From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Clinton, Gore, and the End of the Automobile Age
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 00:20:39 GMT


ladasky@netcom.com (John J. Ladasky II) writes:

>J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
>>I was merely trying to refute Mr. Vandeman's obvious political agenda.  His
>>recommendations are a recipe for socialism, plain and simple.  His brilliant
>>use of hypocrisy was not lost on me.  If he's against subsidizing the auto,
>>as he puts it, then he'd better be against *all* subsidies or he's either
>>being hypocritical or *extremely* selfish.

>   One might argue that the MAGNITUDE of automobile subsidies, both
>visible and hidden, far outstrip the magnitude of subsidies for mass transit.
>Mr. Vandeman's statements are not so hypocritical if one considers that he is
>not against subsidies per se, but rather against inequitable and/or less-than-
>optimal subsidies.  True, his argument might be socialist, but not hypocriti-
>cal.  However, in light of the fact that Tim admits that automobile subsidies
>exist in the current system, then I'm sure that he sees that the existing
>system must also be called socialist.

Agreed.  In fact, virtually *all* money spent by the Federal Bureaucracy (most
of which the 10th Amendment forbids) is *de facto* socialism.  But now we are
really talking about issues best left to ba.politics, don't you agree?
I'd like to remove auto subsidies as well.  I'll pay gas taxes or user fees,
and I'll bet it will be *cheaper* if the money used for road subsidies is
returned to the taxpayers.  I am in favor of removing all subsidies.  There
is no legal Constitutional basis for spending money in this way.
My contention is that Mr. Vandeman seems to want to remove all subsidies,
*save only those which fit his own political agenda*. That goes beyond
socialism; such an argument is bordering on fascism as well.  And yes, every-
one, the left can be fascists too.  Look up the definition of the word.  The
Politically Correct On Campus certainly qualify.

>>I don't use my car much, but if I want to use it, then dammit, get the hell
>>out of my way.

>   Every time people drive, they use public money and pollute an environ-
>mant shared by all.  In light of these facts, it strikes me as self-centered
>to demand that the people supplying the public good "get the hell out of my
>way," no matter how infrequently I drive.

What qualifies as "supplying the public good" is clearly open for debate.
And I'm sticking to my guns--get the hell out of my way.  I'm willing to bear
*all* of the costs involved in driving when I do.  Are eco-freaks willing to
bear the *full* cost of mass transit?  I doubt it.  Why don't they pay the
scientific costs associated with preventing the next Pinatubo if their real
motivation is "protecting the environment?"  Obviously, it's because they
only want to tell other people what to do, not vice-versa.

>   And before anyone asks, yes, I own a car.  However, I'm doing my
>part.  The car gets 40 mpg.  I intentionally purchased a home within cycling
>distance of work, and commute by bicycle whenever possible.

I often take the bus (Santa Clara County #122) or Light Rail and #20 to
work.  And despite the ridiculous claims by George, I don't like breathing
brown air.  My car gets about 35 MPG on average, and I keep it well tuned.
Occasionally, though, I do wish to drive, and I don't want a bunch of "sky-is-
falling" doomsayers trying to make me feel like a piece of shit because of it.
It's their right to try, of course, but it's also my right to fire back.

Excessive use of hyperbole was intended to make a point.  I'm really not that
whacko about it, but I do agree with what I say (g)!

Tim Irvin   j056600@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
************************************************************************
The Federalist Papers:  Cliffs Notes for Constitutional study.  Use it.

Disclaimer:  The opinions above are mine.  No employer would admit sharing my
politically incorrect beliefs, even if they did.  They would wither under the
protests and boycotts of special interest groups.
Xref: sparky ba.transportation:1826 alt.activism:13661 ca.environment:765