Showing posts with label infrastructure. Show all posts
Showing posts with label infrastructure. Show all posts

Friday, March 07, 2008

Corzine Cuts Spending on Small NJ Towns

The NYT reports.

“It’s just not fair,” said Denise Jawidzik, the business administrator in nearby Jamesburg, where officials have joined with their counterparts in Helmetta to call on Trenton to reconsider the cuts. “People are getting punished just because of where they live.”
While I'm not unsympathetic to this kind of plight, I think it's as myopic as not. For a long time now, at least since the mass adoption of the automobile, people living in rural and suburban areas have never realized the true cost of where they decide to live.

This is in part due to cheap oil and transportation costs, but for this post I want to focus on the other infrastructure costs.

In order to see whether Corzine's cuts are fair or not, an analysis needs to be run that compares the costs and benefits of all the services provided by the government across geographies. While I'm sure individual small towns have much lower absolute [government-provided] cost bases than cities', it's unclear to me whether their per capita costs are lower than cities'. E.g., you have fewer police officers in rural areas, and probably fewer per capita, but that police building is still going to cost a boatload of money to build/maintain/etc. Furthermore, cities often have more government subsidized benefits than rural areas have, such as museums, transportation and others.

I'd bet that for the services they provide and the benefits that residents accrue, small towns cost more and pay out less than urban areas. How did things get to be this way? Probably your usual dose of corruption and pandering: after all, that's what bringing home the bacon - delicious, delicious bacon - is all about.

If this is case, then Corzine is correct in cutting their budgets. If something's gotta give, and the government gets more bang for its buck in urban areas, then good for him.

The truth is the shorter distances and less space in cities have their upsides in both time and money. In a city a cop doesn't need to spend as much time traveling from one place to another. The city also needs to physically lay fewer miles of sewer pipes and as a result less maintenance needs to be performed at a lower cost and so on.

It's not that people are getting punished for where they live - it's that people need to have more realistic expectations about what they get for where they live. I don't mind my tax dollars going to subsidize someone who is poor and needs money to clothe, feed and house himself, not to mention pay for good public education and other services, but I also don't mind being stingy about subsidizing someone who wants to live out in bumblefuck and wants more for it.

Monday, January 21, 2008

Stimulus

We don't need the kind Bushco is selling. Krugman:

But — you knew this was coming, didn’t you? — it seems that the Bush administration wants to restrict the plan to income tax rebates. This means excluding the people most likely to be liquidity-constrained — because people having a bad year probably won’t owe income taxes that year — and shying away from any aid to direct government spending.
Atrios makes an infrastructure point. Hooray, infrastructure!

Thursday, August 02, 2007

People Who Do Not Understand the Value of Infrastructure

Republicans.

And this is for tangible, denotation-type infrastructure, like bridges. Never mind what we get with education, healthcare, etc.

Taxes are good because they are used to help build infrastructure, which is for everyone, not only the rich. Conservatives and Republicans alike do not understand this.