A Good Question 10/22/2008
 

My friend and occasional political sparring partner, Steve Peden, asked me a good question about my Voter's Guide recommendation for a yes vote on Prop 1A.

In my disclaimer on the Voter's Guide page, I say, "--I'm a fiscal moderate.  If government has surpluses and wants to invest in infrastructure, I'll tend to vote for funding.  If, on the other hand, there are deficits, it's going to be difficult for me to justify extending debt--even for worthy projects."

I was very much on the fence on Prop 1A because of the current economic situation in California.  We have large deficits; our housing market is imploding; our state legislature is in deadlock over any meaningful budget reform; and even if we get the deadlock removed through redistricting, we've done so much ballot box budgeting in recent years, we'll need more reform to allow legislators the ability to actually budget.

So I didn't lightly recommend Yes on 1A. 

My reasoning is that this type of infrastructure project (necessary for the future, forward-leaning in a technological sense, broad-based and multi-year in scope) can be more helpful to the economy than hurtful.  It creates jobs for the immediate future and for the long term.  It also looks toward a future where fossil fuels are exorbitantly expensive and alternatives will be needed to air and car travel.

Some, Steve among them I expect, will feel that these potential benefits do not justify taking on a big chunk of debt.  I don't agree.  But I can certainly understand their reasoning and appreciate their fiscally conservative impulse.

Thanks for the question, Steve!

 


Comments

Steve Peden

Wed, 22 Oct 2008 10:46:38

Oops, hit the return key when I didn't mean to.

Thanks for your honesty. The problem with that line of analysis, IMHO, is that you can ALWAYS construct a rationale for government spending, by assuming benefits (job creation, etc.) which cannot be proven, and are, in my view, highly speculative. (After all, it's not like our construction industry is working at capacity! At BEST, such projects will reduce or eliminate SOME layoffs the industry would have otherwise had). Unfortunately, I don't see any reasonable case that the job creation benefits even come CLOSE to offsetting the HUGE cost of such a project.

Then we come to the next issue: The Law of Unintended Consequences. ONE of the reasons that we are so totally dependent on individual automobiles/trucks/etc. is the Interstate Highway Program. God knows, I LOVE the freedom and mobility that this public works project provided. But Google up some statistics for yourself: (i) How many miles of ACTIVE railroad track were there in the U.S. when the Interstates were begun, vs. how many there are now? (ii) What PERCENTAGE of freight was shipped by train then, vs. now?

Now, a thought experiment: What would the U.S. look like, today, if the government had NOT built the Interstate Highway system??? Better? Worse?? On energy use, almost CERTAINLY better and more efficient. Less cohesive? Possibly. But would that necessarily be a BAD thing??? Probably fewer identical strip malls. Probably fewer McDonald's. Would railroads be more pervasive, more effective and more efficient than they are today???? I'd bet my life on it.

All I can tell you for CERTAIN about future transportation is that major government infrastructure projects like you propose will FORCE progress in a certain direction. That direction may turn out well, or it may foreclose other, better, alternatives. WE DON'T KNOW.

Add to that the fact that California is in the midst of a (out-of-control spending caused) fiscal nightmare, I can't see any way I could support such a measure.

But, YMMV (your mileage may vary).

 

Laura

Fri, 24 Oct 2008 12:41:42

And my mileage usually does!

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Steve.

There are unintended consequences to every decision we make as a society and as individuals. But I don't think that result of decision making means decisions "pushing progress" in a certain direction are necessarily wrong.

As to job creation, it's all in the definition, isn't it? We commonly call it "job creation" when the job market expands. But if the job market is contracting less than it otherwise would, that's creating more opportunity for the folks who hold the job, nay?

Welcome to the blog, btw.

 



Leave a Reply