50 Comments - taxactivist - Friday, Jan 25, 08 @ 11:17 am: There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. They should sell the public transportation system to Disney, who could probably figure out how to sell more than 10% of the advertising space and who have a lot fewer friends and relatives to put on the ghost payrolls, not to mention Disney doesn’t give away millionaire pensions and benefits like our state does. Sell it to Disney and costs are reduced by 30% right off the top before anything else is even changed. - B - Friday, Jan 25, 08 @ 11:21 am: Yes, public transit should be free, like all the free highways across the state and country. And while it may seem like an expensive proposition, the amount of money needed to fully subsidize the CTA, Metra, etc., is a fraction of the amount of money our state and federal government spend upon roads. I recall an article on this very subject in one of the Chicago papers this past year. - Snidely Whiplash - Friday, Jan 25, 08 @ 11:25 am: No. Public transit users don’t pay as much for road construction and maintenance as drivers do, because they don’t pay tolls and gasoline taxes; in other words, drivers pay more because they use the roads. This is fair. Likewise, public transportation users pay more in that they pay a fare to utilize the service. They have a far better deal than drivers do, because they DO indirectly benefit from the roads: the goods they buy are shipped over the roads they get a break on, while drivers really don’t get anything out of the public transportation system, other than perhaps the indirect benefit of having less traffic to deal with. As far as the disabled are concerned, to give wealthy seniors free rides while doubling the fares on the disabled (most of whom can’t drive) is disgustingly unfair. No one but the poor should ride for free. And if anyone should get a break, it’s the disabled, who generally have no other transportation option. Then again, life in Illinois is never really fare (pun-pun) unless you’re very well-connected or part of a big voting block the Blago types are pandering to. - amy - Friday, Jan 25, 08 @ 11:26 am: I’m sick of the transit discussion. It’s not handled on a mature level. The legislators who were unwilling to fund for too long a time, the doomsday announcing bureaucrats, they all play a big game with an important service. Start making decisions based on usage. That’s it. There are too many bus lines and not enough maintenance of existing services. It’s kinda nutty that the CTA announces new devices when they cannot even keep things clean. Some very smart people put ideas in the Tribune about having fewer bus stops in more strategic locations to help traffic flow. Good idea. Maybe if we had fewer bus lines and bus stops people could walk a little more and the city residents could be more fit! And then the services would be better for the disabled and seniors. - Siyotanka - Friday, Jan 25, 08 @ 11:29 am: If it’s taxed, on your property taxes…then yes it should be free to all. - The Doc - Friday, Jan 25, 08 @ 11:37 am: It’s a good idea in theory, but simply not feasible. The federal government continues to reallocate funds historically used to subsidize transportation operations and infrastructure for “other” needs; until this policy changes, citizens will be required to pay for their rides. Certain means-tested groups should receive discounts, but no one, save for exceptional circumstances, should be allowed to ride gratis. That’s what makes Blago’s amendatory veto all the more disconcerting - he’s now created a slippery slope. I’m also not sure that a free-rides-for everyone policy will have a significant effect on ridership. I recall a quote from the film Singles: “People love their cars”. Those who require mass transit will continue to use it, and those who can afford the luxury of driving everywhere will continue to do so. Allowing certain groups to avoid paying for their rides will only serve to further burden those who are required to pony up. - B - Friday, Jan 25, 08 @ 11:43 am: SW, what doesn’t make sense is when our county, state and federal governments encourage driving by massive spending on new or expanded road projects that cause or contribute to many other serious problems(envorinmental, health, political, etc.) while tranist agencies have to fight tooth and nail just to stay afloat. - GoBearsss - Friday, Jan 25, 08 @ 11:45 am: If its free, more people will use it, right? Isn’t that the end goal? That more people give up their cars and use public transportation? The end goal isn’t to make it fair - to have car users and mass transit users to be treated equally. I say make it free for all. You will at once decrease traffic on the road, decrease pollution, decrease travel times (increase productivity and happiness), and decrease our reliance on foreign oil. - steve schnorf - Friday, Jan 25, 08 @ 11:55 am: Yes, everything should be free to all, and we should get rid of taxes,too. - Pot calling kettle - Friday, Jan 25, 08 @ 12:06 pm: Nothing is ever free. However, discussions of who pays should include externalities as well as direct costs and benefits. Riding public transit benefits the riders directly but also benefits everyone by reducing road construction & maintenance, reducing pollution (which, it turn, reduces health care expenditures), reducing dependence on foreign oil (reducing our need to use the military to protect our access), reducing greenhouse emissions, reducing the number of auto accidents, and so on. Since most people only consider their direct out-of-pocket expenses, it benefits all of us to offer public transit at a reduced price. PLUS: The more people that ride mass transit, the more runs are scheduled, the more convenient it becomes, encouraging more people to ride. - DwightZinfandel - Friday, Jan 25, 08 @ 12:08 pm: Chicago’s personal wheel tax, the City Sticker, is 75 bucks a year. I take the Blue Line every day and my wheel tax comes out to around 875.00 a year. Metra and South Shore riders pay one, maybe 2 grand to get to work. Do gas taxes and tolls really exceed that? I’d be surprised. The state should encourage public transporation because we all benefit from it. The costs and inefficiencies of driving go on and on. Roads are essential infrastructure we all benefit from, but I’d rather not have to subsidize some guy’s commute way more than he subsidizes mine. Public trans shouldn’t be free, but the costs to riders are out of whack with the costs to drivers. - Wumpus - Friday, Jan 25, 08 @ 12:08 pm: No it should not be free! We should be encouraged to ride our government provided ponies and jet packs to where we need to be. What then will happen to the massive infusion that the gas tax is responsible for? - jerry 101 - Friday, Jan 25, 08 @ 12:11 pm: I think it should be “free” to all (of course, nothing is free), but it should be fully subsidized. The objective of public/mass transit should be maximum ridership. Maximum ridership would come from fully subsidized (no fare) mass transit. More people would use it, there would be fewer cars on the road - less congestion, reduced pollution. Everyone benefits. And to The Doc, not everyone who can afford cars use them. I can certainly afford a car. I prefer to take mass transit whenever feasible. Mass transit does work best in highly dense metropolitan areas (big cities), and plenty of wealthier people do forgo cars whenever possible, if not entirely (IE do not own a car). I know at least a dozen people who are carless who can easily afford it. And they are all happier since going carless. No costs for gasoline, oil, maintenance, car payments, car insurance, finding parking, etc. There is a significant population in Chicago who can afford cars but choose not to have. And if one is necessary, they can always rent a car. - Greg - Friday, Jan 25, 08 @ 12:12 pm: Let me paraphase what almost anyone would say: Yes, if I use it. No, if not. - MOON - Friday, Jan 25, 08 @ 12:12 pm: It’s not aquestion of should it should it not be free. The question is can we afford it? Right now given the state of affairs, the answer is no! - jerry 101 - Friday, Jan 25, 08 @ 12:16 pm: Someone else also pointed out that more users from “free” transit also means that more routes and buses/trains will be added. Which means fewer cars on the road, which means that buses will improve their on-time performance (which is pitiful), which will mean more people will take the bus (number one complaint about buses is always that they are late and “bunch” (for those of you who are unfamiliar, buses get stuck in areas of dense traffic, and two or three of them end up in a row, all arriving at a particular stop within a minute or two, after 20 or 30 minutes without seeing a bus). See it becomes a positive feedback loop. And for those who insist on driving, then the roads will start to clear, making your trips faster. And reducing the costs of maintaining roads. - VanillaMan - Friday, Jan 25, 08 @ 12:33 pm: If mass transit was free it would definately be worthless. People do not respect what they do not invest in. Ridership would not increase - instead folks who used to pay would avoid using mass transit. Take a look at free government services - this has happened repeatedly. Regarding those who are now demanding free rides because seniors get free rides - well, we want seniors out of their Camrys and off the sidewalks. If you are eligible for circuit breaker, then you should be able to get help with the costs of mass transit. Nothing costs more than free government services. - GoBearsss - Friday, Jan 25, 08 @ 12:41 pm: “Take a look at free government services - this has happened repeatedly.” Yea, like all those libraries people trash and disrespect. - Levois - Friday, Jan 25, 08 @ 12:43 pm: Can public transit afford to be free? I would say no! I’d rather public transit was run by private companies and they can determine who can or can’t ride for free. - plutocrat03 - Friday, Jan 25, 08 @ 12:48 pm: Seems like everyone remains generous with OPM (other peoples money) today First things first. It does seem that the paratransit riders are the only constituency whose fees are raised and raised severely. Most are of modest means and it is unfair to single them out for fare increases. I believe that all transit riders should have a modest increase to maintain the 50% farebox goal, no one should be socked with a 100% increase. Cost go up, especially fuel recently, not to mention the TV screen boondoggle. It is irrational to demand an infinite moratorium on fare increases. As far as free transit for all, fair thing would be to develop a plan that treats all riders in the state equally. i.e. active pickup points within 2-4 blocks of all residences with frequent service throughout the day. Develop a a plan, calculate the costs and present it to the voters. By the way, I would like a glass of what GoBearsss is drinking! That is quite a hallucination. Perhaps we should all have transportation like the Governor has, planes, trains and automobiles at his beck and call 24 hours a day. And while we are at it, I would like a personal security detail to protect me from ……. well someone……. Its kind of like the stories of the CTA Board members who DO enjoy free public transportation AND don’t use it. Why would someone expect the general public to be any different? - Thinking Woman - Friday, Jan 25, 08 @ 12:49 pm: Of course it should be free. In an era of increasing obesity and greenhouse gases, anything we can do to stimulate REAL solutions will help. Thanks to B and Go Bears for speaking that truth. - BIG R.PH. - Friday, Jan 25, 08 @ 12:51 pm: If I don’t live in the greater Chicagoland area, why should I pay anything at all for transit service there? It is pathetic that the city of Chicago only pays $5 million of the $500 million (1%). I should not have to pay an additional dime until the idiots of the CTA get their act together and run an efficient operation. Not only that but now the Gov is ordering flat screens for the new ‘EL’ cars? I thought they were going broke!! Once again the taxpayers have been frightened into a panic by the Liberal Beauracrats and the taxpayers get the shaft. BTW the vendors now have to wait even longer to get paid because of these shenanigans!! Blago’s gotta go!! Along with Daley, Jones & Madigan and the other spineless legislators who railed against the Gov’s AV but refused to vote their mouth! - Rich Miller - Friday, Jan 25, 08 @ 12:53 pm: Fair enough, BIG R.PH, but answer me this… Why should Chicagoland subsidize your roads, state police, transit, etc., etc., etc.? Downstate is a net winner in state revenues. - KIZ - Friday, Jan 25, 08 @ 12:58 pm: I am very surprised at the number of people who think public transportation should be free. I ride the CTA, and despite the sometimes maddening waits and less-than-clean cars on some of the trains, I think it is quite a bargain. As for the increase in the paratransit pass for disabled riders, I agree with Snidely - the idea of letting all seniors, even the wealthy ones, ride free while other people with limited income and virtually no other transportation options are being saddled with a huge fare increase, is ridiculous. - plutocrat03 - Friday, Jan 25, 08 @ 1:00 pm: By the way did everyone forget that seniors have had ’senior discounts’ for years. Wasn’t half price cheap enough? It was laughable to have the pols comparing their giveaways to commercial operations that give products/services at a discount when they just instituted a substantial entitlement to people who mostly don’t need it.. It would make for a more honest program if everyone below a certain income could ride free, or at least at a discounted fare. What is stupid is to tax medicine in order to give seniors free rides. - Techboy - Friday, Jan 25, 08 @ 1:03 pm: This idea was proposed here weeks ago, by Squideschi or someone of similar bent, and at the time I thought: “That’s a very interesting idea”. I like it for a lot of reasons but think it is probably impractical to implement except in a from-the-ground-up implementation where that was the goal from the start. Routing and number of busses and trains would be likely very different if fares were no longer the variable that dictated where service would or wouldn’t go. This would be a great thing to do in very densely populated big cities, but would probably fail economically in sprawled suburbs. If it was part of an integrated planned community, that would have a lot of benefits and overall be a money-maker in terms of productivity and positive environmental effects. You would also probably need additional incentives and disincentives alongside, like higher costs for parking private cars. In Japan, where land is so scarce, they make car ownership incredibly tough. From tortuous emissions standards that are checked often, to very long periods of driver education training and a drawn-out and expensive licensing and insurance process, even to rules about leaving dents on the car unrepaired. Never mind rapacious prices for the car itself, the gas, and the parking, plus a police force that is trigger-happy on issuing expensive tickets. All to discourage car possession and ownership in favor of pooled use of taxis and transit. For them, it’s pure survival. Actually it is for us, too, but we don’t live in such a tiny bell-jar so we have had time to enjoy and misuse the space we have quite a while. But we can’t go on like that forever. I think inexorably, we are going to have to mimic what the Japanese do. Or we’ll look like Bejing does now: some sooty, smokey unlivable Blade-Runner-looking hellhole. So I would look at housing developments and expansions of village boundaries and try to steer growth towards less sprawl and more medium to high density living in “walkable” neighborhoods where you mix retail, business and living spaces along with common parkland areas, all linked by free transit. In such developments you get great sense of neighborhood and you don’t really need your car except for weekend errands or pleasure travel. Your basic everyday needs are a few block’s walk or a five minute bike ride away. In those cases you can make your life even easier by using rentable smart cars or electrics or hybrids where even a battery-powered car is plenty good enough for what you want to do. Its not socialism. It’s capitalist economics; by saving the money you’re not blowing on a car, gas, car insurance, etc, you free up that cash to use on other things or to save up for your retirement. What about if the CTA, Metra and PACE tried fare “holidays” a couple times a year, to help see how this goes over with the public and what the planning needs are? A couple all-free fare days might be nice, especially if tied to some big holidays. Those tax amnesty gimmick days the businesses use every year seem to be popular. This could be similar. We have to start somewhere and we need to start today. - GoBearsss - Friday, Jan 25, 08 @ 1:07 pm: The paratransit should not be seeing a huge increase. On the other hand, I don’t think paratransit / dial-a-ride should be free. That is a highly inefficient means that is necessary. But, if you make it free you will quadruple the number of people who use it who could just as well use fixed route service. It should be affordable, but free would not be effective. That’s just my personal opinion. - anon - Friday, Jan 25, 08 @ 1:07 pm: By free, I guess you mean, should there be no fares. Public transporation vehicles should be well-maintained, routes intelligently drawn, and services expanded statewide to include suburban, small city/town, and rural customers, and employees well-mannered and knowledgeable, and should be free/no-fares. And so should public education from pre-school through college and public health for that matter. We would all benefit from these services provided by our tax dollars, even if each individual did not need or use each service. But the reality is subsidy without accountability. At least we all get to suffer the consequences for “free.” - phocion - Friday, Jan 25, 08 @ 1:19 pm: Techboy, Actually, I proposed it on Zorn’s blog a few weeks back and it got quite a negative backlash from many blog commenters. It’s refreshing to see some thoughtful commentaries here on Miller’s blog, on this important issue. Maybe it’s because the IQ level of commenters here is higher than those who troll around Zorn’s blog. And, no, I’m not bent like Squideshi. - plutocrat03 - Friday, Jan 25, 08 @ 1:19 pm: The politics of avarice are creeping in. There is so much ebb and flow of state money, it may not be possible to determine who is a winner in the tax game. Revenue sources from the Feds may further muddy up the fairness calculations. We do know that Chicago pays amongst the smallest percentages of their residential property values in property taxes in the state. They could double it and still be near the median. Chicago does however suck up resources for projects like rebuilding Wacker Drive, higher educational payments to the school system, the currently relevant bailouts et. al. If Chicago does not value its infrastructure and responsibilities, why should anyone else? - Angry Chicagoan - Friday, Jan 25, 08 @ 1:24 pm: In principle I like the idea of transit that is free at the point of need; it would, I think, do a lot to reduce congestion and make the transit itself run faster (especially buses which would no longer have to wait for people fumbling around for change or those stupid magnetic stripe passes). There’s one big catch though; free transit in the United States in particular is likely to turn rail rapid transit into a string of mobile homeless shelters. That $2 goes a long way towards discouraging that kind of use of the system. I like the property tax idea suggested above; everyone who isn’t homeless pays, either directly or else their landlord’s tax bill via rent, and there are few clearer cause and effect relationships in public finance than the benefit that good transit has on property values. It even has the effect of meaning that people close to good transit are effectively paying a little more than those in remote and underserved parts of the city. - August - Friday, Jan 25, 08 @ 1:26 pm: No! Because folks will be taxed at higher rates! - Six Degrees of Separation - Friday, Jan 25, 08 @ 1:30 pm: One interesting thing- I liken the dependence of “free” or subsidized transit, to be paid with increased gasoline/diesel taxes, to dependence on the cigarette tax. FWIW, a few cents of federal gas tax for every gallon sold in the US is now being used for capital transit project funds, as it has been for several years. So there are some downstate drivers who never use transit that send $ to the city, just as some road funds generated in Chicago make their way downstate. Fossil fuels, like cigarettes, have a declining use curve ahead of them. In 20 years, I expect to see a major proportion of our cars and trucks using something else to power them, especially via electicity in all-electric or plug-in hybrid cars and trucks. So, we will need to find an alternative way of raising money to keep the roads in shape AS WELL AS to replace the transit share that fossil fuels are now paying, never mind an increase. One would be wise to stick that in one’s pipe and smoke it. - B - Friday, Jan 25, 08 @ 1:31 pm: Big RPH, I agree with you that Chicago’s contribution to the CTA is pathetic, and that the CTA has got some problems that must be ironed out, but that does not get to the meat of this discussion which essentially boils down to should our governments provide greater incentives for people to ride transit, and, if so, is offering free rides to all riders a good way to do this? And if you can’t handle the thought of some of your taxes going to programs outside your area and for services you don’t use, you’ve got bigger problems than people in Illinois getting free bus rides. - Bill S. Preston, Esq. - Friday, Jan 25, 08 @ 1:31 pm: Sadly, diabled people don’t have the same kind of voting power as senior citizens, which is probably why the Governor didn’t include/protect their fares. I mean, if the senior citizen AV only cost 20 million, what could a similar program for disabled citizens cost? 10 million? A million here, a million there. I’m wondering if anyone knows why a large part of the CTA funding problem couldn’t have been solved through raising the price of student U-Passes. Last time I checked, students paid about $150-175 in fees for a semester pass. When I was a student, I used the crap out of that pass - probably 20 rides/week at the very least. With the thousands upon thousands of Chicago-area college students alone, doubling that pass price would have to alleviate some of the budget problems. I suppose CTA and the schools have contracts to abide by, but when renegotiation time comes around, the CTA should raise their prices significantly. - Levois - Friday, Jan 25, 08 @ 1:33 pm: Could Wumpus be talking about 40 acres and a mule? - Apu - Friday, Jan 25, 08 @ 2:15 pm: Is there a chance the track could bend? - South Side Mike - Friday, Jan 25, 08 @ 2:37 pm: Bill the Esq., You miss a key point about the CTA U-pass. For students who use the CTA, it’s a huge bargain, true. But schools that sign up for the Upass program have to charge every student the fee, whether or not the student ever sets foot on the CTA. The CTA figures it makes up enough money on the walkers, car communters, and weekend-only users to offset the bargain that daily student riders get. When I was at the University of Chicago, the universal charge feature was a reason why the student body shut down negotiations to add the institution to the program. - BIG R.PH. - Friday, Jan 25, 08 @ 2:45 pm: Well Rich, I guess the city of Chicago should just secede and become the 51st state of liberal utopia that Mayor Daley, G-Rod, Emil et al have envisioned. The rest of us will get along just fine thank you! - wordslinger - Friday, Jan 25, 08 @ 2:45 pm: No, but it should be a bigger priority. Let’s start by revisiting the RTA allocation and base it on ridership, not geography. - VanillaMan - Friday, Jan 25, 08 @ 2:48 pm: “Take a look at free government services - this has happened repeatedly.” Yea, like all those libraries people trash and disrespect. Been to a library lately? Then you are one of the very few. Libraries are suffering like never before, while bookstores like Barnes and Noble and B. Dalton are thriving. But wait? People would rather hang around bookstores than libraries? What gives? One makes you PAY for the books, and the other is FREE! How can this be? Because of what I said. When public services are free, they become worthless and people stop using them except for those with no choice. Usage drops. As a former librarian and board member I assure you that you have no idea what you are talking about regarding today’s situation regarding libraries. - VanillaMan - Friday, Jan 25, 08 @ 2:49 pm: Stop believing the fairy tales liberals are spouting about folks using things free. Doesn’t work in reality, does it? - wordslinger - Friday, Jan 25, 08 @ 2:58 pm: Vanilla Man, I disagree with you about the value of free libraries. They’ve been a treasure to this country since Ben Franklin’s time. But I agree with you about usage. A couple of things: Old Buildings — hard to retrofit with technology that users demand. Along those lines, they need to offer coffee and food. The new main library in Oak Park does that and it’s a hit. The biggest problem? Sadly, public libraries in urban areas are de facto day centers for street people. It’s an issue, believe me, keeping people away. - Six Degrees of Separation - Friday, Jan 25, 08 @ 3:03 pm: No, but it should be a bigger priority. Let’s start by revisiting the RTA allocation and base it on ridership, not geography. Then the suburbs would have less, rather than more, transit. The UP West Elburn extension cost $135 million to build and costs about $7 million a year to run, while taking in about $2 million in fares. I will also admit it doesn’t get a whole lot of people out of their cars, which is another goal of RTA. So if it were to be shut down, it woudn’t cause a massive traffic jam on the Ike (ummm, no bigger than the one that’s there anyway). But it is a nice amenity for the people who live in Elburn and Campton Hills. - Wumpus - Friday, Jan 25, 08 @ 3:16 pm: Levois-while you bring it up, sure. But I still want a pony and a jet pack instead of free transit. Instead of 40 acres, how about 40 storiees up on Lakeshore? Seriosuly, while all are cramming for “free” transit, I want a pony. Why can’t Blago give me a pony? and a lifetime supply of carrots and hay? And a straw hat for the pony or would that be suited for a mule? Free transit is a sham. It is highly discrimitaory for Blago to offer it to some and not others who need it. - Southern Right - Friday, Jan 25, 08 @ 4:02 pm: Lets give a card to everyone with their snout in the states feed bag. If you qualify for this card you get every entitlement. Period… Food stamps, healthcare, transportation, housing, tax rebates or credits. Along with this card you’ll need a bright orange hat to wear. No hat no ride. Now if a non hat wearer wants your seat on the bus or train, get off your ungrateful behind and give up your seat. Be sure to thank the non hat wearer for paying your way in life. When a society figures out it can vote itself a free ride, a true democracy will soon fail. - Rich Miller - Friday, Jan 25, 08 @ 4:08 pm: R.PH, I was referring to the Chicago region, and if it did “secede,” you’d be paying a lot more taxes. - plutocrat03 - Friday, Jan 25, 08 @ 5:33 pm: In 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior: “A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.” “The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence. 1. From bondage to spiritual faith; 2. From spiritual faith to great courage; 3. From courage to liberty; 4. From liberty to abundance; 5. From abundance to complacency; 6. From complacency to apathy; 7. From apathy to dependence; 8. From dependence back into bondage ” Well we have made it past 200 years, but I think we are at stage 7 with portions of our society entering stage 8 By the way, if Chicago wants to secede, the let them go as far as Cook County. The collar counties want no part of their corruption. I would like to see an analysis which show that Chicago funds the rest of the state. I don’t think its true. - Bill S. Preston, Esq. - Friday, Jan 25, 08 @ 9:46 pm: SSM- Sorry for the late reply, but college students pay all sorts of fees for services that they don’t use. Even if you live on-campus, say at Loyola or U of C, you’re telling me that students don’t use the pass to get downtown, to the bars, to work, etc? Also, in the grand scheme of college tuition, what’s another $100 when you’re already paying 20-40K? A hundred here, a hundred there. I would also suggest that the CTA either increases the transfer fee or decreases the time that a transfer is valid. If I take the blue line to the Thompson Center for a meeting that lasts an hour, I can get back on the blue line for 25 cents. That’s not really a transfer. I realize that it’s a hard thing to determine, but it’s another minor way to raise some cash without increasing taxes. - NoGiftsPlease - Saturday, Jan 26, 08 @ 11:41 am: I agree, nothing is free. The question is, as a nation, how do we care for people who are disabled and can’t do for themselves like the rest of us. I am willing to pay more taxes so they can live decent lives. I don’t understand a “selfish” anti-tax stand. You don’t want to take care of other people, only yourself? Often, I find anti tax people supporting “faith based” charity. Why is charity provided through a church morally different from charity through our government? The biggest real difference is that when times are worst and charity is most needed — people can’t afford to give voluntarily through organizations while governments can find ways to help in the worst economic times. That’s why governmental charity is better than voluntary charity. Look at the food banks, etc. today? The economy is bad and people are giving less while the need is greater. Any of us can become disabled at any time, and we don’t always have families or churches that can provide for us. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.