A Tax by Any Other Name
Maintaining infrastructure is one of the basic tasks appropriate to government, but for that very reason — its clear importance — politicians in the state of Rhode Island tend to seek money for it independently, as a sort of deliberate afterthought. Rhode Islanders’ ultimately don’t want any bridges to collapse, and if they don’t get incensed over the fact that the money wasn’t already apportioned from taxes, they’ll accept toll hikes even though they are, in effect, taxes for programs and giveaways that they wouldn’t approve given the option:
The state Turnpike and Bridge Authority needs to raise tolls to pay for $50 million worth of repairs to the Pell and Mount Hope Bridges, Chairman David Darlington told a legislative committee Thursday.
Darlington asked the House Finance Committee to approve borrowing the $50 million through a bond issue for the work, which would include repairing rusted steel and doing painting on both bridges. He said that a toll increase would be needed to cover the bond issue, but that the authority wants to avoid raising tolls for Rhode Island residents.
Darlington said it would be the first toll hike in the history of the Pell Bridge, which opened in 1969. And if tolls are reinstituted on the Mount Hope Bridge, it would be for the first time since they were eliminated in 1998. Maintenance on the Mount Hope Bridge is now paid for with tolls paid by drivers crossing the Pell Bridge.
Of course, even the bond and toll gimmicks are beginning to raise hairs, so the plan is at least to double EZPass charges on the Newport Bridge for out-of-state drivers only. Of course, those paying cash — the majority, at least the last time I went back and forth over the bridge, last Saturday — would not be distinguished by their license plates and would pay the out-of-state fee. (It’d be interesting to see the data related to cash and EZPass payments; it’s not inconceivable that doubling the toll will spur more Rhode Islanders to get EZPass, thus decreasing revenue.)
Perhaps the most important point to absorb from the linked article is the ultimate cost of this $50 million bond:
According to the legislation before the committee, the bond issue could actually cost as much as $132 million when the cost of 8-percent interest is added in, assuming a 30-year maturity for the bonds.
I’ll reach across the aisle, here, and note that even Tom Sgouros has raised an eyebrow over the fact that Rhode Island currently pays $100 million in interest on Department of Transportation borrowing every year. This game can’t go on; our government is going to have to find ways to keep the roads and bridges in good repair with money already in its budgets.
Justin and team AR: Let’s not forget to mention this great new international publicity that The Economist has just given the Ocean State — to a global audience. The leadership of the General Assembly, the public sector unions, and the poverty industry must be so proud! On the other hand, for anybody who works in the global private sector, it is just one more reason to cringe when somebody hears you come from RI… Little Rhody in the red Apr 30th 2009 | NEWPORT AND PROVIDENCE From The Economist print edition America’s smallest state has mammoth economic problems THE mansions of Newport, one of Rhode Island’s most popular tourist attractions, were once the mere summer “cottages” of the industrialists of the Gilded Age. Marble House, playhouse of the Vanderbilts, is said to have cost $11m, $7m of which was spent on 500,000 cubic feet of marble. Today almost no homes, opulent or otherwise, are being built in Rhode Island. Only 16 permits for single-family dwellings were issued in February in the whole state. In March 633 homes were in foreclosure. The job front looks even worse. Last September Rhode Island had the highest unemployment rate in the country, exceeding even Michigan. In March the rate was the sixth-highest in the country, 10.5%, compared with 8.5% nationally. Almost every sector has been affected. Jobs are so scarce that 200 people turned up recently at a job fair hosted by Foxy Lady, a Providence strip club. But the current misery comes on top of long-term decline. The state’s once thriving manufacturing industry has been fading for decades, with production slowing and working hours cut. Manufacturing lay-offs were persistent, even during good times; and good times have not been seen in the state for almost two years. Rhode Island entered the recession six… Read more »
Click here, if you’re wondering what that last two sentences in the comment above refers to.
I have just taken a look at what’s on RI Future. Not surprised to find no mention of the Economist article on RI. Just like no mention of the NYT article on RI a while back. And, just like we saw no letters to the editor of the NYT from Crowley, Matt the Magnificent, the public sector union leaders, the Poverty Institute, Ocean State Action or Kids Count crowd, I don’t expect to see any letters to the editor of the Economist from them either. That raises a number of interesting — and telling — questions. Do they not read these publications? Doubtful. Do they doubt their reach and influence on RI’s reputation? Equally doubtful. So why the lack of letters from the RI Democratic Party’s “usual suspects” to the NYT or Economist vigorously refuting the very negative articles these two GLOBAL publications have recently run about RI? Perhaps they were written, but rejected by the editors. Either because said editors “have it out” for RI, or because said editors are smart and worldly people who can discriminate between a fact-based. logical argument and a piece of pure ideology. Or perhaps the letters weren’t written, which begs the question of why our erstwhile voices of the left seem to loose their confidence on the global stage. Could it be that they realize that a more critical and discerning audience would see right through the garbage they’ve been shoveling at Rhode Islanders all these years? Ultimately, this is a painful choice — either they don’t read the NYT or Economist (which speaks ill of their alleged cosmopolitan views), their leters were rejected (which speaks ill of their arguments), or they never even attempted to refute the slams on Rhode Island which recently appeared in two of the world’s preeminent media publications… Read more »
John, John, John. The Economist is part of the conservative dominated mass media. No response is required.
(They probably got all their facts wrong, anyway …)
–“So, Matt, Pat C., Kate, Kate, Ellen, Tom S., Frank M. Dennis, Bob W., etc., we’re dying to know which one of these theories is true…”
They are ideologues. Their collectivist / utopian worldview cannot be bothered with reasoned argument based upon facts and historical experience (given it historical record, what rational person would support collectivism)?
So …
If it fits their worldview, it is credible.
If it doesn’t, decry it as propaganda.
If it’s half and half, cherry-pick out what supports your worldview, and ignore the remainder (and/or take things out of context).
And, whenever necessary, lie and keep repeating the lie.
Here, now you have the template of their methodology – Crowley being the most superficial with this.