In which yadda yadda yadda … MARTA

I continue to address the points raised by Paul in our discussion of MARTA:

Commenter:  “the voters themselves approved both the construction of MARTA and the 1% sales tax to maintain MARTA. Fulton and DeKalb voters chose to support MARTA, so I stand by my assertion that it is in no way a “drain” on taxpayers.”

Response:  I see no connection between the fact that voters approved the 1% sales tax in 1971 and your assertion that the tax is not a drain on today’s taxpayers. The fact that voters approved the tax makes it legal but it has no bearing on the fiscal soundness of that vote 40 years later.

Commenter: “In addition, it is not a “$350,000,000″ cost for taxpayers”

Response: You are right. MARTA will not cost taxpayers $350 million in 2010. According to MARTA’s fiscal year 2010 budget (available online) they project $476,932,780 in revenue from taxpayers. I had completely forgotten about the money coming from the federal government in addition to the sales tax. Thank you for pointing that out.

Commenter: “You quoted Beverly Scott, that she would “need a one-cent sales tax in the eight metro counties outside the Perimeter, plus 65 percent of an additional penny tax in Fulton and DeKalb just to keep MARTA running as it is.” In fact, this is the very plan that Republican Governor Perdue, as well as the Atlanta Regional Commission (sp.), support.”

Response: Governor Sonny Perdue’s plan is not being portrayed as an additional MARTA tax. The Governor says he is proposing another 1% tax on Georgia taxpayers as a solution to all of the transportation problems here in the state. Do you really expect voters in Gwinnett and Cobb Counties to approve an additional 1% sales tax on themselves to support a transportation system that doesn’t even serve them? And the extra tax won’t solve our transportation problems in Fulton and DeKalb Counties if it will barely keep MARTA “running as it is”. Now is the time for Metro Atlanta voters to find out the truth so we can vote on the tax increase intelligently.

Commenter: “We already have by far the lowest tax rates of any developed country.”

Response: Your statement is false. The United States does not have “by far the lowest tax rates of any developed country.” You can see for yourself at this link: http://www.worldwide-tax.com/index.asp#partthree If you have any evidence to support your claim please provide it.

Commenter:  “the majority of taxpayers in this two-county area are supportive of MARTA.”

Response: We will find out how supportive they are when the voters are asked to double their MARTA sales tax as part of Sonny Perdue’s transportation plan. A tax increase of 600 million dollars in metro Atlanta may not go over as well in this economy as it did in 1971.

I don’t have the energy to address the “equity” issue of MARTA tonight so I will break for now and pick up at this point later.

In which I respond to the towering genius of rude commenter Paul, part III

This post is a response to a commenter on my earlier post, Public transportation, solution or problem? You can see the original post and the comment in its entirety here: https://gajim.wordpress.com/2010/02/18/public-transportation-solution-or-problem/

Commenter: “As far as tax payer subsidies, who do you think pays for the roads you drive on? Billions and billions of dollars are spent on road infrastructure, and you’re not complaining about that. The 14th st bridge project alone cost over $100,000,000… just for the fixing of one bridge over the highway.”

Response: Thank you for raising this point. Proponents of MARTA often try to equate the cost of public transportation with the cost of building roads but let me be clear, the two things are completely different and to compare them shows a lack of objectivity.

We all pay for roads because they are a basic component required for our society to function. Every human in the United States depends on a roadway system. A woman can walk to the grocery store but the food gets there on a truck.  A man may not have a job but his unemployment check was delivered on a road. A person might take MARTA to Starbucks but there wouldn’t be any coffee without roads. Comparing roads to MARTA is like comparing water to arugula.

I agree with your assertion that road construction is often too costly but that simply illustrates the point I made earlier. Governments and their dependent agencies are inefficient delivery systems and should be tasked with the fewest responsibilities possible.

Commenter: “In addition, study after study by the CDC and Universites have shown the benefits of public transit. Atlanta has a high obesity rate and one of the highest asthma rates in the country, all of which are are tied to the automobile lifestyle. In fact, we have previously lost Federal highway funding because our air quality was so bad that it violated EPA standards.”

Response: It is easy for a person to claim validity by citing “study after study” but it is impossible to determine the veracity of the claim or the study without a specific attribution. I would like to point out that the CDC and the EPA are not independent, objective organizations. Both the CDC and EPA depend on federal funding for their livelihood and as such are political instruments.

That concludes my response to commenter Paul. I am glad that he took the time to comment because this is an important issue to the future our state. In the next few years Georgia is going to face increasingly difficult budgetary decisions and we will all have to make some tough choices. If you have anything to add to what Paul and I have written please feel free to leave a comment but play nice or it may not see the light of day.