Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., has convinced the House of Representatives to approve the “largest earmark in history.” That’s how the Maryland Public Policy Institute describes his $1.5 billion,10-year federal bailout for Metro, to be paid for with revenues generated by offshore oil drilling. This proposal, which just made it over the required two-thirds majority by one vote, is wrong on so many counts that it’s hard to know where to start, but here are three points to open the discussion.
Let’s begin with the totally regressive, even elitist, nature of the new spending that would be authorized by the Davis earmark. A big chunk of Metro’s customers live in Davis’ district, especially in Fairfax County. The median household income there is twice the national average, $88,133 to $44,684, according to U.S. Census Bureau data. Does Davis really think the daily commuting costs of people making twice the national median household income should be subsidized by hard-working middle- and lower-middle-class taxpayers?
Second, it’s not just the inequity at the federal level involved with the Davis proposal. What the Davis bill refers to as a “dedicated funding source,” the rest of the world calls a “tax.” And indeed if the Davis Metro bailout bill becomes law, local governments throughout Metro’s service area in the Washington region will have to raise taxes or divert existing spending to pay their mandated share of new Metro funding. Since fewer than 1-in-10 Washington region commuters use Metro, approval of the Davis proposal would create the same inequity at the local level as the federal level. Middle- and lower-middle class taxpayers would be forced to subsidize commuting costs of much more affluent Metro riders.
Third, Davis seeks to justify his Metro bailout by arguing the system “is essential for the continued and effective performance of the functions of the federal government?” But as MPPI notes, Metro is anything but effective:
“Unreliable and poorly run, the system is subject to frequent shutdowns and service interruptions due to equipment failure, bad weather, suicides, driver error and passenger medical emergencies. In mid-June heavy rain and wind caused the shut down of two of its five routes, significant delays on the other three and the complete shutdown of the two commuter rail lines serving suburban Virginia.”
Even Metro acknowledged during that June crisis that it is of dubious value in moving the federal work force to and from work, noting that “delays could be less severe if large numbers of them take advantage of the unscheduled leave option and stay home.”
Here’s a better idea: Stop subsidizing the waste and mismanagement inherent in an obsolete 1950s mass transportation concept, and force Metro to cut costs, become more efficient and undertake a crash course to learn how transit systems around the country are using competitive contracting to ease burdens on taxpayers while improving service to customers.
