I’ve only been in France for three weeks and already I’ve lost track of the number of conversations I’ve had with locals about the services they take for granted and we Americans pay dearly for.
The shame I feel for my country when I tell Europeans how much I pay for a semester of college perhaps borders on treason, and it is even more depressing when I tell them, no, Barack Obama probably isn’t going to be able to do that much to change it.
Nevertheless, a social welfare state does not just operate on goodwill, as I was reminded quite forcefully last week when I had to pay a fine of 41 euro (please don’t tell me the exchange rate in the comments section) after getting caught by the metro police without a metro ticket. It was especially frustrating because I hadn’t actually intended to cheat — I had simply forgot my weekly pass at home.
As unfortunate an incident as this was, it at least highlighted that the city of Rennes has its priorities straight when it comes to city services. Cheaters pay dearly so regular people can have affordable public transport. Rennes, a city of roughly 300,000, has a metro line and an extensive bus network. Tickets cost 1.20 euro, and there are heavy discounts for weekly, monthly and yearly passes.
Therefore I was disheartened to read The Badger Herald Editorial Board’s logically dubious endorsement of Mayor Dave Cieslewicz’s plan to raise the Madison city bus fare by 25 cents. Even more puzzling was the board’s attempt to explain support for an even bigger hike of 50 cents.
The authors, perhaps out of some perverse commitment to trickle-down economics, asserted a fare increase of 50 cents (33 percent!) on the city’s poorest would be preferable to an absolutely negligible tax increase on the city’s wealthiest given the state of the economy.
Especially comical was the math the Editorial Board so generously provided its readers. After claiming that looking for assistance from tax increases would be inappropriate, the board pulled out their calculators: “We endorse the 50-cent price hike for reasons of simple math. The 25-cent fare raise would only cut the estimated [Madison Metro Transit] shortfall to $360,000. We are loath to endorse a policy change that will burden low-income commuters, but we also recognize a crippled bus system serves no one.”
Did they even spend a minute thinking about what kind of tax increase (gasp!) it would take to eliminate a $760,000 deficit in a city of a quarter million people? Reading about why fare increases are preferable to tax increases reminded me of former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who asserted without blinking an eye that he never raised taxes as governor — he only raised fees.
I admit I know very little about the specificities of the issue. The fare increase on individual tickets may not be so bad as long as the transit keeps intact discounts for regular commuters (10 tickets cost $12 and monthly passes cost $41). Having people like me who use the buses occasionally but don’t depend on them pay extra for tickets may be a relatively fair way to fund the system. If only the board had argued for such a plan. Instead it subscribed to the right-wing economic narrative of the past three decades: The poor must carry a financial burden that, for one reason or another, the rich cannot afford to take on.
With billions of dollars from the federal stimulus plan coming to the states, this is the time for cities like Madison to invest heavily in mass transportation for both economic and environmental purposes. With Rep. Dave Obey, D-Wis., chairing the House Appropriations Committee and Reps. Tammy Baldwin and Ron Kind in influential positions on the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Natural Resources Committee, respectively, Wisconsin is in a unique position to take advantage of the massive amount of funds allocated for infrastructure over the next decade.
Recognizing that public transportation is an important and worthwhile investment and that it was not invented just for New Yorkers is the vital step for the next generation of urban planners. However, our commitment to keeping that service affordable and accessible, especially to those who are least likely to have cars, is equally important.
I hope the arguments the Editorial Board advanced in this particular case do not represent the standard for this semester. Otherwise, perhaps the next editorial, in the name of fiscal discipline, will call for increasing college tuition.
Jack Craver ([email protected]) is a junior majoring in history and French.
