Up to no good about public goods

On April 2, the Duluth News Tribune had an “Our View” titled “Road repairs: Hold on to your wallets” about the report of a task force on the repair of city streets.  Why is it that increased taxes to pay for necessary public goods is a bad thing, but increased prices of things provided by the private sector are just seen as “passing on costs”?

It is estimated that a thirty percent increase over two years in property taxes is necessary to pay for the needed repairs.  This is partly required because Duluth can no longer count on the money it had received from the Fond-du-Luth Casino.  In other words, the “tax” paid by gamblers will now have to be paid by all the citizens.

The oldest real estate tax record I have is from 2002.  Our 2014 Duluth property taxes are 2.28 times as much as 2002.  Assuming the proposed 30 percent increase, our 2016 taxes will be 2.97 times as much in 2002.

Now lets compare this to the price increase of Duluth News Tribune.  When I first came to Duluth in 1999, the DNT costs 50 cents.  I’m not sure whether it first went up before or after 2002.  It now costs $1.25 for a single copy.  That is 2.5 times as much.  That’s “worse” than the increase in my Duluth property taxes up to now.  Will it go to $1.50 by 2016?  If so, that will be 3.0 times as much.  Where’s all the shouting about the Duluth News Tribune not living within its means?

How about food prices?  The price of Stonyfield yogurt sticks in my mind from years ago as 54 cents for an eight-ounce container.  One can now get it online for about $1.42 for a six-ounce container.  That is 3.5 times as much per ounce!  Can’t Stonyfield and the grocers live within their means?

The lowest I remember gas prices being in Duluth was 99 cents a gallon.  Now the price per gallon has been around $3.59 per gallon.  That is 3.6 times the low.  Can’t the oil companies live within their means?

What are some major costs in repairing streets?  Asphalt, gasoline, and diesel fuel!  Maybe we can keep our taxes at the 2002 level if we can keep the price of oil and the derivative products at the 2002 level.

But this year, the city took a big hit on fuel expenses.  Lots and lots of snowplowing.  Should the city cut back on the snowplowing to “live within its means”?  How loud would the howls be from the public if the city “lived within its means” for snowplowing?

The same goes for street repair.  It seems many expect city streets to be built to Interstate standards, but they complain both about the potholes and the taxes to fill the potholes.

We could go back to an ancient custom of every road being a toll road.  Barons and other large landowners charged everybody to use the roads across their lands.  This was a big drain on commerce.  In fact, some writers say that the British economy in the 1700s did much better than the French economy because of internal tolls.  The British had practically none.  A French merchant couldn’t travel 20 miles without encountering an internal tariff.  Add that to the super-rich in France ripping off the peasants even more than the super-rich in Britain did.

Ah, toll roads!  Some think that the toll prohibition on Interstates should be lifted.  Actually, there is no blanket prohibition as anyone who has driven I-90 in Illinois or the Ohio Turnpike knows.

As the need and costs of repairs to the Interstate system increases, so does the talk of charging tolls for use of the system.  See “Agreement on Interstate Repair Needs, but Not on How to Pay for Them”, New York Times, April 3, 2014.  Interestingly, some of the big shippers like FedEx and McDonalds object to the tolls.  Many smaller businesses such as restaurants and convenience stores object because they think people will avoid the Interstates to avoid paying a toll each time they exit for a short stop.  Another consideration is what will be the cost to add on the infrastructure to collect tolls?

I bet you dollars to donuts that many of those who want and even demand public goods such as a highway system also object to almost every single tax that makes them possible.

In many ways, taxes are a good bargain.  If we didn’t pay taxes for fire departments, we would be paying a lot more for fire insurance.  If we didn’t pay taxes for an extensive sewer system, we would be paying a lot more for hospital bills.  If we didn’t pay taxes for snowplowing, we would be paying a lot more for auto insurance and maybe even lawyers.

Yeah, I was grumbling as I filled out my state and federal taxes and robbed my bank account to pay what’s due.  And I’m grumbling as I try to figure out how to better spread out payments for the 2014 tax year.  But then I think of the words of George Washington and Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

In his “Farewell Address”, George Washington wrote, “that towards the payment of debts there must be Revenue; that to have Revenue there must be taxes”.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. supposedly wrote, “I like taxes; they buy me civilization.”

"The people" want town meetings?

"Duluth gets its wish…a meeting with [Rep.] Cravaack" - headline in today's Duluth News Tribune

Wait a minute!  I'm in Duluth and I didn't really want a meeting with Rep. Chip Cravaack.  OK! OK!  I might have gone to yesterday's "Town Meeting" at the Duluth Airport if I hadn't had other things I wanted to do and other places I wanted to be.  But even then, would I have gotten one of the 200 seats or would I have been one of the 12 speakers selected?  In retrospect, why bother?

I don't understand this mania for having "Town Meetings" with constituents when such a small minority would be interested and be able to attend.  Duluth has over 80,000 residents and only 200 attended the meeting yesterday.  Granted, it was arranged on short notice after many complaints of Cravaack meeting with business groups but not the general citizenry. See Rep. Cravaack is in touch with his constituents?
http://magree.blogspot.com/2011/08/rep-cravaack-is-in-touch-with-his.html Even then, what would it been like if over 1,000 had showed up?  How much true conversation will be going on between each attendee and the Representative.

Given all the communication means available to reach a politician, many better ways exist to express a view.  The postal service is still working for those who want to write letters.  Phone calls are cheap for those who want to leave a message or speak to a staffer.  And every politician can be reached on the internet, either by email or by a web form.

What is missing?  In a town meeting, those who do get to speak get an instant audience and may even get their question printed in the newspaper.  They also get the politician to address their question in front of many other people.

I think the best way for a politician to communicate is through a newsletter to every household.  The best of these I've seen is from Bill Frenzel, R., 3rd District, Minnesota in the 70s and 80s.  He didn't tout what he voted for or what groups he had appeared before; he told what Congress was doing, sometimes in a straight-forward manner, sometimes in a bit of befuddlement as in "What were they thinking?"  Bill Frenzel is one of a kind threatened with extinction, an independently-minded Republican.

OK, Mel, you really wanted to be one of the speakers, right?  What would you have said that was so important?

Did Abraham Lincoln tax and spend to build the transcontinental railroad?  Or did he tax and borrow to invest in transforming the country?  Good paying jobs were created and fortunes were made in the new economic environment.

Did Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman tax and spend for the G.I Bill of Rights?   Or did they tax and borrow to invest in increasing opportunities for veterans who got higher paying jobs and paid more taxes.

Did Dwight Eisenhower tax and spend for the interstate highway system?  Or did he tax and borrow to invest in transforming the country?  Good paying jobs were created and fortunes were made in the new economic environment.

Did John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon tax and spend to put man on the moon?  Or did they tax and borrow to invest in transforming the country? New technologies were created, good paying jobs were created, and fortunes were made.

Now it seems we have a hard-nosed political culture that wants to cut taxes, eliminate regulations, and let Ponzi schemes destroy the investments of President Lincoln, Presidents Roosevelt and Truman,  President Eisenhower, and Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon.