My new favorite phrase is 'you can't make this sh*t up.'
Why? Because it always seems to be true. You'd think I wouldn't be surprised by now. But I am, over and over again. Some part of me clearly wants to believe people are rational. But, in reality, few of us are. Especially the rich. They aren't just irrational, they are exuberantly irrational.
Case in point, the local millionaires trying to bring the 2024 summer olympics to DC.
The Washington Post just uploaded a glowing profile of the movers and shakers behind this deal. See my earlier blog post about them here.
I won't bore you with fawning portraits painted of the individuals behind the group. Suffice it to say here that two things caught my eye, and both of them demonstrate the folly of the rich.
1. The Washington 2024 crowd wants Olympic facilities to be built on city land! That's right, let's use city land to build stuff for other people, because clearly DC doesn't have any pressing things to spend money on. I mean, yes, there is that old hospital housing hundreds of homeless families, but move along now, nothing to see here. Yes, it is true, we need to build some affordable housing, but isn't that what PG County is for?
2. The Olympics would be good for DC's reputation on the world stage. House of Cards make us look bad, they say. Especially to the Chinese. And, we simply can't have that. Whip up some distractions ya'll!
May I suggest instead that there's an easier way to fix this. Pull out your capes delusional Olympians, get your wigs brushed out, call in your back up singers, and put Gloria Gaynor's 'I'm coming out' on the sound system. Then have yourselves a big ole drag party. You'd do all of us less harm that way.
Thursday, November 20, 2014
Tuesday, November 18, 2014
Breaking News on Arlington Street Cars, and Bad News for the Purple Line?
The Washington Post is reporting that Arlington is going to pull the plug on planned Streetcars for Columbia Pike and Crystal City. You can read the story here.
This is bad news for Arlington, and could signal bad news for Maryland's purple line project. Why?
Two troubling signs:
1. Promises of State aid weren't enough to save the project. Arlington county officials had already secured 135 million from the state of Virginia. Usually, when transportation projects get killed it is because you can't get the state or feds on board. They were on board here. It still got killed. The purple line has a similar set of circumstances.
2. Opponents of local/state/federal spending on infrastructure are organized. The Arlington County Board elections a couple of weeks ago saw the ouster of a streetcar advocate and the election of someone ardently opposed to them. In the WAPO story, the Arlington County Board chair acknowledged that outcome when he announced the decision, saying, "We were caught flatfooted, we did not effectively make the case." In Maryland, Larry Hogan hasn't said much about the Purple Line, but his anti-tax rhetoric suggests he won't support it. And, as readers of this blog know, the purple line's opponents are organized and willing to sue to get their way.
The bigger question--what does all of this mean for redevelopment in the DMV's inner suburbs? Nothing good for people not adjacent to the city's already jammed metro system.
This is bad news for Arlington, and could signal bad news for Maryland's purple line project. Why?
Two troubling signs:
1. Promises of State aid weren't enough to save the project. Arlington county officials had already secured 135 million from the state of Virginia. Usually, when transportation projects get killed it is because you can't get the state or feds on board. They were on board here. It still got killed. The purple line has a similar set of circumstances.
2. Opponents of local/state/federal spending on infrastructure are organized. The Arlington County Board elections a couple of weeks ago saw the ouster of a streetcar advocate and the election of someone ardently opposed to them. In the WAPO story, the Arlington County Board chair acknowledged that outcome when he announced the decision, saying, "We were caught flatfooted, we did not effectively make the case." In Maryland, Larry Hogan hasn't said much about the Purple Line, but his anti-tax rhetoric suggests he won't support it. And, as readers of this blog know, the purple line's opponents are organized and willing to sue to get their way.
The bigger question--what does all of this mean for redevelopment in the DMV's inner suburbs? Nothing good for people not adjacent to the city's already jammed metro system.
Friday, November 14, 2014
Random MOCO Pic of the Day--Less Blue than We thought?
I took this photograph a month ago on the way to Rock Hill Orchard in northern Montgomery County. At the time, it just seemed out of place, uncharacteristic of Montgomery County.
Not only was the church celebrating a Louisiana clan who became millionaires selling duck callers, it was celebrating a clan that was becoming increasingly outspoken in its support for the GOP. Sure, MOCO has ducks and duck hunters, but MOCO's made-it-big-types are more likely to be in government or tech sector. MOCO is also (usually) thought of as 'terra firma' for Democratic politicians. When I made this trip, Anthony Brown was considered a shoe in for the governor's race (in MOCO and the state).
This sign looks prophetic now. In the gubernatorial election, 37% of MOCO voters supported the state's Republican candidate, and eventual winner Larry Hogan. That's a 6% point gain over the share earned in the county by Bob Ehrlich, the 2010 Republican gubernatorial candidate.
What this change means and how permanent it is remain unclear. But, one thing is for certain--there are multiple ways to take a place's political temperature. Here's one of them!
Thursday, November 6, 2014
In-state Tuiton--Subsidy or Social Contract?
This weekend the Washington Post had a provocative column by Fred Hiatt arguing that in-state tuition is basically a subsidy for the rich.
Say what?
Well, as Hiatt sees it, in-state tuition is a subsidy in as much as the state spends about $19,000 per student per semester but only charges him/her $9,400 a semester for tuition. And, since wealthy kids go to college at much higher rates than their poor and working class peers, this is a "regressive" subsidy. It helps the rich more than the poor.
On the face of it, this sounds like a reasonable argument. Shouldn't the governments be concentrating its subsidies on the people who need them the most?
There are two problems with this line of thinking. (There are actually quite a few problems, but hey, this is a blog, not a college essay, so I'll spare you).
First, subsidies don't just have to be for poor people. Subsidies can also be used to build up and support social goods. Social goods are meant to be 'consumed' by as many people as possible, and as such have an impact across society. If we adopt the idea that subsidies should only be for the poor, then we'd never have interstate highways, fire departments, police, or any number of services built for and used by the entire populace.
Second, social goods tend to bind people together from across society at large. In the realm of education, that means that a subsidized state university becomes something that belongs to all of us--rich and poor, black and white, young and old. If you don't treat education as a public good, then it becomes just another consumer good--like a television, a car, or even an extended vacation. Those who can afford to buy it can. Those that can't, don't.
Of course, those rich kids in Potomac that Hiatt thinks are getting unnecessary handouts will still be able to afford unsubsidized tuition and will still go to college. But, those at the bottom of the economic ladder, who may already find the $9,400 tuition hard to pay, will be locked out of the system entirely. And, that will just be the way it is, because after all, when something becomes a commodity, it isn't something everyone should have, or that benefits us all. It is just something you buy.
There's also the unfortunate fact that when you only subsidize the neediest, the better-offs tend to point fingers and make moral judgements. And, then they'll fight to undo them, on the grounds that the recipients are undeserving.
Hiatt may fancy himself a progressive tax maven, but what he's really doing is regressive. He's abandoning the notion that there are things government should provide for all of us. It is an attack, however implicit, on the whole notion of the social contract.
Think I'm exaggerating? I wish I were. But, Hiatt shows his hand at the end of his essay when he argues that the in-state tuition 'subsidy' "mirrors" entitlements like "tax deductions for mortgages [and] charitable giving".
Seriously.
Take that one in.
Subsidized public education is no different than a middle class tax write off.
I guess I missed all those inspirational PSAs during Saturday morning cartoons that encouraged me to aim high because a mortgage tax deduction could be in my future.
p.s. there's nothing stopping the state of Maryland, or universities themselves from providing subsidies to low income students to attend college. In fact, if universities want to create a more progressive subsidy system, I'd suggest cutting upper level administration salaries (presidents and provosts making over 200k a year) and applying the savings to students in need.
Say what?
Well, as Hiatt sees it, in-state tuition is a subsidy in as much as the state spends about $19,000 per student per semester but only charges him/her $9,400 a semester for tuition. And, since wealthy kids go to college at much higher rates than their poor and working class peers, this is a "regressive" subsidy. It helps the rich more than the poor.
On the face of it, this sounds like a reasonable argument. Shouldn't the governments be concentrating its subsidies on the people who need them the most?
There are two problems with this line of thinking. (There are actually quite a few problems, but hey, this is a blog, not a college essay, so I'll spare you).
First, subsidies don't just have to be for poor people. Subsidies can also be used to build up and support social goods. Social goods are meant to be 'consumed' by as many people as possible, and as such have an impact across society. If we adopt the idea that subsidies should only be for the poor, then we'd never have interstate highways, fire departments, police, or any number of services built for and used by the entire populace.
Second, social goods tend to bind people together from across society at large. In the realm of education, that means that a subsidized state university becomes something that belongs to all of us--rich and poor, black and white, young and old. If you don't treat education as a public good, then it becomes just another consumer good--like a television, a car, or even an extended vacation. Those who can afford to buy it can. Those that can't, don't.
Of course, those rich kids in Potomac that Hiatt thinks are getting unnecessary handouts will still be able to afford unsubsidized tuition and will still go to college. But, those at the bottom of the economic ladder, who may already find the $9,400 tuition hard to pay, will be locked out of the system entirely. And, that will just be the way it is, because after all, when something becomes a commodity, it isn't something everyone should have, or that benefits us all. It is just something you buy.
There's also the unfortunate fact that when you only subsidize the neediest, the better-offs tend to point fingers and make moral judgements. And, then they'll fight to undo them, on the grounds that the recipients are undeserving.
Hiatt may fancy himself a progressive tax maven, but what he's really doing is regressive. He's abandoning the notion that there are things government should provide for all of us. It is an attack, however implicit, on the whole notion of the social contract.
Think I'm exaggerating? I wish I were. But, Hiatt shows his hand at the end of his essay when he argues that the in-state tuition 'subsidy' "mirrors" entitlements like "tax deductions for mortgages [and] charitable giving".
Seriously.
Take that one in.
Subsidized public education is no different than a middle class tax write off.
I guess I missed all those inspirational PSAs during Saturday morning cartoons that encouraged me to aim high because a mortgage tax deduction could be in my future.
p.s. there's nothing stopping the state of Maryland, or universities themselves from providing subsidies to low income students to attend college. In fact, if universities want to create a more progressive subsidy system, I'd suggest cutting upper level administration salaries (presidents and provosts making over 200k a year) and applying the savings to students in need.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)