politicalcivility.com Blog

The Utah quarter is finally out, but as Paul Harvey would say…”And now the rest of the story.”

History of Railroad Construction

I find it rather ironic that Utah/Gov. Huntsman choose a symbol that represents one of the worst cases of government waste in US History.  While the “golden” spike put Utah on the map so to speak, the building of the transcontinental railroad should serve as a grave reminder not as a point of celebration.

A Few Facts About The Railroad

1. Paralell Lines: North Pacific (NP) and Central Pacific (CP) were paid for how many miles of track they laid, so the line that built the most rails got the most cash.  For awhile in Utah the two companies were laying and getting paid for tracks that were being built parallel to each other, which of course cost taxpayers additional millions of dollars.
2. Free Land: The two companies were given more than 44,000,000 acres of free land to build the railroad. Assuming and average of $4.00 per acre (the going rate at the time), CP and NP received a $401 Billion (in today’s dollars) land subsidy.  Arguably one of the largest government handouts in the history of America.
3. Huge Loans: CP and NP also received more than $61,000,000 dollars ($139 Billion in today’s dollars).
4. Bloodshed: Competition was so fierce amongst the two railroads that war literally ensued as many lives were lost on account of a series of attacks each company carried out on the other’s employees.
5. Repairs: In the first year alone, repairs for the “newly” built railroad cost the taxpayers in excess of 113 Million (today’s dollars) to repair the line, because CP and NP had built the railroad so poorly.
6. Bankrupt: Despite all the corporate welfare these two companies received, at the end of the building of the railroad, both companies were nearly bankrupt.  The subsidies, during the building, hid the waste and corruption and lack of good management of these two companies.

The list could go on.  Some sources estimate that the building of the transcontinental railroad actually cost 3x the numbers I have listed here.

Now that’s something to be proud about.  Maybe the golden spike should have ended up on the $1,000 bill instead of the quarter.  At least then it would better represent the largesse needed to build our government funded landmark: The Transcontinental Railroad.

—–

Sources:

1. “The Myth of the Robber Barons,” by Burton Folsom.  He gives a lot more detail about how corrupt this process was and also highlights how another rail line in the Northwest was built privately, cost significantly less (even though they used far superior build supplies) and without any government help.  This line also charged less, was more efficient in getting goods from East to West, and paid its shareholders handsomely.
2. http://measuringworth.com/calculators/uscompare/

Realtors and city planners are in love with “smart growth,” but their pet policy project may be one of the two main reasons (in addition to bad lending practices) that have pushed the housing market over the top here in Utah and around the country.

Why smart growth?  Like most governmental restrictions or regulation policies, smart growth creates artificial scarcity and so changes the demand curve for housing.  Don’t believe me.  Take a look at recent article issued by SmartMoney.  In the data chart it lists major metropolitain areas of which 4 Utah areas made the list.

Here’s the data:

• Logan: % overvalued = 17%
• Ogden: % overvalued = 17%
• Provo: % overvalued = 34%
• SLC: % overvalued = 30%
• St. George: % overvalued 53%

These are based off the median home prices as of Q2 2007.  Unfortuately just another example of an interest group partnering with the government to sell Utahns a promise “affordability” and delivering just the opposite.  All the while, realtors make record profits on the backs of hard working Utahns.  I guess it’s just another classic example of what Burton Folsom terms as the political entrepreneurs working the system to line their own pockets, all the while portending to be “true capitalists.” 

Maybe its time Utahns start doing a bit more homework to understand what conservative policy as it pertains to “smart” growth really looks like and start holding reatlors, developers and politicians accountable for the backroom dealing that is undermining a true free market in Utah.

I have to say that more and more I look forward to reading the monthly Imprimis newsletter from Hillsdale College.  November was no exception.  While reading the column by Larry Arnn, I was reminded of two fundamental questions we need to be talking about more in the education reform debate:

1. What is the purpose of education?
2. Whose fundamental role is it to educate?

THE PURPOSE OF EDUCATION 

I love what Arnn has to say about this and I think his definition is the correct one:

The purpose of education, and especially higher education, is to come to know and contemplate these [religion, morality and knowledge] higher things. 

Speaking of the mission and purpose of Hillsdale, Arnn continues:

Our own college…was built in service of the blessings of “civil and religious liberty and intelligent piety”…To secure these blessings, we promise and education that will “develop the minds and improve the hearts” of our students.  In other words, the purpose of education has both an intellectual and a moral compenent, and these are connected essentially.

Arnn then summarizes the Bush andministration’s definition of education (which seems to be the more commonly espoused definition of education):

The report of the National Commission on the Future of Higher Education reduces education to the purpose of preparing young people for a job and of making the nation powerful and successful in itis economic competition with other nations.

By comparing these two definitions, is it any wonder that education continues to decline.  The latter definition is straight from the industrial mode of production of commodities versus the development of human beings.

FUNDAMENTAL ROLE TO EDUCATE

Reagan perhaps gave the greatest one paragraph summation on what I believe to be the correct principle regarding this most fundamental role to a free society.

Our leaders must remember that education doesn’t begin with some isolated bureaucrat in Washington.  It doesn’t even begin with State or local officials.  Education begins in the home, where it’s a parental right and responsibility.  Both our public and our private schools exist to aid our families in the instruction of our children, and it’s time some people back in Washington stopped acting as if family wishes were only getting in the way.

When I voted for our current president, this is the type of leadership I was hoping to support.  Bush ran as a Reagan Republican, but his policies and the growth of the Department of Education show that he is more of a Johnson liberal stuck in the Great Society mold.

I know parents aren’t perfect.  I am a parent and I fully admit to making my share of mistakes, but I object to those who give big government the benefit of the doubt as to their caring about my child and assume the worst on my part.  When was the last time they changed a stinky diaper, stayed up late into the night comforting one of my sick children, or did without a new pair of shoes so my son could play soccer?  Answer: never.  And yet, we (the public) in general seem to always trust the government to fix something more complicated than cleaning up New Orleans after Katrina. 

Let’s stop trusting government and put the education back where it belongs and is best held up: on the shoulders of this nations great and loving parents.

The redistribution of wealth is a key compenent of the socialist/communist platform.  This idea or its justification is the result of a distorted definition of equality, namely that the fruits of my labors are just as equally my neighbors as they are mine, whether or not my neighbor has participated in helping me attain those fruits or provided any of his fruits to me.  When you boil redistribution of wealth down it is the legalization of coveting and as such represents weakness in character and offends every sense of fairness one can posses.

 One of the banner methods of redistribution of wealth is the death tax, which FDR implemented back in the 30’s.  Up to this point, it has been a class warfare tool the left has used to punish those who save and refuse to rely on social security and the government to take care of me during retirement.  But more and more now, people on both sides of the isle are beginning to have second thoughts about this form of taxation.  The most recent advocate for the abolition of the death tax: Whoopi Goldberg.

From the WSJ:

“I’d like somebody to get rid of the death tax.  That’s what I want.  I don’t want to get taxed just because I died…I just don’t think it’s right.  If I give something to my kid, I already paid the tax.  Why should I have to pay it again because I died?”

Whoopi’s co-host tried to play the class warfare card repsonding, “Only people with a lot of money say that.”  To which Whoopi responded:

No, I don’t think so…It doesn’t matter if you have or don’t have money.  Once you paid your taxes, it should be a done deal.  You shouldn’t have to pay twice.”

Amen Whoopi. Amen.