HorsesAss.Org

I just got a text message from someone down at the Seattle City Club event where Kemper Freeman, Jr. is speaking. You know, the Kemper Freeman who thinks mass transit is for Communists:

Kemper just said he “loves” mike o’brien at the city club.

If I was a road warrior from Bellevue, I’d love Mike O’Brien too.

[UPDATE]

I get an email update about Kemper’s man-crush on the Sierra Club’s Mike O’Brien:

He also said “Mike is my new best friend.” Mike smiled uncomfortably.

Nice.

It may not be his best known play, but Harold Pinter’s “Betrayal” is by far my favorite, and the 1983 film version starring Jeremy Irons, Ben Kingsley and Patricia Hodge has stuck with me like few others. The play moves backward in time, starting with a reunion of sorts between two lovers, Jerry and Emma, and ending a decade earlier at the party where they first meet. Jerry is the best friend of Robert; Emma is Robert’s wife. And as the play unwinds (or rewinds,) we learn that Robert has perhaps betrayed his friend and wife as much as they have him.

The play is sad, funny, a bit of a mystery, and brilliantly written — and its simple, one word title turns out to be as much a question as it is a statement. Who is betraying whom? Are they betraying each other? Their families? Themselves? And what is the nature of betrayal itself?

Man is a social animal; we crave personal relationships and the positive reinforcement of society at large. We even rely on social institutions to physically survive. All our interactions with our fellow humans are at some level built on trust, and that is what makes “betrayal” one of the most powerfully evocative words in the English language. There is no wrong greater than an act of betrayal, and nearly every wrong has an act of betrayal at its core. It is not murder that is the original sin, but betrayal; it was Adam and Eve’s betrayal of God’s trust that got man evicted from the Garden of Eden.

This I think explains the tempest in a DC teapot over what is, after all, only an ad. Moveon did not even accuse anybody of betrayal, but merely asked the question: “Will Gen. Petraeus betray us?”

And I, for one, am glad they did.

Not because I have any reason to believe that Gen. Petraeus himself is not a man of honor, or because I believe him capable of treason in any way. But because it raises the question of what the word “betrayal” means in the context of this war, this White House and our current political climate.

Indeed for years Republicans have cheapened the word, brandishing it against anybody who would oppose their policies at home or abroad. Karl Rove and his cohorts have constructed a monochromatic political discourse in which you are either with us or against us, in which you either support the President, his war of aggression, and his unconstitutional assault on our civil liberties, or you are as much a threat as the terrorists themselves. How many times over the past few years have politicians and pundits on the right accused those of us on the left of being traitors? And why should the right maintain exclusive ownership over this powerful meme?

For all the heat Moveon is taking from the political class, the ad was both obvious and effective, and the more Republicans desperately attempt to turn the debate from their ill-conceived and disastrously executed war to, well, just an ad, the more they help us establish our frame. “Petraeus”… “betray us”… it is more than just a rhyme or silly pun, it is an unavoidable verbal linkage that inevitably asks the question every time somebody mentions the general’s name.

What is the nature of betrayal? Is it using the tragedy of 9/11 to push through tax cuts for the very wealthy? Is it lying about weapons of mass destruction to justify a war? Is it violating FISA while publicly claiming you are adhering to FISA? Is it leaving New Orleans to drown in its own toxic floodwaters? Is it spending hundreds of billions of dollars to fight in Iraq, and then nickel and diming our permanently disabled veterans at home? Is it running as a fiscal conservative but creating record federal budget deficits? Is it politicizing the Justice Department and the federal bench? Is it presiding over the greatest foreign policy blunder in US history, but defiantly leaving the consequences to the next administration?

Or is it an ad?

The American people aren’t dumb, and if constantly reminded of the word “betrayal,” they’ll sort this one out for themselves. It’s not Moveon who has betrayed the trust of the American people. It’s not the Democrats. It’s not liberal bloggers like me.

If, like in Pinter’s masterpiece, we run the past six years backward to the emotional days following 9/11, when the American people first embraced this president, the true scope of Bush’s betrayal becomes all the more apparent. It is a sad story, sometimes funny, even a bit of a mystery. And in hindsight, just as inevitable.

Eric Earling responds to my post from earlier today. Let’s see if we can make some sense out of this thing:

I would like to personally thank Lee over at Horse’s Ass for so ably proving my original point on this topic.

You’re very welcome, sir. For those who haven’t been following, here are what appear to be the points he made in that post:

– MoveOn.org and the netroots community – including our own local friends in that following – have lost touch with political reality

– Their attack against Giuliani in Iowa after his response to their Petraeus ad is a blessing of the first order for Team Rudy

Eric is exactly right that I “proved” the second of these points. Why? Because I somewhat agree with it. And I even said so in the original post:

Giuliani may very well be able to use this as a way to make him look tough to the 29% of Americans who are still inhabiting the fairy tale world where Bush is a great president and victory in Iraq is just around the corner.

The first point was the one I took issue with. MoveOn has not “lost touch” with political reality in any way. Rudy Giuliani took out a one-page ad in the New York Times attacking them, so they responded. That’s politically smart. When someone challenges you, you fight back. Americans actually want more of that from Democrats and left-leaning groups, not less.

Eric’s just warming up though:

His frothy indignation over the fact MoveOn.org attacks against Rudy Giuliani are actually helping his candidacy is a delightful exhibition of all that is lovable and cute about the netroots.

Actually, as I mentioned above, my “frothy indignation” was over the accusation that MoveOn and the netroots have lost touch with political reality, not that any of this helps Giuliani. While I’ve been very outspoken on why I think Giuliani might be the worst of the Republican candidates, I have little interest or ability to influence who the Republicans pick as their nominee. MoveOn arguably has some more interest and ability, but anyone who thinks that that’s the main consideration for why they responded to his attack is silly. Giuliani went after them. If this helps Giuliani, it was because he was the one who picked the fight (any of the candidates could have responded to the original MoveOn ad). What was MoveOn supposed to do? Respond to Mitt Romney or John McCain instead? The fact that it might be helping Giuliani is not an indication of MoveOn not understanding political reality, it’s an indication that the Republican Party is an embarrassment and that they seem eager to nominate someone who can’t possibly win next fall.

He continues:

His core point seems to be: “Earling is wrong because the American public isn’t happy with the situation in Iraq.” Thanks for the newsflash. Too bad I don’t dispute that point about the American public’s feelings and it has nothing to do with the post in question.

That’s pretty far from obvious if one reads that post again. The mistake I made is that I didn’t realize that when Eric was talking about “political reality,” he was talking solely about the fantasyland that Republicans are living in now – where they’re looking for a candidate who appears tough enough to keep themselves from wetting their beds – and not the political reality that the rest of us are dealing with, where we’re appreciative of anti-war efforts with some spine.

The reality of national public opinion doesn’t for a minute change the fact that attacking Rudy Giuliani in a Republican primary by saying he didn’t stand up to George W. Bush on Iraq isn’t going to have the desired effect.

Except that it is going to have the desired effect. MoveOn isn’t responding to Rudy solely because they’re trying to take him out in the Republican primary. They’re responding to Rudy because they’re sick and tired of watching Democrats in the same situation fail to respond to attacks.

Who the attack is coming from doesn’t help either. MoveOn.org has about as much credibility with Republican primary voters as Pat Robertson does with their Democratic counterparts.

Exactly, so why would they care about how die-hard Republican voters react? Their message is for those whose minds actually work. If none of those people are voting for Republicans any more, then it doesn’t matter. But a recent survey showed that a majority of Iowa Republicans want a full withdrawal of troops from Iraq in six months. That’s the political reality. If this ad still helps Giuliani in the primary, it arguably hurts the Republicans severely in November 2008.

Put a different way; imagine the Club for Growth running ads in the primary attacking a Democratic candidate for not standing up to organized labor on free trade. Same effect.

If the Democratic candidate attacked the Club for Growth, I would expect them to fight back. But whether or not this helped the particular Democrat would not be based upon the response, but whether Democratic voters agreed with the original attack.

Such attacks from MoveOn.org’s might – stress might – have some potential in the right swing states in the general election, depending on where things are at a year from now. But that’s not exactly what MoveOn.org is trying to accomplish right now is it?

Is he kidding? Is he really saying that when MoveOn responds to an attack on them by a Republican, it could make them look bad? What? [Actually, no he’s not, see below]

It’s certainly theoretically possible that a particular MoveOn.org position can be seen as extreme enough that an unprovoked attack (like the original Petraeus ad) could alienate people. But if a majority of Americans strongly agree with their message, it won’t. And when it comes to some of the basic stuff MoveOn.org is fighting for, the majority of the American public agrees with them.

As I said in the earlier post, am I really sharing a planet with this guy?

UPDATE: After re-reading, I definitely misinterpreted Earling’s last paragraph. He’s saying that an attack like this could help defeat a candidate like Giuliani in the general election. Of course it could. In fact, it most definitely would, and it’s part of the reason why these ads are appearing already. I’m still not sure Eric really grasps how unpopular this war has become.

I love a good beer and I love talking politics, so I’m especially excited to welcome to my neck of the woods the new Southeast Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally, which meets tonight (and the 3rd Wednesday of every month,) 8PM at the Columbia City Ale House, 4914 Rainier Ave S.

I’m told Bill Sherman might take a break from the campaign trail to chat up us Southies, and I should be getting there a little after 9PM. I look forward to seeing all my South End friends.

There are times when I’m not sure I inhabit the same planet as Eric Earling, let alone the same city:

Behold more evidence that MoveOn.org and the netroots community – including our own local friends in that following – have lost touch with political reality. Their attack against Giuliani in Iowa after his response to their Petraeus ad is a blessing of the first order for Team Rudy.

Giuliani is hitting back with an ad that drives home his feisty willingness to confront obnoxious liberalism that endears him to conservatives…even those otherwise skeptical of him.

Exactly who is out of touch with political reality here?

There were two high-profile media events about Iraq last week: The top U.S. commander testified before Congress and President Bush delivered a prime-time speech. What impact did they have?

Very little, according to two polls taken at the end of the week.

Before the testimony of Gen. David Petraeus and the President’s speech, 26 percent of Americans polled by CBS News approved of President Bush’s handling of Iraq. After the speech, 25 percent approved.

Before the testimony and the speech, 41 percent of Americans believed the United States did the right thing to take military action in Iraq. After the speech, 39 percent said it was the right thing.

And also consider from a month ago:

In another poll taken August 6-8, 53 percent said they did not trust Petraeus to report “what’s really going on” in Iraq. The survey interviewed 1,029 adult Americans. The results from the Petraeus question had a margin of error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.

So let’s recap. A majority of Americans in early August did not trust General David Petraeus to report the truth from Iraq. General Petraeus comes back last week and does not report the truth from Iraq. Instead, he continues to maintain that the “surge” is working, even though a majority of Americans think that he’s wrong and the evidence doesn’t back him up. Even if you somehow manage to convince yourself that this isn’t some sort of betrayal by a military official who we expected to be truthful, a majority of Americans still think that Petraeus went in front of Congress and fed us a pile of bullshit. And Americans sure as hell care more about that than about an ad in a newspaper that riled up the right-wing PC police.

Giuliani may very well be able to use this as a way to make him look tough to the 29% of Americans who are still inhabiting the fairy tale world where Bush is a great president and victory in Iraq is just around the corner. But for the majority of Americans whose heads are not up their own asses, the political reality is quite different.

In Lou Guzzo’s latest LouBoob installment, Dino Rossi’s “idea” man decries organic farming: “It’s as much a national hoax as the fantasy over what has been called ‘global warming.'” Guzzo is apparently fond of ingesting petrochemicals. That explains everything.

You’re gonna be hearing a lot over the next few days about the new Elway Poll that just came out, focusing on this November’s $17.8 billion Roads & Transit measure (shorter Elway: it’s damn close,) and I’ll be adding my own spin to the cycle as soon as I’ve had time to digest the numbers. But I wanted to quickly comment on another survey Elway summarizes, almost as an afterthought: that showing that when it comes to making the Director of Elections an elected office, voters aren’t nearly as enthusiastic as most of us assumed.

According to Elway only 45% of respondents favored an elected director, with 26% opposed and 29% undecided. No doubt proponents would rather have those numbers than the other way around, but it is never a comfortable position to have your measure under 50% this close to an election. It’s a small sample with a relatively high 6.4% margin of error, but dollars to donuts these numbers are raising a few eyebrows.

While I firmly believe the proposed charter amendment is politically motivated bad policy, pure and simple, I never thought there was much of a chance of defeating it at the polls. I could write essays refuting the opponents’ arguments… but arguing the facts is rarely a winning strategy, and I’ve publicly despaired the rhetorical challenge of convincing voters that “more democracy” can be a bad thing.

But perhaps voters don’t need all that much convincing? What the Elway Poll tells us is that voters are sufficiently skeptical of the measure that an adequately funded and competently crafted “No” campaign would stand a good chance of defeating it at the polls. Of course, there is no “No” campaign, and I can’t think of an organization with both the financial resources and the financial stake to fight one.

But if there was, they could win.

The Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally meets tonight (and every Tuesday), 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E.

Not in Seattle? Liberals will also be drinking tonight in the Tri-Cities. A full listing of Washington’s thirteen Drinking Liberally chapters is available here. And a heads up… the Southeast Seattle chapter meets tomorrow night (and the third Wednesday of every month,) 8PM at the Columbia City Alehouse. Come join me and my neighbors for a pint of Manny’s a few miles closer to its source.

No matter your politics, this is not good:

COLLEGE STATION, TX — Traffic congestion continues to worsen in American cities of all sizes, creating a $78 billion annual drain on the U.S. economy in the form of 4.2 billion lost hours and 2.9 billion gallons of wasted fuel—that’s 105 million weeks of vacation and 58 fully-loaded supertankers.

[…]

Worsening congestion, the study notes, is reflected in several ways:

* Trips take longer
* Congestion affects more of the day
* Congestion affects weekend travel and rural areas
* Congestion affects more personal trips and freight shipments
* Trip travel times increasingly are unreliable

Researchers spent two years revising the methodology using additional sources of traffic information, providing more—and higher quality—data on which to base the current study.

The report identifies multiple solutions to the congestion problem that, researchers say, must be used together to be effective. These include:

* Get as much service as possible from existing infrastructure
* Add road and transit system capacity in critical corridors
* Relieve chokepoints
* Change usage patterns
* Provide choices
* Diversify the development patterns
* Keep expectations realistic

“Congestion is a far more complex problem than is apparent at first glance,” Lomax said. “The better the data we use to define the problem, the more successful we will be in addressing its root causes.”

Roads and Transit, baby.

What he said:

There’s been a marked recent increase in the number of people asking me to write about their organization, campaign, or client. Whether it’s a non-profit with some new-fangled incredibly-esoteric project, a politician promoting their latest highly-interesting-to-them but-kind-of-boring-to-you policy proposal, or a public relations firm being paid big bucks to push the lame ideas of yet another client, the volume of “give me free publicity” requests has skyrocketed of late.

Interestingly, at the same time, the number of ads these same groups are running on blogs has plummeted.

Now, you don’t have to pay to get me to write about your story. (And the corollary, even if you paid me I still wouldn’t write about a non-story.) You simply have to have a real story, and it has to be news. And by news, I mean that it has to be novel and interesting, and it has to matter. … [I]n essence, these non-profits, political campaigns and PR firms are not asking me to write about a big news story, which IS what we write about, they’re asking me to do them a favor by writing about something that might not interest my readers. And therein lies the problem. Why should I do them a favor when they’ve never lifted a finger to support my blog or the blogosphere at large?

[…] My point isn’t that the blogs should be bought, or can be bought. My point is that the blogs should be supported by the larger progressive community, and they’re not. Liberal non-profits, political operations, and companies interested in reaching either a progressive audience or an inside-the-beltway crowd wouldn’t think twice about spending $60,000 on a Washington Post ad, spending a good chunk of change on an ad in The Hill or Roll Call, or paying a PR firm a $20,000+ a month retainer to get their news on the blogs, among other venues (NOTE: the very best way to get me NOT to cover a story is to have a PR firm contact me). But the notion of spending $800 (or hopefully, several thousand dollars) on a blog ad gives them serious pause. Then they turn around and expect favors.

There’s an old trite saying: “Why buy the cow when you get the milk for free?” Well, the milk just dried up.

There’s an election six weeks away, a ton of candidates and ballot measures vying for attention, and the usual progressive organizations with their usual agendas… not to mention progressive business owners who wouldn’t be hurt by supporting progressive media once in a while. And yet my BlogAds are surprisingly empty. Hmm.

Fed slashes interest rates half a percent. Man… I am such an idiot.

UPDATE:
Shorter Bonddad: “Fuck inflation.”

Once again the Seattle Times and the Seattle P-I feature the same story at the same time but from rather different angles… and I’m wondering if we’re beginning to see a pattern emerge here?

Both dailies feature transit news on their front page, the Times with a big photo of a Sound Transit light rail train in the soon to be reopened downtown tunnel, and the P-I with a photo of the new South Lake Union Trolley being lowered onto the tracks. The Times article is thorough, informative, and typically dry, while the P-I chose to go with a rather frothy piece (the text actually starts on B1) focused on the trolley’s amusing acronym, and a local coffee shop’s t-shirts inviting visitors to “Ride the SLUT.”

There’s nothing particularly political about either piece, so it’s not really worth another line by line close reading, but like yesterday’s divergent take on the governor’s race, there are noticeable stylistic differences as well. The Times mostly reports facts and quotes, whereas the P-I seems to be searching for the story behind the story. (I’m not saying they actually found the story behind the story today, just that they’re looking for it.) I’m generally not a big fan of our media’s gradual drift from news to features, but I’ve got to give the P-I some credit for embracing an edgier and more overtly opinionated approach to the news. They couldn’t quite print the word “SLUT” on the front page, but it made it to B1. And that’s a start.

Some good bullshit while the bullshitin’s good.

* Alan Greenspan wrote a book, and if it had been a few years ago or so, it would be very insightful. But since he forgot to speak out until Bush has been mired in the 30% range for over a year, and he had been out of office for sometime, it’s too late.

* And speaking of the 30% range, Glenn Reynolds is thrilled that Bush is all the way up to 33%, and hopes that the upcoming bombing of Iran will boost him even more.

* Any notion of attacking Iran is bullshit in and of itself, and it’ll be important that we call bullshit on the enablers of that horrible idea, even if they’re Democrats, and even if we agree with them on most other issues.

* Unfortunately, we know the kind of people who have the president’s ear. Sad pathetic people. People who get all hot and bothered to see the President of the United States act like an ass, especially when talking about Iraq.

* And the President certainly won’t acknowledge the maybe 1,000,000 dead in Iraq.

Locally,

* The Columbian comes out against paid family leave in the state. You see, they didn’t need no family planning in the dark ages, so we don’t need any now.

* Seriously, drinking water? What the fuck conservatives?

* And finally, it may have been mentioned on this blog once or twice before, but Jane Hague is a liar.

This is an open thread

Okay, I’ll try my best to maintain my journalistic “objectivity” so as not to offend any of my friends in the traditional media, but the contrast between today’s Seattle Times and Seattle P-I present one of those classic illustrations of how the local electorate benefits from having two major daily newspapers… and engaged bloggers prepared to critique them. Both papers feature articles covering the current state of the 2008 gubernatorial campaign, but if you didn’t know better, you’d think they were writing about two entirely different races.

The P-I pastes its four-column headline across the top of the fold, boldly declaring:

Rossi run for governor?
All signs point to yes

A photo of Dino Rossi accompanies the headline with a caption quoting a party insider as saying close advisors “feel 100 percent confident that he is in.” And Neil Modie’s lede is equally blunt:

He doesn’t admit it, but Dino Rossi seems to have made up his mind to run again for governor.

Even as the 2004 Republican nominee faces an investigation of whether he illegally used his public policy foundation as a front for a 2008 campaign, he reportedly is moving toward an announcement of his candidacy sooner than he has indicated. Some of his 2004 campaign operatives have been touting his 2008 prospects.

The story? Everybody who is anybody says Rossi is running for governor… except for the candidate himself, who continues to officially hide behind his so-called foundation. The race is on, and “officially,” probably sooner than later.

Ralph Thomas’ story in the Times, on the other hand, appears on B1 (I haven’t yet seen a print copy,) and presents an entirely different take on the governor’s race:

Gregoire gearing up for ’08

OLYMPIA — If money matters — and who in politics would suggest otherwise? — the state Republican Party has a problem.

Though the 2008 election is more than a year away, Democratic Gov. Christine Gregoire already has raised nearly $2.7 million in campaign cash. The Republicans, meanwhile, still don’t have a candidate for governor.

The story? Gov. Gregoire is raising big money, but the Republicans… they don’t even have a candidate yet!

It’s not until more than halfway through the article that Thomas even mentions the status of Rossi’s efforts, and when he does, he initially allows Republicans to characterize it in their own words:

Like most Republicans, Esser is hoping former state Sen. Dino Rossi — who barely lost to Gregoire in the 2004 election — will soon announced a rematch. In their last race, Rossi matched Gregoire nearly dollar for dollar in fundraising.

Rossi has said he will decide by the end of the year whether to run.

486 words into the 600 word piece — well beyond the attention span of many readers — Thomas finally mentions that Rossi has not been “sitting idle,” but again allows him to characterize his own efforts:

For months, he has been traveling the state, giving speeches and raising money on behalf of the Forward Washington Foundation, a nonprofit group he formed last year.

Rossi says Forward Washington is simply an effort to engage the public in finding solutions to the state’s biggest problems.

It is only in the closing paragraphs that Thomas briefly presents what “Democrats contend”….

But Democrats contend it is a de facto “Rossi for Governor” campaign. They point out that, at his Forward Washington gatherings, Rossi uses many of the same pitches that he used in 2004.

In July, the state Democratic Party filed a complaint accusing Rossi of using the foundation to sidestep state campaign-disclosure laws. That complaint is being investigated by the state Public Disclosure Commission.

Compare that to Modie, who spends the bulk of his P-I article — and nearly 600 words of bullet points — laying out the evidence that Rossi is in fact running for governor, including a rather definitive quote from Tacoma News Tribune editorial page editor David Seago, who blogging after “an informal ed board” interview with Republican Attorney General Rob McKenna, wrote: “McKenna said there’s no doubt Rossi’s going for it.”

Notice that like Thomas and Modie I have up until now attempted to avoid editorializing. As far as I know, neither Thomas nor Modie got a single fact wrong; likewise, I have made a sincere attempt to present an accurate and neutral close reading in an effort to understand how a typical reader’s perception of the governor’s race might be shaped, depending on which paper they read. I do not believe that my characterization of the two articles was any more consciously biased than the articles themselves.

That said, no doubt I prefer Modie’s take, and believe it presents a more accurate, nuanced and useful understanding of the current state of the governor’s race. It probably could have benefited from a paragraph or two on Gregoire’s fundraising lead, but “Incumbent raises buckets of cash” is not exactly a “Man bites dog” sorta headline… which I suppose explains why Thomas’ money-focused article ran on B1 instead of A1.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not intending to impugn Thomas’ motives or his reporting skills, and the Democrats’ impressive statewide money lead is certainly newsworthy; these are two different articles focusing on two different aspects of the same race. But the fact that the Times and the P-I, on the very same day, would so dramatically diverge on the status of Rossi’s candidacy, gives lie to the traditional paradigm that proclaims objectivity as even a possible, let alone worthy journalistic pursuit. Modie’s lede claims Rossi has “made up his mind to run again for governor,” whereas Thomas’ lede says Republicans “still don’t have a candidate.” Both are technically correct, but I’d wager political insiders from both parties would privately acknowledge that Modie’s take is the more accurate characterization of Rossi’s intentions.

Think about it. Rossi will certainly generate obligatory headlines when he finally and officially announces his candidacy, and I suppose the event will be at least as newsworthy as the first half-dozen or so of Mike McGavick’s many campaign kickoffs. But should Rossi shock the political and media establishment by announcing that he will not seek the governor’s mansion, well, that would be a huge story. Modie’s lede acknowledges this on the ground reality. Thomas’ lede does not.

Two newspapers, one governor’s race, two very different takes on Dino Rossi’s intentions. Objectivity just isn’t all its cracked up to be.

Dave Neiwert has a great guest column in today’s Seattle P-I, and while he’s writing about bicyclists, the same holds true for pedestrian and transit commuters as well:

Trier, like a lot of misinformed folks, seems to believe the only road taxes we pay are motor vehicle licensing fees and fuel taxes. But the truth is that those fees largely pay for state and federal highways, and even then only a portion of them. The rest of the costs of those roadways are borne by all taxpayers generally, including bicyclists, through local, property and sales taxes. Local roads, where you find most cyclists, are another story altogether.

Indeed, most bicyclists in fact also own cars, so they’re also paying the licensing fees and gas taxes as well. But by using their bikes in place of cars, the wear and tear (and subsequent maintenance costs) they inflict is exponentially less than that caused by cars and trucks.

A 1995 study titled “Whose Roads?” by cycling advocate Todd Litman laid all this out in detail. The study estimated that automobile users pay an average of 2.3 cents per mile in user fees, including fuel taxes and vehicle registration fees, while they actually impose 6.5 cents per mile in road service costs. Who pays the difference? It’s picked up by general taxes and property assessments. So while bicyclists pay an equal share of those taxes, they impose costs averaging only 0.2 cents per mile in road service costs.

The amount bicyclists overpay leaps out when you look at the costs of local roads, the roads cyclists use most. Litman found that only a third of the funds for their construction and maintenance comes from vehicle user charges; local property, income and sales taxes pay the rest. Automobile user fees contribute only about 1 cent per mile toward the costs of local roads but simultaneously impose costs more than six times that amount.

This is the type of clarity that makes Dave one of my favorite local writers, and it highlights an argument that should be raised in the midst of the debate over the controversial Roads & Transit measure on the November ballot. The anti-rail folk often argue that they shouldn’t have to subsidize transit riders, when in fact it is transit riders who have long been subsidizing roads via the sales and property taxes that pay for the bulk of their maintenance. Likewise, relatively light drivers like me — I average less than 6,000 miles a year — get substantially less for our sales, property and MVET tax buck than a more typical 15,000 to 20,000 mile per year commuter.

The idea that automobile drivers pay as they go, while everybody else is a freeloader, is complete and utter bullshit that fails to evaluate our transportation system and tax structure as a whole. But I’ve never before been able to put it into words quite effectively as Dave.