system and triple the¶ industry’s tax burden.¶ “This flawed approach would increase the¶ cost of shipping essential commodities such¶ as grain and petroleum and would¶ undermine the nation’s inland waterways¶ transportation system, the most economical¶ and environmentally friendly mode of cargo¶ transportation,” AWO stated in a press¶ release following release of the budget¶ (see press release, page 2). “Moreover, it¶ would not solve the waste and overexpenditure problems that plague the¶ current system for constructing and funding¶ vital inland waterways infrastructure.”¶ Congressional opposition to the proposal¶ was evident even before the Administration released its detailed budget. On April 3, a¶ bipartisan group of ten senators, led by¶ Senators Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Charles¶ Grassley (R-IA), sent a letter to Peter¶ Orszag, Director of the Office of¶ Management and Budget, urging the¶ Administration to reconsider the “unfair¶ and unbalanced” lockage tax proposal and¶ expressing the senators’ expectation that the¶ proposal would be rejected by Congress for¶ the second year in a row (see April 13¶ AWO Letter). Links – Taxes Directory: files files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2 files -> Integer programming and game theory files -> 4 Integer Programming files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective files -> Pop Warner History files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations Download 1.35 Mb. Share with your friends:
|