J.H. Crawford wrote:
> I'm no fan of Wendell Cox, but his positions are more nuanced than
> most people think.
I had many long personal exchanges with Wendell Cox several years ago,
and I find he is an intelligent man who told me he simply doesn't
believe Americans will ever choose to do anything other than drive
personal automobiles, even given a choice, so why waste moeny presenting
alternatives. I think teh reason behind his reason is simply that the
right wing doesn't like communalism in ANY form; I do believe most
conservatives are irritated at having to share even an aircraft with the
hoi-polloi, and want the government to subsidize, however heavily, their
wild-west delusions of total independence. That no one is independent
is beside the point; they want to feel like one wolves standing
silhouetted on a crag against a wild sunset even though the mirror would
show a bunch of pigs shouldering each other aside at the trough fo
publoic welfare. Note corporate welfare, after all.
> Let's take a different approach here. Rather than subsidizing rail
> freight, let's be sure that the higher fuel taxes also apply to
> diesel fuel (i.e., truck fuel), so that the railroads can again
> become competitive. Even if rail is forced to pay the same taxes,
> they're so much more fuel-efficient that their competitive position
> will improve.
When trucking companies have to build their own privae roadways at their
own expense, as railroads do, you can talk competitive. Till then,
freight (and passenger) railways deserve an equal subsidy. Possibly
more than equal, since they support the health of the community and
planet where highway freight, and excessive personal transport by
highway, degrade and diminish both.
"Hope cannot be said to exist, nor can it be said not to exist. It is
just like the roads across the earth. For actually there were no roads
to begin with, but when many people pass one way a road is made."