Abnormality Arises

This week, out on the broad wastes of cable news drekdom and the uplands of Beltway journalistic drivel, a simple fact has gone almost entirely unreported: virtually everything congressional Republicans are saying about the Stimulus Bill wouldn't cut it in remedial economics. Not that there aren't legitimate policy differences and criticisms to be made of the outline plan before Congress. But to call the Republican complaints 'policy differences' would be to engage in what that old president used to call the soft bigotry of low expectations, as though a political party with as legitimately proud a history as the GOP could not be expected to produce more than economic illiterates.

The ground under our feet might feel firmer if this were just standard order rhetorical abuse. But the truth of it is genuinely frightening, especially since these fellows are planted in Congress rather than on one of the sidewalk corner in Union Square yelling ranting about Socialism and Fluoride or Lyndon LaRouche.

But now there are some flickering signs that the tide may be turning, perhaps in response to just how nonsensical the conversation got earlier this week. For instance, in tomorrow's Post, business columnist Steven Pearlstein devotes an entire column to the fact most of Republicans on Capitol Hill don't even seem to grasp how a Stimulus Bill is supposed to work or even more basic stuff about demand, recession economics or even how jobs come into existence. As in, it's not a Stimulus Bill, it's a spending bill.

Tactfully, Pearlstein doesn't say explicitly for most of the article that it's Republicans he's talking about. You have infer that from the names of the members he dings. But toward the end of the piece he can't seem to help cutting to the chase ...

what's striking is that supposedly intelligent people are horrified at the thought that, during a deep recession, government might try to help the economy by buying up-to-date equipment for the people who protect us from epidemics and infectious diseases, by hiring people to repair environmental damage on federal lands and by contracting with private companies to make federal buildings more energy-efficient.

What really irks so many Republicans, of course, is that all the stimulus money isn't being used to cut individual and business taxes, their cure-all for economic ailments, even though all the credible evidence is that tax cuts are only about half as stimulative as direct government spending.

It really does approach flat earth territory.

When you step back from the immediacy of the moment and consider just what nonsense these guys are spouting and what games they're playing while the country is legitimately in danger, it's breathtaking. All the reporters have fallen down on the job. But we maybe we can hope for more tide-turning tomorrow.

This article seems to ignore some of the economics behind transit systems. Now, I’m far from an expert…. I’m studying this stuff right now. But the theory goes like this: transit is subsidized not out of a sense of social justice, but because subsidies are A) necessary to optimize the transportation system as a whole, and B) compensation for positive externalities.

Drivers cause more cost (pollution and congestion delay to others) than they incur (in operating costs and delay). Partially that’s because we already subsidize driving with free roads, extensive infrastructure, and cheap, plentiful parking. And partially that’s the nature of single-occupant vehicle transportation: no economies of density.

Transit users provide more benefits to society than just the personal benefits they receive. Transit users cause less pollution & energy usage per user than cars. Transit makes possible land use densities necessary to make interesting & economically powerful places. The length of time of a transit trip imposes an upper bound on the delay that will occur on a parallel auto route. Transit gets cheaper per person when more people use it…. economy of density.

The transportation network is really concerned with the flow of people, not vehicles. More flow is possible when more people choose the most efficient method. Cars may be efficient for diffuse travel, but to sustain large flows into and out of dense places, especially during peak-periods, transit is needed.

Subsidizing transit, reducing its user costs, incentivizes the efficient behavior AND compensates transit users for the positive externalities they generate.

Social justice? Just a great bonus! (Or maybe another positive externality….)

(Just to tack on to my comment.
When I say drivers cause more costs than they incur, I mean in congested situations.
And I don’t mean to disparage provision of road infrastructure either… clearly the government (i.e. society) pays for it because it makes possible lots of economic activity. Transit should be viewed in the same way, for urban areas that achieve large enough size and density.)