Amtrak Politics

[PRR 60]

But no, I'm not for government not paying for anything. As I said many times, in practical terms I'm simply for government not paying for things that fewer than a large majority actually want.

If we followed that rule, then we wouldn't have Interstate Highways.

Today, the large majority want them because we’ve become accustomed to them. But when they were first proposed, that wasn't something that the "majority" wanted, much less wanted to pay for.

And of course that brings us right back to the fact that had the government not interfered with transportation matters, then we wouldn't be needing to fund something that perhaps a majority may or may not want.

The arguement about whether it was proper for the federal government to pay for the Interstate highways was central in the original law establishing the Interstate Highway System. Fiscally conservative members of Congress objected to the original proposal to jump-start the Interstate project with goverment-issued bonds. That proposal was dropped. The final bill requred that all Interstate highway grants be paid out of current federal gas tax revenue. No general tax revenue or bonds were to be used for the grants.

Only with that "pay as you go" provision did the bill finally move through Congress to the desk of President Eisenhower. Well, actually to his hospital bed. President Eisenhower signed the "Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956" on June 29, 1956 at Walter Reed Army Hospital where he was recovering from stomach surgery. The rest, as we say, is history.

 

[MikeM]

But no, I'm not for government not paying for anything. As I said many times, in practical terms I'm simply for government not paying for things that fewer than a large majority actually want.

If we followed that rule, then we wouldn't have Interstate Highways.

Today, the large majority want them because we’ve become accustomed to them. But when they were first proposed, that wasn't something that the "majority" wanted, much less wanted to pay for.

And of course that brings us right back to the fact that had the government not interfered with transportation matters, then we wouldn't be needing to fund something that perhaps a majority may or may not want.

The arguement about whether it was proper for the federal government to pay for the Interstate highways was central in the original law establishing the Interstate Highway System. Fiscally conservative members of Congress objected to the original proposal to jump-start the Interstate project with goverment-issued bonds. That proposal was dropped. The final bill requred that all Interstate highway grants be paid out of current federal gas tax revenue. No general tax revenue or bonds were to be used for the grants.

Only with that "pay as you go" provision did the bill finally move through Congress to the desk of President Eisenhower. Well, actually to his hospital bed. President Eisenhower signed the "Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956" on June 29, 1956 at Walter Reed Army Hospital where he was recovering from stomach surgery. The rest, as we say, is history.

True, although the kicker has been that the gas tax hasn't been raised in a long time, during which auto fuel efficiency has improved, inflation has eroded the buying power of the dollar, and many of the highways built in the 60's have become increasingly worn out and functionally obsolete. Because everyone is afraid to touch gas taxes, congress has funded deficuts in the trust fund from general fund revenues - aka "debt".

Back to the original food fight, I think the arguement of only paying for services that a majority use can be a slippery slope. Most Americans are not disabled, so why pay for disability pay, medicare, etc? As a society, we have chosen to do so (at least on a half-assed basis) because we don't want to incentivize eugenics. We support road and air infrastructure because mobility is important to the nation as a whole. It wasn't a fluke that Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican, became the strongest advocate for the national highway grid, as he saw first hand what a decent road system could do for a country. We provide unemployment insurance ($250 a week) because we remember the thousands out of work panhandling in the depression and wish not to repeat that. Yet, we only have 10% of the population unemployed, clearly not a majority service.

Anyhow, you'll forgive me if I check out of this discussion, but I spend all day working in the accounting field dealing with financial dilemas, trashing dreams with the cruel mallet of reality. I'd rather spend my leisure time contemplating the recline positions of superliner roomettes vs. coach seats, wondering what this month's batch of flat iron steaks look like, and bemoaning the inadequacy of Amtrak car washes where observation cars are involved.