Should Federal subsidies for road construction be returned?

The Eastside Journal had an article on the possibility of Federal Highway Administration money having to be repaid if HOV lanes are opened up. In response, Albert Fosha posted a recommendation that we return the money and tell the feds where they could put it. Since the original post was made, the discussion has gone off over the value of HOV lanes. So I ask again...

Doesn't anyone think that these federal monies are in essence, a road construction subsidy?

If you have voiced displeasure against government subsidies of transit and ferries, don't you think that it would be hypocritical to try and keep the money?

Craig and Marsha have responded previously. Craig indicated that it should not be considered a subsidy since road construction is a CAPITAL expense. Craig further indicated that federal monies are in actuality our tax money and that the government uses to induce us to make decisions that have short-term benefits, but long-term consequences. Marsha made a similar response, but without commenting on whether the monies should be considered a subsidy or not.

Are there any more people who have previously voiced anti-subsidy opinions that would like to comment? Zowie?

-- Questioning (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), February 21, 2000

Answers

Geee_ma!! Federal subsidy? Let's examine the term. The Federal government takes large amounts of our money and throws it awy on things we don't approve of and then in it's compassion decides to return a small portion of it to us to build 7 or 8 miles of highway. HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM this is really difficult. They gave OUR money BACK to US. Should we give it BACK to THEM? We want to use the lanes for ALL of us. OOOOOOOO that's really bad we better give Sam our money back.

It's NOT A SUBSIDY. IT'S OUR MONEY. Just because they decide to call it a subsidy doesn't make it one. A subsidy is when they take our money and give it to some pervert to create sickening, disgusting messes that are deemed art. Or just lousy ugly stuff that is called art.

Taxes are NOT investments and returning part of OUR money is not a subsidy.

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), February 21, 2000.

I believe taht we need to re-evaluate the idea of federalism poking in to the local government. Case in point. Public Schools. They derive only about 7% of their total revenue from the feds, but it seems like at least half of the administrative paperwork is done to protect that 7% of revenue flow.

Let's be honest. It costs to collect money and costs to administer the programs that give it back to the araeas it was collected from. We need to start looking at how much value-added there is in that process. When you have county tax collectors and city tax collectors and state tax collectors and federal tax collectors and the same goes for administrators and the like, this seems to be an AWFUL LOT of avoidable duplication of effort. That spells overhead, capital and revenues tied up just feeding the process, not necessarily providing goods or services to anyone.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), February 21, 2000.

sub7si7dy

Pronunciation: 's&b-s&-dE, -z&-

Function: noun

Inflected Form(s): plural -dies

Etymology: Middle English, from Latin subsidium reserve troops, support, assistance, from sub- near + sedEre to sit -- more at SUB-, SIT

Date: 14th century

a: a grant or gift of money: as a : a sum of money formerly granted by the British Parliament to the crown and raised by special taxation b : money granted by one state to another c : a grant by a government to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public.

capital: of or relating to capital

relating to or being assets that add to the long-term net worth of a corporation It's both.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), February 21, 2000.

Maddjak, When people say that IT'S NOT A SUBSIDY - IT'S OUR MONEY as justification for not returning it to the federal government, couldn't the transit and ferry riders say the same thing? They paid their taxes also.

Zowie, You bring up an excellent point in questioning the efficiency of federal government. The necessity of a federal government would be an interesting discussion, especially in a Libertarian forum, but is beside the point.

Marsha, The government did not say that these monies were a subsidy. I implied only that when I posed the question. With apologies to Mr. Webster, this term has been loosely used in this forum as any government provided funds. However it is defined, it is money to help develop the transportation system that came from the federal government with a few provisions. One of those provisions was the requirement for HOV lanes.

So, back to the question, shouldn't those monies be returned if we decide to violate one of those provisions?

-- Questioning (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), February 21, 2000.

to Questioning: Why would the feds require HOV lanes as part of the monies? Presumably, the feds believe that the HOV lanes result in cleaner air or something.

So, as long as we meet our commitments to cleaner air, then the feds probably won't care.

If it turns out that we must return the monies, then the state politicians will either bring the HOV lanes back, or, if they can't do that, then they'll hold a special election, putting the blame squarely on the shoulders of the voters.

So, really, it's kind of a moot issue.

I use the HOV lanes quite often. They do not have their own on and off ramps from the interstate. Nor do the Park'n'Rides serving our main arteries. So, IMHO, the current designs of HOV lanes and Park'n'Rides are inadequate.

The issue of a "subsidy" is also quite esoteric. By definition, a "government" is an institution which takes money from one group of people in order to benefit another group of people. So, we all pay gasoline taxes, but it is not necessarily clear that we all benefit to the degree we paid into the funding scheme. Therefore, it is conceivable that one region of the country receives more of a "capital" expenditure than it "deserves". Is this a "subsidy"? Well, it certainly is politics.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), February 22, 2000.

[Marsha, The government did not say that these monies were a subsidy. I implied only that when I posed the question. With apologies to Mr. Webster, this term has been loosely used in this forum as any government provided funds. However it is defined, it is money to help develop the transportation system that came from the federal government with a few provisions. One of those provisions was the requirement for HOV lanes.]

So, back to the question, shouldn't those monies be returned if we decide to violate one of those provisions?

Questioning,

No, the money should not be returned. You say it would be hypocritical if we don't. I say it was hypocritical to tax us in the first place in order to return it to for a highway project with strings attached. You call it a provision. I call it blackmail. Do as we say, or you won't get your money back!

As far as your dancing around with the term "subsidy", Matthew's response was pretty accurate IMO. It doesn't matter what term you choose, I don't want it returned, because it shouldn't have been collected for that purpose,in the first place.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), February 22, 2000.

"Zowie, You bring up an excellent point in questioning the efficiency of federal government. The necessity of a federal government would be an interesting discussion, especially in a Libertarian forum, but is beside the point. " No it isn't. It just says that our spineless senators and representatives should take the fight to the next level.

Why should we pay higher federal taxes than our Oregon brethren, because they choose to fund their state with a (federally deductible) state income tax and we choose to fund our state with sales taxes?

Why should we be taxed by the feds so they can bribe us to increase our local taxes FURTHER to get OUR OWN MONEY back as matching funds, with strings attached (as in the HOV lanes).

All of these things are abuse of process, the use of political manipulation and leveraging to magnify their ability to push their political philosophy well in excess of what they could do with an up- down popular vote. It let's a relatively small band of insiders control the agenda and the resources of the minority.

The reason there are two senators for each state is so that one can be the designated driver. Jay Leno

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), February 22, 2000.

OOPs "It let's a relatively small band of insiders control the agenda and the resources of the MAJORITY. "

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), February 22, 2000.

Questioning,

Let's look at an added lane in a different light.

How would you feel if funds were taken from your taxes (of course, you have no say in the matter) and used to fund the building of a lane to be used only for travel of say, government employees...

One could find that this may have benefits for all of society by the presumption that it would lead to increased productivity of said government employees. Law Enforcement could benefit. The Military could benefit. WSDOT could benefit. DSHS could benefit etc. etc. etc.

If a benefit could be perceived, would this not be a good plan? It would surely have SOME impact on congestion, wouldn't it?

If the feds tell you that you could have matching funds for such a lane, (strings attached) do you think it would be a good idea to take them up on the offer? Otherwise, the taxes already collected from you will go to waste. It will be used somewhere else, having NO benefit to your community whatsoever.

Sure it's a dumb idea, but so were HOV lanes! And so are "matching grants"!

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), February 22, 2000.

How about if the new lanes were only going to be used by one ethnic group (take your pick). That too would relieve congestion, wouldn't it. How dare those others not in the group say they were being discriminated against. The ethnic only lane would be helping them by taking some of the people of that ethnic group out of the GP lane.

(Heck, this kind of BS makes separate but equal look almost egalitarian in comparison, and the Supreme Court rightly ruled what kind of affrontery to fairness that doctrine was. Where's the ACLU when you need them.Tell me, if you put a pro I-711 sticker on your SOV and drive in the HOV lane, is this constitutionally protected freedom of speech?)

zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), February 22, 2000.

Matthew/Marsha/Zowie, n I believe that providing HOV lanes as a condition for receiving federal funds was based on the presumption that HOV lanes was a method for increasing overall system capacity. But whether HOV lanes work or not is beside the point. n You justification for keeping the federal monies may be correct, but as I stated previously, the functions of the federal government may be interesting, but is beside the point. n The benefits/problems of federal matching grants is also interesting, but is beside the point.

The issue here is whether the state should be obligated to return/repay those funds if the voters decide to violate that condition. So, let's forget the HOV issues & problems with the federal government and focus on the violation of the condition. (And let's refrain from bringing up examples that we all know are unacceptable which tend to distract.)

-- Questioning (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), February 23, 2000.

Questioning-

"The issue here is whether the state should be obligated to return/repay those funds if the voters decide to violate that condition. So, let's forget the HOV issues & problems with the federal government and focus on the violation of the condition. " WHAT PART OF "NO" DIDN'T YOU UNDERSTAND?

zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), February 23, 2000.

I gotta toss in with Zowie on this one. If I reject some social engineer in Olympia telling me what I should be able to do, why would I accept some social engineer in Washington DC telling me what to do?

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), February 23, 2000.

Questioning must be quite slow. I have made myself VERY clear several times. If he does not like my answer, he badgers and nags. Maybe this person is not a "he" after all?

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), February 23, 2000.

I understand "NO" quite well. I hear it often enough. And I admit that I was not the smartest kid in my class. I was trying to get some to recognize that violating a contract is wrong. If the contract provision was illegal then violating it might have been justified, but since it is not illegal, then it is not sufficient justification.

But let's push this some more. Let's suppose that the state ignores the contract provisions made with the federal government and eliminates the HOV lanes anyway.

If you were the federal government, would you be inclined to offer this state similar matching funds in the future?

If you were a lender, would you be inclined to give this state preferable interest rates on loans that it takes out to finance various improvement projects?

Would you rate state offered bonds higher, if the state has basically defaulted on a contract?

-- Questioning (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), February 23, 2000.

"But let's push this some more. Let's suppose that the state ignores the contract provisions made with the federal government and eliminates the HOV lanes anyway." Now you are talking.

"If you were the federal government, would you be inclined to offer this state similar matching funds in the future?" How naive are you? This is dished out as pork by the chairmen of the Senate and House appropriations committees. They didn't give us any previous money because of our virtue, they gave it because it was politically expedient for them to do so. If it is politically expedient for them to do so in the future, they'll give us more. These guys would set fire to their grandmother's if it'd help them politically. Been there, watched them do it. (Not set fire to their grandmothers, just connive and finagle)

"If you were a lender, would you be inclined to give this state preferable interest rates on loans that it takes out to finance various improvement projects?" Hell no. I'd charge them whatever the market would bear. All lenders do. Why would I give them preference. Matter of fact, all bonds are AUCTIONED. They always go for whatever the market will bear.

"Would you rate state offered bonds higher, if the state has basically defaulted on a contract?" No, but I wouldn't rate them lower. Same as Montana didn't get down-rated when they blew off enforcement of the federal mandated 55mph limit before it was repealed.

-- (zowwie@hotmail.com), February 23, 2000.

Questioning-

Are you truly trying to moralize regarding violation of federal administrative rules that YOU view as a contract? Are you trying to make us feel like we are somehow morally deficient if we open lanes paid for by all the people up to use by ALL the people?

Given that the chief executive of this administration has lied under oath, sexually exploited a very junior subordinate, shaken his finger in our faces and told us lies, rented out the Lincoln bedroom and the White House to anyone who could provide him money or political clout, subordinated national interest (including selling influence to China), given that the Vice President has solicited money in a Buddhist temple, found "no controlling legal authority" to prohibit him from soliciting funds on the job, flip flopped on tobacco, abortion, and everything else, given that the Secretary of the Interior has ignored his duties of due diligence with Indian Trust money, given that the Attorney General has looked the other way whenever possible in ethical and legal lapses of this administration, sent cases against this administration to judges who owe their judgeships to the administration, and generally brought total disgrace to the Justice department, given all the moral, ethical, and legal failings of the current administration, YOUUVE GOT BRASS BALLS THE SIZE OF CANTALOUPES IF YOU EXPECT TO GET AWAY WITH SAYING TSK-TSK AT US!

You are pumping at an incredibly dry wel

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), February 24, 2000.

It really shouldn't matter if the requirement for HOV lanes is written in a formal contract, is a promise, or is a handshake agreement. Don't you think that we should hold up our end of the bargain? Should who or what we make this agreement with determine if we hold up our end of the bargain?

Mark, come on now! If you expect perfection in an elected official, then you will always be disappointed. Our current government leaders may not be the moral icons that I would wish them to be, but I do not look at them as my primary source of moral leadership. And it doesn't matter if they are democrats, republicans, libertarians, reformists, etc., they will all have their faults because they are just people.

If there were something to tsk-tsk about is how vehemently some people are in keeping federal funds for road construction, but are also vehemently opposed to government funds used for transit or ferries.

-- Questioning (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), February 24, 2000.

Questioning,

You don't appear to be able to understand that those "federal funds" and those "government funds" are all one and the same. My tax money. I guess once it is taken from my pocket, you think I should no longer have any say?

Your ignorance knows no bounds. I am vehemently opposed to you calling them federal funds, like they belong to the liberal democratic scum social dictators or something, and not my hard earned tax money.

And I am vehemently opposed to your insinuations that we are morally wrong. I could just as easily say you are morally wrong to expect me to pay for subsidies that are OF NO BENEFIT TO ME OR THE GENERAL POPULATION or society! I have no problem with a modest subsidy for Transit until I hear people like you whine. Then I get down right fed up and stubborn as heck. If you can't accept what I AM willing to pay for, and you think I can be pressured to subsidize more by using a "moral" argument, you are dead wrong.

I expect fat and lazy liberals to spend their own damn money. Pay your user fees and stop getting a free ride!

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), February 24, 2000.

"It really shouldn't matter if the requirement for HOV lanes is written in a formal contract, is a promise, or is a handshake agreement. Don't you think that we should hold up our end of the bargain? Should who or what we make this agreement with determine if we hold up our end of the bargain? " Quest-

Please address MY comments: "How naive are you? This is dished out as pork by the chairmen of the Senate and House appropriations committees. They didn't give us any previous money because of our virtue, they gave it because it was politically expedient for them to do so. If it is politically expedient for them to do so in the future, they'll give us more. These guys would set fire to their grandmother's if it'd help them politically. Been there, watched them do it. (Not set fire to their grandmothers, just connive and finagle) "

zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), February 24, 2000.

Thursday, February 24, 2000, 02:29 a.m. Pacific

Car-pool-lane opening backed by county panel (http://www.seattletimes.com/news/local/html98/lane_20000224.html)

by Jeff Hodson Seattle Times staff reporter A King County panel yesterday endorsed opening some car-pool lanes to all vehicles before and after rush hours on a trial basis.

The measure, aimed at easing taxpayer frustration as much as highway congestion, was approved by a 4-2 vote of the Metropolitan King County Council's Transportation Committee. Four Republicans voted for the measure, two Democrats opposed it.

If the measure is approved by the full council next week, the county would formally ask the state Transportation Commission to open some high-occupancy-vehicle (HOV) lanes as an experiment for up to a year.

"This is not the total solution to congestion by any means," said Councilman Chris Vance, a Kent Republican who chairs the council Transportation Committee.

But it's a start in tackling traffic problems, he said. The measure, which he proposed, offers a number of other recommendations, including raising the fines for car-pool-lane violators and encouraging the state to better manage reversible lanes.

Vance, a candidate for Congress in the 9th District, said he was not pushing the measure to head off populist Tim Eyman's Initiative 711. Eyman's measure, if approved by voters, would open car-pool lanes permanently.

But Councilman Rob McKenna, R-Bellevue, noted the "HOV lanes are already under assault." He said anger was growing among motorists who glance at the often empty lanes in the middle of the day. "The public hates seeing waste."

The two Democrats at yesterday's meeting argued there would be no turning back once the car-pool lanes were opened during nonpeak hours.

"I think it's sending the wrong signals," said Maggi Fimia of Shoreline, who maintains that car-pool lanes and mass transit are the solutions to congestion, not the problem.

King County Executive Ron Sims, a Democrat, is not opposed to opening the car-pool lanes if the move improves the flow of traffic, said his spokeswoman, Elaine Kraft. Sims' staff suggested three amendments, including the proposal to open up the lanes for a demonstration period.

Vance says he has six solid votes on the 13-member council in support of the proposal. But he's willing to modify the measure to address other concerns.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), February 24, 2000.

Marsha, The "morality" issue was brought up by Mark. I try not to bring up the morality issue. The last truly moral person died a couple of thousand years ago. I'm just insinuating at the hypocrisy of it all. And I admit that I am a hypocrite. I used the word "vehemently" because some of the contributors to this forum have voiced extreme opinions that ANY government subsidy of transit or ferrys was unacceptable, but government monies for road construction was more than acceptable. So its nice to find out that you have no problem with a "modest" subsidy. So the actual issue between us may be, How big is big - How small is small - How modest is modest?

You have a limited say, but once the government has taken your tax monies, it really isn't yours anymore. If it were still yours, there would be an expectation of getting it back. You do have a say in government through your elected representatives, but that is only an indirect say. A direct say is difficult in the way our representative democracy is structured.

Alright Zowie, Is it naive to want our government to be the ideal, but know well enough to temper that idealism with a bit of reality. If so, I guess I am naive. I understand that people are not perfect and will often act in their own best interest. And it may be that Washington D.C. is the deepest pit of corruption there is in the world. But good or bad, our government is what it is. Should we lower ourselves down to their level in our dealings? Are you at a point that you want to replace our current form of government? Its not something that I would like.

Craig, You have proven yourself intelligent enough to know that this post had little to do with HOV lanes and was meant to draw people into a discussion on where they drew the line on government subsidies. I really don't think that the feds will ask for their money back. You've already indicated a view point similar to Marsha's in that you would not have a problem with some subsidies. The question is more on "How much and for what?"

-- Questioning (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), February 24, 2000.

"You've already indicated a view point similar to Marsha's in that you would not have a problem with some subsidies. The question is more on "How much and for what?" " I have repeatedly voiced my belief that I believe provision for transport services for the mobility impaired is a societal responsibility, and best accomplished by demand response services since the mobility impaired really can't be expected to drag themselves to the transit stop a half mile away, or they wouldn't BE mobility impaired. THAT service will require considerable subsidy. I would also provide a REASONABLE degree of transit where population densities permit for those FEW and constantly declining number of people who are not economically capable of providing for their own transportation, as part of the social safety net. The total number of transit-dependent was estimated at 8 million people in the 1990 census, and has been declining for years DESPITE increasing population. For those who are unable to drive because they have lost their licenses or whatever, I think that a basic transit system should be available, but feel no need to subsidize it unless they fall into the former categories.

Those people who "just want transportation options," ought to have whatever amount of transit they are willing to pay for, full fare, no societal subsidies.

And I do NOT accept the notion that "roads are subsidized, too!" The studies I have seen indicate that the cost of roads ARE covered by user fees. Oftentimes these user fees are diverted to cover other transportation (transit, ferries) and non-transportation related expenditures, but that's a leadership problem, not inadequate funding. The only way user fees potentially don't cover transportation costs is if we get into the category of "social costs." Then they either do or do not, depending upon whose figures you use. But even then, since these social costs are borne by the general population who (at the 98% level) use the auto, AT LEAST 98% of these costs continue to be "borne" by the users.

So basically, I don't feel obligated to pay a DIME of transit subsidy to people who have the same opportunities to pay for their own transportation as the rest of us, or for those who are not driving due to their own misconduct.

craig

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), February 24, 2000.