Comment on Eric Zorn's 3/17/17 Chicago Tribune Column

I began to post a comment on an Eric Zorn column in the Chicago Tribune: "If basic education is a 'right,' why not basic health care?", but it was too long for the comments box.  I didn't want to lose it, some I'm posting the complete comment here, but please read the column for context of you haven't.


Eric,

While free education is not enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, it is provided for in the Ilinois Constitution.  Might be splitting hairs as to whether that's a right, but in any case the state is obligated to pay for it through secondary education.  There is no need for the Federal government to take on such an obligation when the States are well within their rights to do it themselves.  Even it was not customary, the State of Illinois is on the hook for it.  And I suspect many more States have similar provisions.

Regarding health care, there is no reason States can't also take the same approach.  So, why isn't there a much bigger push for States to do so?  I'd venture it's because when States have attempted single-payer programs, e.g. Vermont, they have not gone well. Notwithstanding, I would argue that a big reason that people are pushing for Federal universal health care is because they know they can't get States to pull the trigger.  And it's probably going to be much easier to get one Congress and President to go along than it will be to even get a few blue States.

The limited cost of education vs. healthcare as someone else noted is actually a very important point.  By capping educational coverage at secondary levels, you have at least some limited upside to what it could cost.  With health care, potential costs are unlimited -- unless you do limit them.  And with that you go full circle to rationing.  This goes to a basic definition  of economics -- the allocation of scarce resources amongst unlimited wants.  If I get a disease that can give me 6 more months for $100,000, would I get it?  What if I can get an additional 2 months for $1,000,000?  Well, if it's a state constitutional right, could you deny me that?  (Considering we can't mess with future pensions, I'll assume you couldn't.) But if you could limit, who gets the expensive stuff?  The one who has a disease that has celebrities wearing pins?  Or the one who has a drug-maker CEO that goes fishing with the 4 Tops?  Choices will be made, as always, and there will be winners and losers.

Speaking for myself, I would argue against Illinois covering all health care for its residents, but if it happened, that's something I'd accept.  And eventually, we'd see if I was right or wrong.  But for the Federal government has no Constitutional obligation for providing health care, and it's very likely to get it wrong.  I like the chances of States being able to develop it better for their own citizens.

Dear Clarendon Hills Citizen,

As I've written before, I'm supporting the My Clarendon Hills slate of candidates.

This includes:

Len Austin for Village President as a WRITE-IN candidate

Greg Jordan for Trustee

Carol Jorissen for Trustee

Don McGarrah for Trustee

I received something in the mail today, and you may have, too, from C4CH that bothers me.  Politics ain't beanbag as they say, but I feel what they sent is deliberately misleading.  It bothers my sense of fair play, and I think it's a mighty underhanded tactic for this community.

C4CH mailed out a "Sample" ballot today.  However, they deliberately MANIPULATED it so that it appears there is not a WRITE-IN option.  

1) The piece LOOKS official, but, I assure you, it's not.

2) It seems to me to be a deliberate effort to DISENFRANCHISE voters and sow confusion that there is not an opponent in the Village President race.  I can assure you, Len Austin is an official write-in candidate.  In order for there to be a line on the ballot, he had to file paperwork.  If someone tells you there's not another candidate, they're misinformed.

So, whether you agree with me or not, that's okay, but I feel this is important enough to open your eyes to it.  I encourage you to find your REAL sample ballot at https://www.dupageco.org/VoterLookup/

Early voting starts March 23!!!

Thanks for reading,

Jon Arendt

Check the My Clarendon Hills Slate out at...

www.myclarendonhills.com

Twitter: @MyClarHills

Facebook: MyClarendonHills

Greetings from Asbury Station

Here we go again. I just read about another rail boondoggle in today's Chicago Tribune. This time the idea is to put a new station on the CTA Yellow Line (formerly known as the Skokie Swift.) This particular line only has stations at each end with a third station being built at Oakton now. At a gut level, it seems intuitive that adding more stations might make sense. But now I couldn't disagree more. The Evanston Yellow Line Station Engineering Feasibility Study has recommended building at new station at Asbury Ave. in Evanston.

Alas, let's look at the numbers. Just for simplicity, I'll use the 2010 numbers as they did in the study as presented yesterday -- no inflation and no population growth. The operating and maintenance costs are projected at $913,000 annually, and the capital (building) costs are projected at $23 million ($23,000,000). The forecasted ridership? 263,000 annually. Is that a good deal? Well, that's $3.47 for every rider at the station just on operating costs. The cash fare is $2.25, so that's clearly not going to cover the cost. (Not to mention that the average fare will be something less than $2.25 due to discounted fares.) And those capital costs? Assuming a 30-year life span, which is probably more than generous, let's add on another $2.32. (Again, I'm not accounting for discounting, but this is a back-of-the-envelope thing.) So that brings us to $5.79 for every rider. Oh my. For far less, we can probably hire cabbies to give them a ride directly to the Howard station (at least if we can get 2 or 3 to share a cab). At least I haven't found that any money has been committed yet -- other than to studies.

Maybe there's some reason why taxpayers should support this kind of mess, but I don't get it. Do you?

Going off the Rails on this Crazy Train

I don't know why, but a recent article in the Chicago Tribune has become the straw that broke the camel's back in my frustration with wasted government spending. The headline is innocuous enough -- Chicago-to-Moline passenger rail line gets OK, but when you dig deeper, this gets pretty ugly. The U.S. Department of Transportation will kick in $177 million and the State of Illinois will add $45 million. That's over $220 million to add train service from Chicago to Moline, IL. (That's in the Quad Cities if you don't know.)

I think like a lot of government programs, then notion of spending even hundreds of millions of dollars doesn't even register as problematic. But let's break this down.

First, look at the magnitude of the $220 million construction costs. The pre-application capital estimate was $62.9 million. So where's the extra $160 million going to go? For that matter, why was the application for $62.9 million when Amtrak's feasibility study from 2008 showed a need for $22.4 million plus $4.2 million for equipment rehab and $1.05 million for training. Oh, "The BNSF portion of the route... is well-maintained and will not require any rehabilitation work...." That's 110.1 of the 158.6 miles of track. So we've gone from $27.65 million to $62.9 million to over $220 million.

That's appalling. But where does that get us? That gets us a route that will carry in the neighborhood of 180 to 200 round trips each day. (The pre-app seems to put it in the 180 neighborhood while the feasibility seems closer to 200.) That $27.65 million would be an awful lot of money to spend for that, but that's just for construction.

Now let's look at operation costs. The feasibility study has the State of Illinois picking up $5.9 million in operating costs for a train that will take take 3 hrs., 20 mins. from Chicago to Moline. That works out to a whopping $45.14 that the State's paying for each ride. That's a really bad deal. Let's look at some alternatives for January 11, 2012...

• Greyhound express from Chicago to Davenport, IA (also in the Quad Cities) -- $22 for advanced purchase for a 3-hour ride with 4 departure options.
• Trailways to Moline -- $36 for 3 hr., 10 min. with 3 departures.
• Oh, wait -- Amtrak already has service with a connecting bus from Galesburg for $42.25.

If I wasn't so lazy, I'd get a $200 million capital contract, set up a phone and a website so I could take orders, charge the state $43 a ride (for 2-week advanced purchase of course), then book bus tickets. I'd "save" the state and feds a ton of money and make myself a fortune in the process.

So why are we going to put taxpayers nationwide on the hook for a boondoggle that's going to put Illinois taxpayers even further in the hole every year?