October 12, 2005

THERE ARE NO BAD REASONS:

Auto-Mobility: Subsidizing America's commute would reward work boost the economy and transform lives. (Margy Waller, October 2005, Washington Monthly)

Among the many unpleasant realities exposed by Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath—from persistent income and racial disparities to the chronic incompetence of the Bush administration—one of the most surprising, to many, was this: our nearly total dependence on automobiles. Nowhere was this clearer than in the exodus from New Orleans itself. The difference between those who escaped with their lives and loved ones, and those who did not, often came down to access to a car and enough money for gas. Now, in the recovery stage, many of those who were left behind have been evacuated to trailer-park camps, where they are likely to be worse off than they were before, in part because they cannot get to where the jobs are.

Even those Americans who do have cars—and who live nowhere near the Gulf Coast—have been affected by Katrina. After the hurricane, already-high gas prices spiked to record levels—suddenly, it cost $60 to fill up the tank. Prices receded somewhat afterwards. Given worldwide supply and demand issues, prices are more likely to move up than down in the near future, as most Americans understand. No wonder, then, that gas prices top the list of financial concerns in recent polling. These higher prices might be more tolerable if incomes were rising. But in fact, incomes have been flat since 2001 and declined last year for working-age households.

American drivers have taken a number of steps in response to high gas prices. SUV sales, which had already started to slip, plunged further in Katrina's wake while demand for fuel-efficient vehicles like the Toyota Prius soared. But while we can choose to buy hybrids or cut down on trips to the grocery store, the hard truth is that, in a suburbanized country, there is only so much Americans can do to reduce their car usage. To make a living, they have to work. And to get to work, the vast majority of Americans have to drive.

There is a limit to what government can do to reduce gas prices or increase private sector wages, at least in the short term. But it can do something to give middle-class families some relief and low-income workers a leg up—by recognizing that the cost of commuting is a business expense, and changing tax policy to reflect that fact. The federal government should offer tax credits that would lower the cost of commuting to work for low and middle-income employees, and would allow low-income workers who can't afford a reliable car to get one.

Employers, welfare administrators, and the unemployed have long asserted that transportation barriers are a key obstacle to success on the job, so these commuting credits may be the most promising next step for welfare reform.


Offset the credits with gas taxes.

Posted by Orrin Judd at October 12, 2005 2:39 PM
Comments

You can't subsidize everybody.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at October 12, 2005 5:07 PM

I'm listening to Seattle talk radio at work and they are discussing the current mass transit plan. The state plans on spending half of the entire transportation budget to improve mass transit. By doing so they predict they can raise the percentage of those using mass transit at peak hours from 3% of commuters to 4.5% of commuters. How can anyone justify spending 50% of the budget on less than 5% of the users?

Posted by: Patrick H at October 12, 2005 6:26 PM

"Offset the credits with gas taxes."
Orrin, that's the ticket. Add a few hundred more pages to the tax code and raise taxes.

Posted by: jd watson [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 12, 2005 7:48 PM

Robert:

Yes, you subsidize virtue and punish sin.

Posted by: oj at October 12, 2005 9:13 PM

Patrick:

They're the good 5%. Tax parking and congestion and you can make them 20%+.

Posted by: oj at October 12, 2005 9:16 PM

OJ: that is subsidizing a minority at the expense of a majority.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at October 13, 2005 12:16 AM
« WELL, HE WON'T BE THE ONE REPLACING BABY ASSAD (via John Thatcher): | Main | MR. WARREN, LINE #4, BILL KRISTOL WANTS TO BORROW THAT COLUMN: »