The Seattle P-I has an article today supposedly exploring the future of tolling on Washington state roads, but which essentially just ends up serving as a forum for a debate between Matt Rosenberg of the Discovery Institute and Michael Ennis of the Washingon Policy Center… two conservative think tanks.
I’m not saying that Matt and Michael don’t make any reasonable arguments, but really, is this the best we can do? Two conservative think tanks duking it out over creating state transportation policy that will largely impact the predominantly progressive Puget Sound region?
So Goldy–
What is your Progressive solution?
Higher taxes on Rich People…I know.
cyn, never missing a chance to repeat your right wing bumper sticker mantra, even through it has nothing to do with the topic.
Way to go! Showing that, once again, you don’t think for yourself.
Yeah, those dickwads don’t have a clue about the values of the progressive Puget Sound region. Hell, they want a use tax, where the more you use the infrastructure the more you pay.
They are way out of step with the Democratic Party that is completely in charge. The Democratic party favors regressive general taxes to pay for transportation.
Phillips, Constatine, Nickels, Ed Murray – they back sales taxes, sales taxes and more sales taxes. Who says they aren’t progressive.
Shit, Sound Transit plans on collecting tens of billions of dollars of sales tax that it doesn’t need over the next thirty years just as security for bondholders. It’ll just stick that money into reserve accounts. THAT’S how to pay for transportation infrastructure, right Goldy? That’s really progressive, just we all are!!!
The “think tank” is a largely conservative phenomenon, mostly rooted in the public relations industry al la Bernays, Ivy Lee, and for that matter, PT Barnum. Private “think tanks” are not required to abide by things like scientific inquiry, and rely on popular logical fallcies to promote agendas, unlike actual reseach at acedemic institutions.
For those who level that accusation of “liberal” at acedamia, I will remind you that 90% of the “innovation” in “the market” was conducted at publically funded universities. More socialism for the rich.
The marraige of the newspaper industry and the PR industry is over a century old. One of them needs to go in absence of any real reform. I guess that’s happening, isn’t it?
@1 Why shouldn’t rich people pay the same tax rates as working stiffs? I remember when conservatives championed the idea of a flat tax. That was until they got preferential tax rates. Now I’m championing flat tax rates. I don’t see why a rich goatfucker flipping stocks as a hobby should pay 1/3 the tax rate that a productive wage earner has to pay.
@2 He wants to keep paying 5% while everyone else has to pay 32.65%. That — and what he does to his goats — tells you everything that you need to know about his values and character.
@3 “The Democratic party favors regressive general taxes to pay for transportation.”
Well, it’s harder to argue with that, because it’s true. But it also points out the utter uselessness of the WSRP. We can get screwed by regressive taxes without the Republicans’ help, so what do we need them for?
I suspect Rosenberg’s motive for tolling Seattle’s commuter arterials is to force low-wage workers to walk to their jobs so he can get to his job faster.
@7 – There is no R party in Washington State.
Closest thing we have (and pretty awesome, in fact) are the folks at Sightline Institute. They have a sustainability/enviro/econ beat, but within that range, they’re top-notch. Shame on the P-I for not including them to round out the conversation.
maybe cuz toooooooooo many of us chumps give our limited time and our limited money to the f’ing sell outs like murray, cantwell and gregroire …
cuz
if we don’t support __________ then we’ll have a fascist.
what is MORE effective than convincing tens of millions of mouth breathers that ronnie raygun and bush and rummy and dino and mcgagick give a shit about them …
ha ha ha
having an ‘opposition’ party lead by sell outs and chickenshits!
rmm.
Sightline is the most prominent think tank. The Ruckelhaus Institute provides some independent research. And several advocacy groups provide additional research and policy analysis, such as Futurewise, Transportation Choices Coalition, Washington Environmental Council, Climate Solutions, and Puget Sound Partnership. In the greater northwest, the Victoria Transportation Institute and EcoTrust provide invaluable research capabilities that lean progressive.
When the issue is taxes, democrats note the regressive tax structure. It’s a tragedy.
When it comes to any program, they propose increasing the regressive taxes.
Then they complain that poor people want to vote for tax cuts.
While the Discovery Institute surely is as conservative as can be when it comes to teaching evolution, the Cascadia Center is progressive with regard to transportation policy. Tarring the Cascadia Center as conservative because of the Discovery Institute’s views on evolution makes no sense and is a disservice to progressives.
Thanks for reading.
@14 Aubrey, Cascadia also was one of the biggest pushers of a deep-bore tunnel without high-capacity transit or even HOV lanes. While Cascadia is farther forward-looking than, say, Judy Clibborn or Mary Margaret Haugen, the “progressive” solution would be surface-transit and improvements to I-5.
@15 kurisu, supporting the tunnel hardly makes them conservative, although I agree it doesn’t put them on the leading edge of progressives either. My point was just that the positions that make Discovery “conservative” have nothing to do with transportation.
progressives also favor dynamic tolling of the limited access highways. how about the Sierra Club, Ron Sims, Doug MacDonald, and TCC.
The Innis arguments were very weak.
It is smart to use the law of demand to manage demand for limited resources. All users of all income levels would benefit.
government has used pricing and the law of demand to help in electric power and conservation, water, waste water, and solid waster and recycling. in time, the limited access highways will be treated like utilities.