The amended proposal for transportation facilities which was released this week brought this subject to mind - among others.
The specific part of the program relevant here is the concept - passed over very lightly as though already an acceptable and done deal - that the lucky citizens of Marion and Hamilton counties will be the very fortunate beneficiaries of some $600 plus million "free" tax dollars.
That, of course, is the money we will get from Uncle Sugar.
This causes some confusion for those of us who have always failed to understand why the actual source of this bounty is taken so casually. Particularly in light of the current discussions in Washington about the need to curb federal outlays, we also wonder whether such sums really will be available.
Actually, we suspect they will be, based upon the activities of our own "conservative, self-reliant Hoosiers" who support this proposal.
We realize that $600 million is only a drop in the bucket when talking money in Washington. But it does occur to us that, when we go for "our share," we are automatically justifying the same kind of largesse to be made available to every other county or city in all 50 states.
One has the impression that a good many very intelligent people think the nation is on the financial brink. Is this the time to ask for additional spending? Is it ever the time to ask taxpayers all over the country to pay for the solution of local problems?
Because, whether we will say it openly or not, local transit is a local problem. "Better service will make us more competitive." With whom?
In the never-ending, circular system, federal taxes paid in Indiana will help a bus system in Florida, where federal taxes will go for a bus system in Michigan, where federal taxes will go to rapid transit in California, where federal taxes will...! Each time with the federal "dipper" taking its share. You get the idea.
We need very serious review of priorities for all expenditures of tax dollars here. (Is an additional annual $10 million gift to a basketball team important? Well, maybe so if they insist on paying a young man $20 million for playing a game for 2 years.) We should come up with a program which will benefit those citizens who most need an efficient intra-city transit system, break the concept down into phases which local taxpayers can handle, and go from there.
We continue to believe that very few people are seriously opposed to support of our government by paying taxes. What raises the hackles is the absolute waste of the money on schemes which will benefit a very small percentage of those making the contribution, or are not the real responsibility of government to begin with. (It's the spending, stupid!)
Supporters of the transit proposal throw around terms like a "backward state" or the need to "move into the 21st century" or to be "attractive." Doubters may question with words like "economical" or "self-reliant" or "practical" or "necessary."
Which are we?
Comments