Results so far:
| Yes | 21% | 27 votes | Total: 131 votes | |
| No | 79% | 104 votes |
A vast majority of the US population would think that privatizing interstate highways is a loony idea not even to be taken seriously. Yet I'm going to go ahead and support it wholeheartedly. I've got three basic reasons: The fact that government never does anything efficiently, the negative impact of the freeways on our society that has gone overlooked, and the general ethical problem of forcing people to pay for something that they may not want or use.
Government will never provide any service as efficiently as the private sector could. When the state provides a service, a monopoly is created in that respective market. There is no incentive to give the best price, the best product or the best quality. The lack of competition kills any need for consideration in the consumer, which is the taxpayer. The government gets paid no matter what crap they put out there. (Admit it, it's crap.)
Now right now you're probably thinking to yourself in a snotty voice, "Give me a break! Nobody is stopping private companies from competing."
Imagine if you had a business that sold a product. Your "competition" is a company for which everybody in the country has to be a customer, and on top of that they dictate the product that you are allowed to put out. Would you last long, even if you managed to put out superior quality? This is how the government gets away with roads that barely make the cut: It doesn't have to do any better!
Another thing that nobody ever looks at is the dubious effect the interstates have had on the nation thus far.
Have you ever thought of life without an automobile? Before the 1950s, it would have been pretty easy to picture it. People lived in centralized areas and mass transportation thrived within those places. Cities were planned with pedestrian traffic in mind. Nobody had heard of suburbs, much less suburban sprawl. The average consumer didn't have reason to care about the price of gasoline, and nobody dreamed that auto emissions would be threatening the global climate.
Now behold the wonders around you! Many Americans would not be able to shop, attend school or church, make the transit to work even find any source of entertainment without their car. Our nation is joined at the hip with Middle Eastern countries, whose people hate us, because we need the oil. Wild, natural countryside is a thing of the past, replaced by our lovely subdivisions with stately lawns and cookie-cutter houses. Don't forget the amazing physical condition that riding in a car keeps our bodies in (obesity in America has increased by 200% since 1950, surely that's a coincidence). The large chunk of your paycheck devoted to your car (as well as the amount you are taxed to pay for infrastructure) sure is well spent!
All joking aside, here is my main reason I support privatization: The ethical problem in forcing citizens to pay for the interstates. My understanding in regards to peaceful human interaction is that reason is always preferable to force. So why is it acceptable to make somebody pay for a product or service under threat of fines or imprisonment?
If Al Bundy would have forced women to buy his shoes, he would have been fired and probably ended up in jail. A robber who gives something in return for your money has still robbed you. Why is it different when the government does it?
If somebody could convince me that those arguments don't hold water, I would change my mind. But I'm pretty sure that when I wake up tomorrow the roads will still be full of potholes, my job will be 20 miles out of the city because that's where the freeway goes, and a chunk of my paycheck will be missing without my consent. Thanks, Uncle Sam!
Learn more about this author, Dan Keizer.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Highway privatization is the latest buzzword to hit government. The Bush administration is a huge promoter of infrastructure privatization and has placed into key positions bureaucrats that will work toward his agenda. One administrator engaged in such anti-taxpayer efforts is Mary Peters, Secretary of Transportation. Ms Peters has been most vocal about her encouragement and support of privatized highways. Governors and congressmen put out a steady barrage of press releases extolling the virtues and dollar-generating capacities of selling our freeways. The average citizen wonders, "Will this be good for my community?"
Why is this happening-and why now? As we suffer a thinly-veiled recession and falling wages, most states are facing huge budgetary problems: revenues simply don't cover the growth inherent in government programs. We all know government is becoming increasingly hard to control-particularly spending. There are always earmarks, pet projects, special interests and legislator legacies' to consider. Further, government has learned over the years that they can rob Peter to pay Paul for years before being called to task. Indeed, most taxpayers don't even know the mis-appropriation of specific funds is happening, year after year right under their very noses. The theft of the Social Security Trust Fund is one such example. The diversion of the Highway funds runs a close second.
The Highway Trust Fund was established in 1956 to provide for earmarked funds to build and maintain the Interstate Highway System. Taxes on fuels such as gasoline and diesel, taxes on heavy trucks and truck-related items such as tires were all slated to go into this fund. As highway-related needs increased, fuel taxes went up. An additional monkey wrench was thrown into the works with Revenue Sharing where all moneys went to the federal government and were doled out to states according to a formula not related to how much was paid in from that state. This creates inequities in the distribution of funds and many states get back less from Washington than they send.
At the same time, not content with just spending the Social Security Trust Funds on other things, the President, Congress and the States greedily eyed the transportation funds as a handy pot of cash to fund their pet projects. The interstate system was nearly finished; the highways were new and in relatively good shape and taxes were providing what they saw as excess funds. So, they did what politicians do: they spent them! Other projects became attached to the Highway funds, starting with mass transit subsidies, hiking trails, bicycle paths, rails to trails', pedestrian walkways, parks, EPA and nearly every other use that can be imagined.
A most telling list of funds diversion was printed in the San Antonio Express-News last year that listed earmarks for Texas transportation funds totaling over 10% of the projected highway budget to include: Police, Medicaid Match, Texas Education Agency, Auto Theft Prevention, salary increases, client transportation, Health and Human Service Commission, Texas Transportation Institute, Texas Workforce Commission client transportation, Gross Axel Weight fees, State Office of Administrative Hearings, Council for the Arts, Attorney General-Mineral Rights Litigation, Historical Commission, Regulation of Controlled Substances, Silver Alert for Senior Citizens and the Lufkin Tourist Information Services. This is just one state-similar things happen in all states.
Now, the time has come to pay the piper: our highways are in dire shape. Traffic on many of them has increased 400% over what the highways were designed to carry. Bridges are old and need replacement. Much heavier truck traffic has worn the highways down to critical condition in some areas. The highway infrastructure is the country's lifeblood. With increased global trade, they become more important to the economy than ever, Now, when we need it, the money is gone.
Gov Rick Perry of Texas has tried to use the coming shortfall as an argument for more toll roads and more privatization of toll roads. There are serious problems with this as an answer. For one thing, the people have already paid for these roads and their upkeep through taxes. To force them to pay a toll is double-taxation. And it does nothing to solve the problem of legislators outspending the available revenues. The solution of leasing the toll roads is a short-term infusion of cash that will invariably be exhausted well before the 75 or 100 year leases are up. As companies who wish to lease these roads are for-profit, common sense says they will either raise tolls to a level where they can maintain a good profit or reduce maintenance in order to cut costs.
This is already evident in Indiana less than two years after the Indiana Toll Road was leased. Tolls have risen steeply, toll takers have been laid off and local residents complain repairs and maintenance has dwindled. In return, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels got a multi-million dollar pot of ready cash for pet projects and a surprisingly large campaign war chest for his re-election. The losers are the people of Indiana and regular business travelers on the toll road. Part of the contract to lease the toll road to Cintra, a Spanish and Australian consortium includes a non-compete clause in which the state is forbidden to upgrade adjacent roads in an effort to force traffic onto the toll road. In the Indiana toll road case, these efforts even extended into Michigan with efforts to prevent truck traffic on a parallel US highway, hoping to force them onto the toll road. A similar toll road, the 407, built in the Toronto area is nearly empty of traffic even at rush hour-the tolls are too high for it to appear attractive to commuters.
When we sell the rights to our highways, we lose control of our infrastructure. We paid for these highways. Many citizens lost their properties through eminent domain to build them. We pay steadily-rising taxes which are supposed to maintain them. And it appears that, after congress and state legislatures mis-appropriated the funds to maintain them, they are attempting to float another scam on us by leasing' our roads with no clear directive even as to where the lease dollars would go. Certainly there are huge sums of money changing hands on all levels-the power to control roads is apparently lucrative enough that Cintra and Goldman-Sachs, their broker feel it's worth stuffing money in every available pocket to get the leases signed. As Grandma always said, "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is" should be the guiding precept here. Leasing our toll roads is a good deal to everybody but the taxpayer. Once again, we will pay the price.
Learn more about this author, Linda Sunkle-Pierucki.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.