The latest "welfare program": The bus

[Scuba]

http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/120737089.html

<snip>

Here's what Rep. Robin Vos, co-chair of the powerful Joint Finance Committee, told The Business Journal in November, after the election: "As we move forward, my priority would be making sure we have funding for roads and bridges first, and second to have adequate funding for local transit as a social service."

And that's pretty much how the Walker budget is working out. More for roads and bridges, less for buses and just about everything else.

This is puzzling. Transit actually makes sense as part of the transportation fund because it, well, transports people. But a new sheriff in Madison means it gets moved to the general fund. And competing with other items in the general fund means a 10% cut of state transit systems in 2012 in Gov. Scott Walker's biennial budget - about $7 million for Milwaukee County transit alone.


<end snip>

[underpants]

1. They think only black people ride the bus

I used to ride the bus to work downtown (from the burbs) and I loved it. Dental and medical school students, professional white collar types, when the General Assembly is in session all of the clerks, etc.

[Mimosa]

2. I'm beginning to believe Rethugs are evil

I'd not heard of O. Ricardo Pimentel. He's a good writer, Scuba.

Now I know why Democrats as a Party have shifted rightwards. We have picked up quite a few people -even here on D.U.- who lean Republican in nearly everything but can't stomach the Rethug crazies!

[ejpoeta]

3. with gas prices headed upward, this is a bad idea. all the little worker bees are going to need to

get to work.

[HereSince1628]

4. Now, if it was a PRIVATE bus service this would be different

But public transportation, well, every car owner knows that's just librul gubbermen trying to steal your freedom of movement.

[crickets]

5. Transportation isn't a social service. It's called infrastructure.

For instance, tell New Yorkers that the bus and subway are 'social services' and watch them eat you alive. This is the kind of sleazy crap you'd expect someone to try to sneak under the radar in less difficult times. Walker's pulling this stunt just as people are less and less able to afford gas for their cars. It's so... blatant.

[Courtesy Flush]

6. Public transit promotes tourism

At least, for me it does. I prefer to visit cities where I can get around without a car or taxi. A one-week subway pass is a real bargain for tourists, because we use it all day, every day we're in town.

[AlabamaLibrul]

7. I'd love to ride the bus here

but it is a rural county's system and essentially useless (and expensive! for most trips) unless you need to connect to Mobile proper, and I don't even wanna think how long that would take.

[starroute]

8. There's a weird two-pronged strategy they're doing

In the land of the Ayn Randers, anything the government does that makes a profit should be privatized so that some corporation can make the profit instead.

But anything the government does that has to be subsidized, like trains and buses, is redefined as a form of welfare and cut to the bone.

This is part of what's happening with the post office -- except that here the really profitable parts have already been grabbed off by FedEx and UPS, leaving only the bits that don't pay their way, like delivering letters to every address in the country. I suspect they're already ramping up for some sort of major assault on the concept of universal mail delivery, but the shape of it hasn't yet become clear.

[Scuba]

9. Well, the US Postal Service is established in the Constitution, so it will be hard...

..to do away with it.

And for those of us who think the Ayn Randers wrong, the USPS establishement sets a nice precedence for other government services.

I heard Ron Paul say he thinks Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional, that the "general welfare" means fair trade laws and property rights!!!

[starroute]

11. Don't be so sure about that

At this point, there's nothing the right can't dream of destroying. I found this at the Cato Institute website:

http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/usps-and-the-constitution

Article 1, Section 8 says:

<The Congress shall have the power> to establish Post Offices and Post Roads.

Thus, the Constitution allows the government to get involved in postal services, but that doesn’t mean that it has to. If a better alternative came along, then Congress could kill the USPS completely if it wanted. Indeed, a better alternative has come along in the way of more efficient privatized post offices in some European countries.

In addition, the government monopoly over mail was not enshrined in the Constitution. . . .

In arguing against ending the government’s mail monopoly, proponents occasionally romanticize it as a special American institution that has been with us since the nation’s founding. But the giant postal monopoly of today bears little resemblance to the limited postal service of history. And that’s not because horses have been replaced with little white trucks.

[Enthusiast]

10. More Republican assholishness.

Ain't it?