So I’m taking the Red Line to work this morning, at around 8:50 a.m., traveling from east to west between Gallery Place and Metro Center. We’re in the tunnel and I’m all the way up at the front of the first car, just behind the driver, when suddenly there’s a WHUMP and the car lurches upward and then back down again, followed a fraction of a second later by a bright shower of orange sparks in the tunnel outside.
The car shudders to a halt and I can hear the driver radioing in to central dispatch, we have a situation, there was a loud noise, we may have hit something, please advise. Other trains barrel past in the other direction. The people in my car are calm but I can hear passengers from cars further back on the intercom in the driver’s cabin behind me, calling to her, there’s smoke in the tunnel, smoke, what should we do?
The driver, professional and calm, keeps calling back to dispatch. More trains rush by. You can smell the smoke a little now but nobody seems panicked. Finally the train starts moving again, slowly. A smaller whump, and we stop again. Attention passengers, we cannot offload the train in the tunnel, we are crawling to Metro Center, dispatch, please advise.
Finally we get to Metro Center which is already choked with people and suddenly the crowd is twice the size. I make my way downstairs to the Orange line and eventually get to work. Later in the day I read that “the cause of the smoke at Metro Center this morning was a fire that broke out after one of the train’s collector shoes, which are attached to the third rail, fell off.”
The Washington, DC metro system was built in the 1970s, mostly with federal funds. It is the second-busiest public transit system in America and ridership is at or near an all-time high. But now it’s aging, as things tend to do when they get older. It is literally falling to pieces.
But despite the fact that Metro is obviously a vital public good wanted and needed by millions of people, particularly given the area’s population growth and jam-packed highways and surface streets, and despite the fact that Metro is literally falling to pieces, our local governments cannot agree on a dedicated source of the revenues needed for services such as, to take a random example, affixing collector shoes to the bottoms of trains in such a way that they don’t fall off under my feet and go WHUMP and set the train on fire.
And why is there no dedicated revenue source? Because between the 1970s and today a whole political movement rose to power dedicated to the proposition that revenue sources — that is, taxes — are evil, in approximately the same way and to the same degree that Charles Manson is evil, i.e. satanic, depraved, to be opposed with all the righteousness and fervor one can muster.
Those actions had consequences. Sometimes they’re just a little scary and inconvenient. Sometimes they are much, much worse.
(Brainstorm illustration incorporating a photo by Flickr user chrisbb)
34 Responses to Metro Fires and the Cost of Anti-Tax Extremism
stinkcat - October 6, 2009 at 6:18 pm
The dedicated revenue source is simple, get it from the people who ride the train, they are the ones who directly benefit from it. To think that people in Iowa owe you cheap transportation in DC is silly at best and immoral at worst.
suomynona - October 6, 2009 at 6:45 pm
To think that people in Iowa don’t benefit from a functioning Federal government, from the senators who get driven to work to the staffers who ride the trains, is delusional.Of course, DC residents also pay reasonably high local taxes on top of Federal taxes, like state residents do, so it’s not as though all DC public services are actually being financed by the likes of self-reliant, heterotopic Iowans. Actually, a significant portion of those who pass through DC and use the trains aren’t even paying DC taxes because they technically live in Virginia or Maryland. As a capital city DC pretty much gets used by everyone, with a relatively miniscule number of ‘natives’ to actually finance it. Stinkcat’s example of Iowans paying for cheap transportation for those in DC is humorous because it’s actually the inverse of what’s going on.
megginson - October 7, 2009 at 7:41 am
I agree with stinkcat. Though liberal weenies are always touting public schemes to support efforts to reduce gasoline consumption, it’s still true that people in DC and Iowa should, on principle, refuse all federal subsidies for the Metro and ethanol.
stinkcat - October 7, 2009 at 7:48 am
Amen!
ghostofunder - October 7, 2009 at 8:42 am
The hatered of taxes isn’t limited to federal taxes. It also applies to those levied by states, municipalites and schools as those of us who work in education are painfully aware. “Why should I have to help pay for the construction of a road in another state, county or not in my neighborhood? For someone else’s child to go to school or use a library?” The concept of common good seems to have disappeared and people only want to pay for those services that benefit them directly. Expanding sinkcat’s logic, all government and educational services would be pay as you go. The heck with those who can’t afford to pay the higher costs. So what if they can’t afford the fare for public transportation or tolls on every road and thus can’t hold a job. Can’t send their child to school or to the library. Can’t call the fire department when to put out the brush fire that just moved from the neighbor’s to my yard.
stinkcat - October 7, 2009 at 9:31 am
“The concept of common good seems to have disappeared”But the problem is, the common good is not being served by the metro. The metro serves a speacial interest group: those people who live and work in the DC metro area. How is a federal subsidy for the metro any different that the subsidies for sugar growers? The common good is not being served by federal policies that drive up sugar prices, but the common folk do have to pay more to benefit a small group of sugar growers.
nampman - October 7, 2009 at 9:34 am
ghostofunder is correct. Taking the anti-tax movement to its logical conclusion would result in no government at all – a condition known as anarchy.
stinkcat - October 7, 2009 at 9:40 am
And therefore, all federal spending is good, no matter how narrow a group benefits from such spending?
dank48 - October 7, 2009 at 9:40 am
And the next time there’s flooding in Iowa, stinkcat, you personally are responsible for taking care of it. Don’t expect those interfering federal outsiders from FEMA to show up; it’s not their problem any more.
schafwr1 - October 7, 2009 at 9:45 am
I no longer live in the DC area, but unless it’s been largely demolished since I left that system extends out well into both Maryland and Virginia. There must be a way to fully fund it without taxing Iowans. The concept of common good is an important one to consider in this discussion, but I can also understand a desire to limit the taxation for purely local accommodations to those in the immediate vicinity. (i.e. Pay for interstate highways in other states with federal funds, but not city mass transit systems.) The question then becomes the definition of a common good, and it’s a worthwhile discussion to have. Personally I think I would fund mass transit, but I can understand the counter-arguement.Of course, this also raises the old argument familiar to all D.C. residents about the responsibility the federal government has to the city it administers.
marktropolis - October 7, 2009 at 10:02 am
I think we need to go back to Kevin’s point: he wasn’t talking about federal support, he said “our local governments cannot agree on a dedicated source of the revenues.” Operative word there being LOCAL. Meaning DC, Virginia and Maryland. That said, the fact that a HUGE proportion (definitely more than 50%) of the riders on Metro are either federal employees or connected to the feds somehow (i.e., contractors, support services, etc.) there does seem to be an argument for some federal support – outside of this issue about whether Iowa should pay for the Metro or not.Once upon a time there was a movement in DC to levy a commuter tax on those traveling in daily from MD or VA. Of course Congress squashed that (as they often do). And stickcat, the whole point of public services is to support the public. How is public transportation not in the public interest? And if inidividual states or jursidictions (or in your case individuals) can decide which public services they want to support or not, we’d never get a budget passed (although that is what often happens with earmarks).So, yes, the next time there’s a flood in Iowa, or the Farm Bill is up with its subsidies for corn growers (many in Iowa), or the highway bill comes up with it’s support for Interstates and light rail, I’ll remember you stinkcat. And cast my vote for continuing PUBLIC support of PUBLIC services in spite of your position.
stinkcat - October 7, 2009 at 10:19 am
“So, yes, the next time there’s a flood in Iowa, or the Farm Bill is up with its subsidies for corn growers (many in Iowa),”Actually, there is no justification for asking people in Virginia and Maryland to pay higher taxes to benefit a small group of Iowa corn growers.
marktropolis - October 7, 2009 at 10:30 am
I don’t think anyone was talking about higher taxes. But, you were talking about federal taxes benefiting those in other jurisdictions. Which is the entire basis of federal taxes – that there are “things” which benefit the public, and most of those “things” are locally based.
stinkcat - October 7, 2009 at 11:09 am
But if we got rid of corn subsidies, then those people in Virginia and Maryland could pay less taxes because the federal government would need less money to dole out to their favored groups.Unless you are assuming that if the government didn’t subsidize corn growers it would find some other equally stupid subsidy to give to someone else.
dogood1776 - October 7, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Though there are a few on the fringe, the anti-tax crowd for the most part is not saying that all taxes are bad or unnecessary. The concern is the magnitude of taxation. We’re taxed on our income, and then we pay a sales tax when we spend it. If we buy property with the money left after income tax and sales tax, we then pay a property tax just for owning something. If we make more than $50k per year – which most taxpayers do – our IRA’s are not tax deductible. When we get to the point that we want to draw money out of our IRA we are taxed again. Taxes are necessary, but they must be fair and they must not be oppressive. Our Founding Fathers were not against taxes – they were against the unfair taxes imposed by a government that did not represent their interests. Thus the “no taxation without representation” mantra. Another aspect of all this is what the federal government does with all the money. There is no doubt whatsoever that big government is in cahoots with big business, and that our tax money is funneled into special interests that do not serve the majority of the public. With the possibility of a “public option” in the looming health care bill, our taxes will actually be used to create and manage a system that will invade our privacy and restrict our freedoms. Finally, there are some of us who still believe that people ought to be as self reliant as possible and should not expect the federal government to meet all of their needs. Federal entitlements have weakened us by giving some people the idea that they do not have to work hard to survive, that they do not have to produce and contribute to society to get a paycheck. The weakening of our society in this way is, in my view immoral.
minnesotan - October 7, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Why are more taxes always the answer. Why not choke off the engorged bureaucracies? Most state universities these days have more administrators than teachers — how is that necessary?(And voila! A group of overpaid fatcats will appear to defend their seven figure paychecks when the TAs doing the real work make $12,000 a year.)
unemployedacademic - October 7, 2009 at 1:38 pm
A huge portion of D.C.’s downtown taxable property is federal land. The federal government provides subsidies to the D.C. local government for this land, but the subsidy is never close to what the land would bring in taxes and it comes with significant interference by the Congress in D.C. governance. The D.C. government is also not empowered to set the tax rates on this property.The federal government should be partially responsible for subsidizing the Metro system because — depending on how you look at it — either the Metro serves federal land or the D.C. government is being cheated out of its tax base.The Metro also directly serves the interests of Iowans by reducing the amount of pollution in the envrionment. If Iowans choose not to pay for the Metro, then they will pay increased healthcare and environmental costs, which are likely to be far higher than their share of whatever federal subsidy goes to the D.C. Metro.The subsidies to Iowa corn growers, however, increase the costs for all but the corporate farms in the form of increased pollution, greater obesity due to the rampant abuse of corn syrup in our foods and the economic destruction caused in Mexico, which has brought 2 million dispossessed Mexican farmers to our country to be exploited by corporate ag.
unemployedacademic - October 7, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Sorry. That last line should read “…which has created 2 million dispossessed Mexican farmers many of whom have come to our country to be exploited by corporate ag.”
stinkcat - October 7, 2009 at 2:25 pm
“The Metro also directly serves the interests of Iowans by reducing the amount of pollution in the envrionment.”So Iowans have to pay higher taxes to reduce pollution caused by non-iowans? Wouldn’t make more sense to tax those drivers in the DC area who are actually causing the pollution. Or should the Iowans be happy to pay taxes because that know that people who live in the DC metro area are too incompetent or uncaring to solve the problems that they cause?
suomynona - October 7, 2009 at 2:35 pm
These old talking points about public services ‘weakening society’ and giving people the option of not contributing to society breaks down like Carey’s Metro train when put under a bit of duress. Self-reliance works great–perhaps even optimally–until the point at which one simply doesn’t have the power to be self-reliant. There are literally endless scenarios out there that can undercut the capacity for self-reliance for even the most self-reliant among us. Natural disasters are good examples. So are catastophic health issues. So are economic collapses. The kind of extremism that Kevin Carey points to his post is responsible for blinding lots of people from the reality that at any time and for no good reason sh*t can happen that can force just about anyone into some degree of dependency. We have taxes to fund public services and the public good because some things are better provided and/or insured collectively, and because free markets and private businesses don’t operate with any kind of morality. When it comes to certain things for which a loss of the option of self-reliance could mean a loss of livelihood or life itself, the unknowable whims of free markets cannot be relied upon. Hence taxes and public services.
cwinton - October 7, 2009 at 3:08 pm
From Ben Franklin, nothing in life is certain except death and taxes, which was further elaborated by Will Rogers by adding that in contrast death doesn’t get worse every time Congress meets. No one likes paying taxes, but most of us recognize taxes as a fundamental means for operating a functioning society. Churches expect their members to tithe, and spend some of the money collected on causes of no particular benefit to their congregations. States like Iowa are physically too large to undertake construction of highways of interstate caliber without help from taxpayers in places like New York. Federal funds largely built the DC Metro, and I have enjoyed its convenience those times I have visited DC, but its users should be the ones doing the heavy lifting for its maintenance, whether through fares or tax dollars, just as Iowa should take care of its interstates, and quite frankly, I would rather see tax money handling road maintenance than tolls. My community lived with toll bridges for many years until the citizenry, despite very strong Republican leanings, agreed to a 0.5% city sales tax in exchange for removal of the toll booths, wisely recognizing that the tolls were alienating visitors and so doing the community more harm than good (a lesson others might heed).
stinkcat - October 7, 2009 at 4:36 pm
“and because free markets and private businesses don’t operate with any kind of morality.”And government does?
dogood1776 - October 7, 2009 at 4:55 pm
suomynona,I wrote the following: “people ought to be as self reliant as possible and should not expect the federal government to meet all of their needs.”I was saying that it is a matter of degrees. Of course there will be taxes. Most people accept that, and most people accept that some functions (national defense, police, fire departments, etc.) are best funded by the government through taxation. The amount of taxation and public funding must be kept to a minimum, though. Too much taxation and too mucany entitlements stifle initiative and that does weaken our entire society. One extreme is to privatize everything, the other is to make all things belong to the collective. Neither will work. We need to find the middle ground that does work. The current trend is to tax more and put more under the control of government. That is a very dangerous path. As I said before, the more self reliant we are, the better we are.
goxewu - October 7, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Bulletin to stinkcat, minnesotan, et al.: The Articles of Confederation are no longer our chief governing document.
primaryovertone - October 7, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Is it just me or is there some reason why the cost to ride the Metro cannot be increased slightly to pay for the upkeep of the Metro. Why tax, when common sense says that the Metro should pay for itself. If it does not, Why Not? Instead of throwing money at useless research projects that make no sense why not investigate how to improve public transit systems across the country. Do we really need to fund research on the subculture of prosititues in third-world countries when there are real problems in our own country that can be solved. Perhaps I am missing some information on this situations that someone can fill me in on but increasing federal taxes for this seems drastic to say the least.
marktropolis - October 7, 2009 at 5:56 pm
Thanks in part to stinkcat, we keep missing the boat here. Kevin wasn’t talking about federal taxes, he was talking about local support. And pointing out that the LOCAL governments can’t seem to get their act together to find a way to support safe public transit. Part of the problem is that Metro is a public/private venture (mostly private) so accessing public dollars I think gets a little tricky. That said, it also goes back to what suomynona said about free markets, part of the problem with off-loading public services to for-profit companies is that those companies really only care about making money, not about providing a service. The kind of maintenance issues that Kevin raises are pretty long-standing issues. You know that 30 year old cars are going to break down. You knew that when they were 15 years old. But you didn’t do what you should have done – which in fact was buy new cars (as the NTSB asked Metro to do a few years back). It’s the result of short-sighted, keep your eye on next quarter’s profits, thinking: Yes maintenance costs money. But so do law suits when your train goes off the tracks.
stinkcat - October 7, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Of course, in Fiscal 09, $262 million came from the federal government. If Kevin thinks that this money should come from Virginia and Maryland, I would perfectly agree. But to think that taxpayers in Iowa should be supporting projects that benefit a special interest group is rediculous.
suomynona - October 7, 2009 at 7:07 pm
Since some seem to have a particularly narrow view of the scope of what should be discussed in this thread, let me say here that I’m addressing sentiments of anti-tax extremism, ‘anti-tax extremism’ being thankfully words included in the title of Carey’s post.stinkcat: yes, government does reflect (of course imperfectly) a society’s collective morality. Not all (or many) people in the government act personally with any uniform notion of morality; but governments themselves have their own broad moral character. And most importantly, (legitmate, democratic) governments are directly accountable to the people they govern through the process of election (election in which everyone of age has the right to vote, regardless of class, race, gender, ideology, religion, etc.) and through term limitations. Free markets, by contrast, are not accountable to any kind of broad, inclusive electorate, nor do they operate according to any moral or ethical imperatives. To give an example: a society can demonstrate a particular moral imperative through its election of government (like, say, all humans should have access to basic health care). Some governments grant this right accordingly, and it goes unchallenged at its core by the left and the right alike in such governments. The reason a government would have have to arrive at a moral decision such as enforcing what a society determines to be a basic right is because free markets can’t, by definition, make such a choice to enforce any rights at all. Ironically, free markets can’t even enforce a right to free enterprise. They have neither a moral guide (like a popular electorate) nor even a mechanism of enforcement. It’s not called the ‘invisible hand’ because it’s so perfectly predicatable and logical in its ways. These basics are what many anti-tax extremists forget when they hold up ‘socialist’ straw men and balk at funding such basic things as public transportation in a nation’s capital. They forget that many freedoms and privileges that we all enjoy are the result of government (tax) provision. 1776: Again, the idea of being as self-reliant as possible is a no-brainer to me; the hard questions come when we ask what can be done when self-reliance isn’t an option. If you truly believe that government provisions for the weakest or most destitute in a society actually weakens society as a whole, I’d like to know exactly how screwed someone has to be in order to warrant some kind of government aid under your rubric.
stinkcat - October 7, 2009 at 7:57 pm
“stinkcat: yes, government does reflect (of course imperfectly) a society’s collective morality.”Very imperfectly, I might add. For example, to what extent is the Iraq war an expression of our collective morality? Some fully support it, some are totally against it, but an even larger number of people don’t care enough about it to be bothered to vote either for someone who supports the war, or doesn’t support the war.We have to remember that the government is run by people who are no more moral than the capitalists. After all, if a government worker can get away with shirking, you can be assured that there is a very high chance that shirking will occur. For this type of behavior, the government has much weaker enforcement mechanisms than the private sector does.
unemployedacademic - October 7, 2009 at 8:57 pm
“But to think that taxpayers in Iowa should be supporting projects that benefit a special interest group is rediculous.” — stinkcatYou are referring to the “special interest group” that is the federal government, right? The same “special interest group” that acts on behalf of Iowans, right?I never cease to wonder how conservatives can divide up the community into multifarious, antagonistic interest groups at war with each other, then have the gall to say that leftists are anti-American (something which, to be fair, I have not seen stinkcat write).
stinkcat - October 8, 2009 at 7:31 am
“You are referring to the “special interest group” that is the federal government, right?”No, the special interest group is the people who work for the government and the other related industries in the DC area. The Metro clearly is a benefit to this group and not to Iowans. Second, the people who work for the government and related industries are not poor, so they have the ability to pay for this project all by themselves. So if they can pay for it themselves, why should they shift part of the cost onto Iowans?
unemployedacademic - October 8, 2009 at 12:57 pm
“…why should they shift part of the cost onto Iowans?” — stinkcatThis has, of course, gotten silly. I know that you, stinkcat, refuse to listen or concede the point, but once again… the National Mall, Smithsonian buildings (original, Air & Space, Museum of American History), the Capitol, White House, FBI, Treasury, Blair House, embassies(?), National Gallery buildings (2 + sculpture gardens), Natural History Museum, FDR Memorial, Jefferson Memorial, National Observatory, IRS, etc., etc., etc. — all federal buildings smack dab in the middle of DC for which the city cannot assess taxes.
cwiseley - October 8, 2009 at 8:29 pm
There are also the concerns of all us us nonIowans that our taxes also subsidize schools, hospitals, highway, etc. in Iowa. Why should the rest of us in populous states support infrastructure when your rural areas can’t? Because we are a nation that benefits from working as a nation and benefitting from the many great minds across the nation.
skocpol - October 13, 2009 at 12:36 pm
People like stinkcat should voluntarily wear an electronic ankle shackle that zaps them every time they go near something paid for with local, state, or federal taxes, now or in the past. It might take a while, since it is not clear how trainable their breed is, but eventually they would realize how selfish they have been.