Someone recently brought to my attention a 2005 article published in the Washington Monthly, a magazine that used to call itself “neoliberal” before the neoconservatives gave neos a bad name. Anyway, the article in question is called Auto-Mobility: Subsidizing America’s commute would reward work, boost the economy, and transform lives.
Flickr photo by VirtualEm.
The thesis of the article is that driving a car is no longer “a lifestyle decision.” Instead, Americans drive because “to get to work, the vast majority of Americans have to drive.” Thus, the writer argues that Congress should change tax policy and allow commuters to deduct the cost of their driving from their taxes, and, further, that the federal government should “offer tax credits that would lower the cost of commuting to work for low and middle-income employees, and would allow low-income workers who can’t afford a reliable car to get one.”
The author of this article, Margy Waller, is a dyed-in-the-wool liberal excuse me, progressive who worked on poverty issues during the Clinton administration, has a progressive blog, and leads a Mobility Team whose aims include (among other things) promoting the “acquisition and ownership of private automobiles for low-wage workers.”
Here is a perfect example of Ronald Reagan’s famous quip about government’s view of the economy: “If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”
We tax auto driving (and some progressives would say not enough) and (thanks to progressives) divert a huge share of those taxes to mass transit and other non-highway activities. We regulate driving, as when the EPA imposes dozens of different gasoline formulas on different parts of the country, which is one of the major reasons why gas prices are so high today (because when local shortages take place companies can’t substitute fuel from another state).
So, having taxed it and regulated it, now the progressives want to subsidize driving. And not just for low-income people, but for the middle-class as well (perhaps sensing that programs that help low-income families can’t get approved unless they also benefit the middle-class majority).
Here is the problem the author is trying to address: Poor people tend to live in central cities. But most new job growth is in the suburbs. Transit doesn’t work to get inner-city people to those jobs, so they have to drive. So, since low-income families tend to have the lowest rates of auto ownership, they need help from government in getting their first cars.
The last part — that the government should help low-income workers get cars — is where libertarians and progressives part ways. I am all for helping people escape poverty, but government is not the road for them to follow.
First of all, cars are cheap. I have a car that I bought new 21 years ago. It has almost 250,000 miles on it, but I am confident enough that it is going to go another 50,000 miles or so that when I recently had to replace the tires I got the kind with the 80,000-mile warranty. If I sold the car today, I would be lucky to get $500 for it; $300 is more realistic.
Gas prices may be high today (though they are falling), but my car still gets 35 mpg, so that’s not a big deal. Anyone can buy a low-priced car that gets pretty good gas mileage if they need one. So I am not certain that the cost is really the obstacle.
The U.S. Department of Transportation grants money to anti-poverty groups that they can use to give low-interest loans of up to $4,000 to low-income people to get a car. I talked recently with someone from one of those groups. He said the main problem many low-income people have is that their credit ratings are terrible and so they end up paying 30 percent interest on credit cards and other debt. Many people, he said, don’t even know they have a credit rating and don’t know what interest they are paying on their debts. His big job is not giving out loans but educating people about credit, interest rates, and debt.
This says to me that the obstacle keeping low-income people from driving to work (if there is one) is lack of education, not money. Our schools have failed to prepare people for the basic knowledge they need to live in the day-to-day world. Commuter tax credits are not going to solve that problem.
Instead, the proposed program of tax breaks and tax credits will mainly end up benefitting people who are not really low income. Recent college graduates, for example, may have low incomes at the moment but many are about to embark on careers with lifetime expected earnings of millions of dollars. They will gladly take any subsidies Uncle Sam gives out so they can buy a Mini Cooper or whatever is the latest fad car.
People who care about helping low-income families out of poverty should concentrate on removing government obstacles to social and geographic mobility.
- Why are our schools so rotten in inner-city neighborhoods? Not because we aren’t spending enough, but because of government-run monopolistic schools.
- Why do inner cities have so much congestion? Because too many cities have decided to invest in bike paths and light rail rather than increase roadway capacity.
- If jobs are moving to the suburbs, why can’t low-income people move to the suburbs too? Because, in too many places, government planners have driven up housing costs.
It says we ought to look deep into the http://www.donssite.com/OPTICALIILLUSIONS/next9.htm tadalafil overnight shipping male genital organ or can even be ordered online. All our viagra generika supplements are manufactured under the supervision of experts. Pressure coming from fingers jabbed within the notch happens upon intense pain that involves an the opponent in discover for source viagra cialis generico order to withdraw through the pressure involuntarily. b. Individuals taking Sildenafil medications have reported donssite.com cheap viagra up to 88% improvement. Solving these problems will do far more to help low-income families than creating tax credits for commuters.
http://www.cascadepolicy.org/?page_id=252
Research has shown that automobile ownership is an empowering tool that can have a significantly positive effect on employment, especially for the low-skilled and low-income population. Numerous policy studies have concluded that owning a vehicle is a viable solution to transportation barriers to employment for low-income people. For example, Kerri Sullivan of Portland State University examined the effects of car ownership on employment and wages for adults without a high school diploma in Portland. She found that “Car ownership improved the likelihood of being employed by 80 percent. The effect on average weekly wages was approximately $275, and the effect on weeks worked was approximately 8.5 weeks.â€Â
Automobile ownership also has the potential to reduce the employment gap between whites and minorities. According to Steve Raphael and Michael Stoll of UC-Berkeley and UCLA respectively, “. . . empirical estimates indicate that raising minority car-ownership rate would eliminate 45% of the black-white employment rate differential and 17% of the comparable Latino-White differential.â€Â
One more point that I find interesting.
Sullivan found that owning a car was more important for insuring the employment of non-high-school graduates than getting a high-school equivalency degree.
http://www.cascadepolicy.org/?page_id=252
One of my pet peeves is the idea that driving is a “priviledge” not a “right”. I couldn’t disagree more.
As the article points out driving is an essential part of membership in society, especially employment. Taking away a person license to drive for such things as failure to pay child support only makes matters worse. Now the person can’t pay the support or support himself either one.
I understand the government’s desire to claim it’s a priviledge but we must recognize this as nothing short of a power grab making government the new diety to be obeyed.
Driving is a right that needs to be protected as an essential part of one’s ability to work and provide. We need to all stop this nonsense of it being a government controlled priviledge.
If driving is a “right” instead of a “government controlled privilege”, I’ll assume you oppose the granting of driver’s licenses by the government.
One of the phrases from the freedom-promoting think tank that appeared just below johng’s selected quote was:
In Oregon, limited bus routes and schedules contribute to the challenges facing the low-income, transit-dependent population. Owning a car can make a whole lot of difference for them. It would directly benefit the lives of the neediest families in Oregon.
So people can’t be free to choose. They only can choose between one thing. Not very free, I’d say.
Planners know that cars are the single most reliable indicator for rising out of poverty. Hence the driver of density, for not only housing choice and amenity provision, but because transit provision is density-dependent. See, density gives people choices, surely this is good since we quote from think-tank web sites that purport to want people to be free to choose, right?
Right.
DS
“Here is the problem the author is trying to address: Poor people tend to live in central cities. But most new job growth is in the suburbs. Transit doesn’t work to get inner-city people to those jobs, so they have to drive. So, since low-income families tend to have the lowest rates of auto ownership, they need help from government in getting their first cars.”
Sounds like it would be a nice if transit could “work to get inner-city people to those jobs”.
D4P,
Your assumption is wrong. Enforcing a minimum age and knowledge requirements is very common sense while not infringing on the right of having a license.
Revoking the right to drive for things such as failure to pay support or being a minor in possession of alcohol (not while driving) is the type governmental abuse at issue.
There has been talk of non-issuance to high school dropouts. So instead of letting a dropout become a productive member of society many would further handicap such people by not letting them drive to work. This is clearly abuse of power. Power vested by the insistance that driving is a “priviledge”.
I think “conditional right” is probably a more appropriate term than “privilege”. People have a right to drive, conditional on their agreement not to drink too much alcohol, not to drive too fast, etc. You have a right, provided you follow the rules, which are largely intended to protect other people from your lousy behavior. That’s part of living in a society. Each of us forfeits some freedoms (e.g. the freedom to murder someone else) in exchange for other people forfeiting the same freedoms. Presumably, I gain more by not being murdered than I give up by not being able to murder someone else with impunity.
BTW: What’s the point of the photo the Antiplanner included in this thread?
BTW: What’s the point of the photo the Antiplanner included in this thread
Those are all the workers deprived of the freedom to choose their transportation mode.
DS
Dan said: Those are all the workers deprived of the freedom to choose their transportation mode.
JK: Deprived of freedom? How?
I suspect that you are confusing the lack of government providing the tools to exercise a right with the actual right.
Let me try to educate you:
You have the freedom to print a paper. The government is NOT DENYING your freedom by not providing a printing press.
You have the freedom to free speech. The government is NOT DENYING your freedom by not providing a soap box, a bull horn, or ghost writer.
You have the freedom to “bear armsâ€Â. The government is NOT DENYING your freedom by not providing you with a sword or AK47.
You have the freedom to travel. The government is NOT DENYING your freedom by not providing you a car, a bus ticket or a toy train.
BTW why are you promoting mass transportation – it costs much more than cars?
See: http://www.debunkingportland.com/Transit/Cost-Cars-Transit(2005).htm
Thanks
JK
There are lower cost ways to go to work than cars that are practical for most workers most of the time – small to medium-sized motorcycles and motorscooters.
In the next few decades there will be robocabs so one won’t even need a driver’s license or have to pay a chaffeur to go where and when one wants to go.
D4P (not Dan) said:
BTW: What’s the point of the photo the Antiplanner included in this thread?
Answer: Some of the drivers of those cars have low incomes.
Or maybe some low-income drivers are late to work because some planners deliberately created this congestion.
Or maybe most people find driving more convenient even if they have to face congestion.
Or maybe I just like adding photos to my posts.