NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/sci/energy/7147

Text File | 1993-01-22 | 6.4 KB | 116 lines

Newsgroups: sci.energy
Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
From: [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: NEWS: True Costs of Commercial Nuclear Power -- The Economic Failure
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 16:59:19 GMT
Lines: 104

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Richard Stead) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Richard Stead) writes:
>> You have to realize that the Federal Defense Highways,
>> aka Interstates, did not include many of the routes that states
>> wanted. Some States built roads on *their* routes anyway
>
>Absolutely.  Also, my understanding was that half the federal contribution
>to new interstate construction was from DoD (which is funded out of income
>tax).  That's why DoD got to dictate design criteria.

I wasn't aware of this, but, since DOD doesn't pay fuel taxes for it's
use of the roads, and DOD does make extensive use of the roads, I don't
have a big problem with this. Good transport in time of war is as important
as aircraft carriers or missiles. Battles are won by tactics, but wars are
won by logistics.

>> The Feds say the Interstate system is *finished* and they haven't
>> approved a new US highway in years. All that Federal Highway Trust
>> Fund money is available for maintenance of Federal Highways, and
>> for grants to States and local governments, a patronage deal. Of
>> course they've impounded the money to make the deficit look smaller
>
>True, and I think the deficit problem needs to be addressed, but not
>with gas tax money.  To a certain extent, a somewhat broader directed
>gas tax could help with that by bringing political pressure to bear.
>If everything people deal with from the government regularly (roads,
>parks, things like that somewhat related to driving) was funded
>entirely from gas taxes with no deficit, then people would start
>to say, 'hey if all this is paid out of may gas tax - what are you using
>all my income tax for?'  The politicos would have to start cutting back
>on favors to special interests and massive entitlement.  The truth of

Oh dream on. The sources and sinks of Federal funds are so decoupled
that potential political pressures are defused. That's how the Feds
have managed to become so bloated over the years. A gas tax is still
too large a pool to deal with this problem. The only solution is to
return to local funding of local projects. That keeps the coupling
between taxing and spending tight.

>the matter is that 50% of the federal budget goes to entitlements,
>25% to interest on the debt and everything else comes out of the 25%
>remaining - all the real government services, defense, etc.  People
>don't realize this to well, but if they were funded from separate pools,
>they would most likely begin to understand.  Liberal complaints about
>defense spending causing the deficit are hogwash - the entire defense
>budget is smaller than the deficit.  We could eliminate defense (not a good
>idea) and we'd still have a deficit.  I want people to understand that,
>and separate tax pools is one thing that might help.

I agree with you in principle, but in practice it just won't make any
difference. The sources and sinks are too decoupled. I have no idea
whether the excess fuel taxes taken from Georgians are spent wisely
elsewhere, we're a net donor state. So I don't know whether the Feds
are managing *my* money well or not. I *know* that the dribbles and
drabs the Feds condescend to return to Georgia are engulfed in red tape
and restrictive regulations that prevent them from being spent optimally.
With a local tax, I *see* the results and can judge whether my money is
being used wisely. And I have *much* more influence over my local officials'
actions than I do over those of some faceless Fed.

>> Local roads in Georgia are funded from property taxes. Since the roads
>> increase the value of our property by making it accessable, this is a fair
>
>Not entirely.  It is really a subsidy for new development.  I'm sure the
>developers in the state back this one all the way.  (Afterall, a 100
>year old home on an acre of land has paid for that road in front many times
>over, while a townhome complex has lots more road, all of it new and pays
>about the same).  It is also a subsidy by the cities to the 'burbs, since
>property values are higher in the city (so taxes are higher), while the
>long, new roads are in the 'burbs.

Well city taxes are certainly higher, higher millage. Property *values*
in the city core are declining rapidly, however. Three of the suburban
counties adjacent to Atlanta have higher property digests. The 'burbs
are where the money is today. The subsidies, not just for roads, are
flowing the other way. The 18 metro counties pay 80% of the Federal
taxes paid in Georgia while the city cores of three Georgia cities
receive 70% of Federal funds spent in Georgia for non-military purposes.


>emissions).  Reagan, for example, was right in that trees contibute
>hydrocarbons as well (he was wrong in that he claimed they were the single
>largest source).  Also, BBQs aren't the largest carcinogen source -

Reagan was quoting a study done at Ga Tech. Trees, pine trees, are the
largest source of hydrocarbons in North Georgia. That's not true everywhere
of course. The plains states probably have only a tiny fraction of their
hydrocarbon emissions coming from trees. That just goes to point up how
silly it is to have *one* national solution to what is in essence millions
of *local* problems, each somewhat unique. In North Georgia we have been
spinning our wheels attacking HC emissions when we should have been
concentrating almost completely on NOx. It's the mixture of the two
that generates smog, and most of the NOx in our area is manmade.
We've reduced manmade HC emissions by 90%, but it's hardly made a
difference at all. If we cut NOx by 90%, we'd see a sharp reduction
in smog.

Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |