Yeah, we voted on tolls — kinda

Austin American-Statesman ^ | October 16, 2006 | Ben Wear

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Do you remember voting on the Trans-Texas Corridor?

Me neither. But I think I might have. Sort of.

Toll road proponents have said over the past couple of years that Texans had voted to authorize what has turned out to be a very aggressive push for toll roads. Gov. Rick Perry said as much in the Oct. 6 gubernatorial election debate.

One of the moderators relayed a question from a McKinney woman asking why Texans haven't gotten to vote on the "Trans-Texas Corridor and related toll highways."

The corridor is Perry's 4,000-mile plan of tollways, railroads and utility lines.

The governor's response was deft.

"First and foremost, the people of Texas had the opportunity to vote on a substantial amount of that in a constitutional amendment," he began, going on to say that the Legislature had debated and passed toll laws in several sessions. The voters, he said, "sent a clear message of how we're going to build infrastructure."

What actually happened is that in a September 2003 election, 810,855 Texans said yes to ballot language that only the most wonkish among them could have known authorized wholesale borrowing for toll roads. The 45 words on the ballot, in fact, do not include the words "toll" or "turnpike."

Here's what Proposition 14 proposed:

"The constitutional amendment providing for authorization of the issuing of notes or the borrowing of money on a short-term basis by a state transportation agency for transportation-related projects, and the issuance of bonds and other public securities secured by the state highway fund."

I was told at the time that the purpose of this was to allow the agency to borrow here and there against future gas-tax revenue to address cash-flow problems. And that, in fact, is what the first part of the language refers to.

But then there's a comma, and some more words. Some technical but powerful words that amounted, apparently, to the electorate saying, "Whoo-eee, slap some toll roads on us, baby!"

Now, Texans did approve another constitutional amendment, this one in 2001, that created the Texas Mobility Fund, and it actually said the money could go to "state highways, turnpikes, toll roads, toll bridges, and other mobility projects." A total of 543,759 Texans said yes to that one.

In 2003, lawmakers dedicated some fees allowing that fund to borrow $4 billion or more.

And as the governor said, that same year the Legislature approved a huge bill allowing the creation of the Trans-Texas Corridor. That bill, passed in a session marked by Democrats fleeing to Ardmore, Okla., and a $10 billion budget gap, got little press coverage.

Did Texans vote on the Trans-Texas Corridor? Not in any real sense.

Did we vote on a "substantial amount" of the toll road revolution? Yes, technically, in a special September 2003 election with predictably poor turnout and all the focus on other amendments, we gave the Texas Department of Transportation carte blanche to borrow for roads and charge tolls.

Who knew? Almost no one.

[1rudeboy]

Take this test and get back to us.

Full disclosure: I have deliberately driven major road projects (such as the Dan Ryan expansion in Chicago) instead of diverting around them simply to observe their construction.

[1rudeboy]

You're crazy.

[Froufrou]

Can you post verification that [insert company name here] has enjoyed consecutive quarters of higher profits passed on to their shareholders?

[Froufrou]

And you're rude.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Huh? You said companies used cheaper foreign labor and kept prices static. Sounds like that means higher profits. If not, then maybe your initial assertion was incorrect?

[MadIvan]

Basic economics - the price of good does not some from what it costs to produce it, it comes from what people will pay for it. This is why many goods, particularly when a company is starting up, are sold at a loss - as what people will pay for something may not be accurately known to begin with.

Regards, Ivan

[Froufrou]

Check your FReepmail again and we'll bring it back here.

Do you have the documention, or no?

[Froufrou]

Good morning, Ivan. Your point's well taken and that's what I'm talking about. I'm willing to pay more for another brand of jeans because of Levi's having outsourced. Besides, the workmanship has suffered in the process.

[1rudeboy]

You asked for it (again): from 2005:

Dividend-paying stocks work so you don't have to.

[Froufrou]

We are not talking about T-bills and CDs. Try to keep up, will ya?

[1rudeboy]

Sorry, at the time of my comment I was replying to this one made less then ten minutes previously:

"Can you post verification that [insert company name here] has enjoyed consecutive quarters of higher profits passed on to their shareholders?"

If you slowed-down a bit, you might not have forgotten you made it.

[Froufrou]

In all honesty, I don't pretend to be some wizened economist. Far from it. But I do pretty well with intuition, and on this subject it's telling me outsourcing is a consumer ripoff.

[1rudeboy]

Of course you think it's a "ripoff." You are beginning from the assumption that these companies are trying to screw you.

[Froufrou]

Maybe so. But I look at Wal-Mart, how they're a really good investment [talking stocks here] but yet at the same time they're criticized for not doing well by their employees. It's like screwing somebody over is part of the corporate game.

[Dead Corpse]

In the years since, there has been much work done federally and locally to set up the mechanisms and regulations to allow PPPs to be used. This is the future for Texas and the nation.

There is a definition for this. It's called socialism. The companies are nominally privately owned, but under strict control of government.

so‧cial‧ism /ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun

1.	a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

2.	procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.

3.	(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles. And no, I'm not doing the hyperbole thing here either...

[MadIvan]

If I recall correctly, Levis also give a lot of money to Democrats.

Regards, Ivan

[Froufrou]

Another reason I don't wear them.

[Ben Ficklin]

More mis-info.

The 281 issue was never about whether it would be a free road or a toll road. It was whether ARMA would build the toll road with money from raising taxes and selling bonds or the toll road would be built with private money. The notion that ARMA was forced into it is absurd. They looked at how much more it would cost them and how much longer it would take.

Thanks for for your link to Cashtrap which proved my point about the legislature giving the authority. BTW, you look absolutely marvelous hanging out with leftists at Cashtrap.

[1rudeboy]

I think you are losing sight of the fact that we are talking about public infrastructure, not the government getting into the widget business. It's practically impossible to build a roadway, railroad track, gas pipeline, or transmission tower without government participation in some degree.

In fact, I can imagine the howls if this was purely a private project. Think Kelo.

[Ben Ficklin]

No, the pure public is socialism.

Your #1:
control the means and production (of the roads)
Vesting of ownership in the community