The biggest enemy of the libertarian movement

After being called a "sellout" and "Obama's straw man" in my last post by a Ron Paul supporter, I've come to realize I should probably write a post dedicated to the current Libertarian Movement. It won't be bad, but it won't be pretty either.

After the first wave of the libertarian movement more or less fizzled out by the 1970s with the decline of Barry Goldwater's political career, the second wave was brought on by Texas congressman Ron Paul, that while he served in the US House of Representatives in the late 1970s to the early 1980s representing the Houston area, it was not until his presidential run in 1988 on the Libertarian Party ticket that really established Paul as the face of the Libertarian movement in the United States.

Since then, through his somewhat controversial newsletters, his mid-1990s re-entry into national politics, and his bold predictions made in 2002 on the housing industry and American foreign policy, Paul's popularity increased and effectively exploded during the mid-2000s. With his passion for limited government, his defense for civil liberties, his down to earth personality, and what his supporters see as grandfatherly-wise-old-college-professor like wisdom, Paul is enjoying the most successful run of his political career. The 2012 election marks his third attempt at capturing the presidency, second time as a Republican, and his first time being at the forefront at a Libertarian Revolution in full swing.

He has a supporter base that is rabid and intrepid who will aggressively defend Paul and libertarian ideals against anyone and everyone. I'm not saying this about all of Paul's followers, and I won't even hypothesize on a percentage or an amount, but I guess it is enough to where it gave rise to the pejorative adjective of "Paulbots" -- a term that developed on numerous political message boards and comment boards in reaction to the responses left by Paul supporters and other libertarians.

They often characterize the biggest enemies of their movement is the mainstream media, the Republican Party establishment, the large federal government, those that ignore the Constitution, yet, they seem oblivious to the real enemy of their movement, the real enemy of the Libertarian Revolution:

Themselves.


***

Chicago School economist Milton Friedman noted that the great Austrian school economist Ludwig von Mises was someone that stood adamantly by his beliefs and conclusions and was not very open-minded. Needless to say, von Mises purportedly brash personality, at least when it came to defending his economic beliefs and theories, did not win over very many followers in economic circles, including fellow Austrian school adherent and later torch bearer Friedrich Hayek at first. This brash, and at times downright abrasive quality of some the responses that libertarians express in political discourse, no matter the medium or the form of media, will more often than not find observers who deem them repulsive instead of attractive.

This is not an indictment against libertarianism. I do have quite a bit of things to criticize about libertarianism in general, but this is not the post for it. This post is about how aggressive, elitist parts of the libertarian -- and consequently Paul -- support base will more or less hamper any large scale success that could be achieved by the most significant political movement since the neoconservatives movement of the late 1970s that culminated in Ronald Reagan's election in 1980 and ushered in the current ideological phase of the Republican Party.

Most in this movement are well-read and well-educated -- the greater the education, the greater the tendency to be liberal -- in this case classical liberal, which is what libertarianism evolves from. As a consequence, the greater the education, the greater the likelihood of someone being elitist about it. Whether you are in support of the movement or not, there is an intellectual standard to it, and while that standard can yield positive contributions in debate, there are times where these contributions can be downright condescending and disrespectful. "Sellout", "strawman", "liberty-hater", "freedom-hater" -- you name it, someone that has argued against libertarianism has been called it.

And there's the catch: if you contribute thoughtfulness to the debate and to the issues, and avoid just being strictly combative and dismissive of what you would consider to be dissident thought, then the Libertarian revolt would be taken seriously. The key to your movement should be that why libertarianism makes the most sense even with the most open mind when it comes to politics. Present it with closed-minded absolutism, then do not expect a whole ton of widespread respect.  This is why Hayek had a better relationship with his peers than von Mises. While this is not true of most libertarians, it is true of enough libertarians for this to pose a significant problem.

Granted, I'm well aware this will be found in any and every political movement to exist, especially here in the United States and around the world (liberals and conservatives, and even some progressives, can prove to be condescending and repulsive). Yet, history has shown that any sociopolitical movement that once upon a time gained serious momentum, and had a supporting base that did more harm than good for the benefit of the movement because of their approach to the debate or the issues at hand (ranging from approachable and just lacking cohesion and direction to just down right despicable), it was ultimately undermined. A few examples would be Reagan neoconservatives that have increasingly began to lose influence in the Republican Party (the 2008 nominee McCain and the 2012 presumptive nominee Romney don't fall into that tradition), the Egyptian revolt, the Tea Party that crumbled last year, the Occupy Wall Street movement (though still ongoing, lost a ton of steam due to loose organization), the Dixiecrats that were torched by the progressive shift in the Democratic Party in the 1950s, the first American Civil Rights Movement (during the 19th century), and the first French Revolution.

In the end, I'll close by say this: to the libertarians out there that feel that dismissing other realms of political thought and those that follow it only because of the faces and talking points memos of such political thought instead of the core philosophical beliefs behind it and the aggressive and unflinching hero-worship of archlibertarian Ron Paul is the way to go in terms of advancing this libertarian movement, this Libertarian Revolution, then are you doomed for disappointment -- not at the hands of the mass media, not at the hands of liberals and conservatives, but at the hands of yourselves.

However, to the libertarians that believe that contribution to the debate and the issues at hand should be healthy, open-minded, and as a place where ideas can be exchanged without the insistence that entire philosophies and other viewpoints being trashed only at face value, then what you have to offer is welcome and I look forward in engaging in conversation with you.

Thoughts on the Ron Paul rally

First off, I'm not a libertarian; I'm best described as a centrist, a mix of classical liberal (partially libertarian) and progressive. Nonetheless, I still attended Ron Paul's political rally on Friday night at the University of Houston. While I agree on more or less half of what he says, I found out three things by attending last night: why he appeals to the point where his supporters are rabid and would damn near defend him to the death, how he is actually similar to Barack Obama despite being on the opposite end of the political spectrum, and why I would most likely not vote for him in the general election.

Roughly 3,000 people showed up from my observational count at the Hoffeinz Pavillion. While there were some news stories on the event, the University of Houston did not promote it at all, which was surprising, considering that UH school itself made note of when former President Bill Clinton and current First Lady Michelle Obama came to UH to campaign for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, respectively. For both events, the turn out was far larger -- if you're told otherwise, its an exaggeration. Nonetheless, the 3,000 that did show up were excited, pumped,  and quite vocal. They undoubtedly sounded like a crowd that was twice the size.

I also want note the diversity of the crowd as well. The University of Houston is a diverse school and despite the fact that I only expect that maybe 1500 to 2000 of those in attendance were actually current University of Houston students like myself, it wasn't an all white Tea Party event like most of Paul's detractors would think it be.

The festivities opened up with Ron Paul's oldest son, Ronnie, introducing the family to the audience, which included his mother (Ron Paul's wife), his wife, and two of his children. He then introduced a family friend from Lake Jackson, who is a tenor. He sang a beautiful rendition of America the Beautiful that got a well deserved thunderous ovation from the crowd.

Ron Paul took to the podium a little bit after 7PM after being introduced by the CEO of Youth for Ron Paul at the University of Houston. He did not really say anything new as compared to what you've already heard about him -- he discussed the path that government has taken in the past century to infringe on civil liberties and liberty in general, he railed against an aggressive and interventionist foreign policy, he attacked the welfare state and entitlement spending, and he espoused the virtues of a strict interpretation of the Constitution. On economics, it was more of the same -- criticizing the neoclassical synthesis (mainstream economics in general), the liberty promise of the free markets, the dangers of loose credit, and advocacy of the gold standard. He wrapped up a little bit before 8PM.

I finally got the grasp on Ron Paul's appeal, and while it may be complex to some, it really is not. It's one part rooted in pragmatism and another part that's rooted in a general philosophical shift: the pragmatism comes from the idea that the most practical approach to bring the United States government back to fiscal health is to "return" government to its original intended function as spelled out in the Constitution; the philosophical shift that is taking place is that the United States government does not function as the Founding Fathers envisioned instead of the United States government just not functioning properly at all. Both of those factors combined together lead towards support for a government that permits a truly free society and protects the rights, liberties, and privacy of the individual through less intrusive government and a smaller government in size -- it's what's many are yearning for and that's what they look to Ron Paul to deliver.

His speeches are similar to collegiate lectures and he has an "every man" presence. Paul wore a simple polo and blue jeans at the rally, and while every presidential candidate dresses down, the lack of a significant media presence gives credence to the fact that he's not the grandstanding, photo-op type. In other words, he is the politician that actually bucks the  politician archetype; and not only people are riveted and drawn to it, it gives people comfort. If you ask anybody that is a die hard Ron Paul supporter, they may tell you that he feels like a college professor, teacher, grandfather, or uncle to them -- he brings that much comfort to his supporters.

Paul is extremely similar to Barack Obama and not because they both appeal to younger voters. Both of them unfortunately foster an unrealistic expectation amongst their supporters to be bigger than the divisive national political climate that causes paralysis and dysfunction in Washington. The high, unrealistic expectations and the subsequent let down torched Obama's popularity politically and it would undoubtedly do the same to Paul, as he would have to either make the Faustian deal to become the strong-armed President with an executive branch on steroids he that so staunchly derides or basically leave Congress to run the United States, who he would probably not work well with. The reality is this: Paul would never unilaterally be able to produce a surplus in 3 years. That's abhorrently delusional as he would never have the cooperation of what will most likely be a Democratic-controlled Congress towards the middle of his first term if he wins the general election. If the United States operated on a European parliament-style legislative structure, then I'd probably buy that.

Paul discussed how he would use Executive Orders to reverse other "bad" Executive Orders (which, for the record, actually comes from a loose interpretation of a vague grant of this power in Article I, Section 1, Clause 1 and Article II, Section 3, Clause 4) -- moves, that if proven unpopular -- would ultimately severely damage, if not destroy, the purported Libertarian Revolution. It goes back to the real underlying economic problem that economists are generally screaming about at the top of their lungs and most politicians, including Paul and Obama are ignoring -- it's not necessarily the size of government, it's not necessarily the government regulation, it's not necessarily taxes, and it's not necessarily government economic policy (even though they all play a role); it's more than anything the lack of stability and coherent direction in government. Paul and his supporters would argue then that concern would be relatively resolved by moving government out of the economic arena; this conclusion is false. This was the same conclusion reached by the supply-side economists of the 1980s and by the 1990s and 2000s outsourcing caused labor competition to increase and stymied wages -- which was actually something that Adam Smith, the king of lassiez-faire economics, actually argued in his magnum opus The Wealth of Nations. Similar to Obama, the "taking-matters-into-your-own-hands" approach may invigorate supporters, however, it may alienate independent voters who would see that as adding to Washington's unstable aura.

While I agree on Paul on quite a few things, yet not necessarily his conclusions, I came to realize I could not vote for him in the general election. While, in truth, Obama is not really that much better of a candidate (he had the chance to become the first real progressive President since Theodore Roosevelt, however, poorly played his political cards and often times proved too willing to restrict civil liberties and infringe on privacy), I learned from Obama's first term that no matter how much a candidate says that they will be bigger than the Washington political climate and get results, if that candidate gets elected and he or she cannot aptly put together an offensive against an opposing party's caricature, the candidate's support will suffer and legislative success will be stymied. Obama's issues, more than anything, result from his inability to deliver on the extremely high expectations that were set upon him in 2008.

The expectations would be the same, if not higher for Paul; if he is elected, he would be seen someone that is "America's savior". Unfortunately, Paul would exacerbate the dysfunctional Washington climate; that may excite some, but overall it is not good for business.

Intellectual differences within his own party, not to mention the differences against the Democratic Party, would undoubtedly torch a lot of the things he would aim for in terms of doing. Paul would very similar to Calvin Coolidge in his approach in governing (granted Coolidge was quieter), and while it would have been acceptable in the Jazz Age, wouldn't be vastly accepted in today's world, if at all. Democrats would support his anti-war stance and defense of civil liberties and civil rights, but would rail against his insistence on the erosion of the welfare state, the elimination some government departments, and, especially amongst black and Latino Democrats, restraint against aggressive government intervention to protect civil rights; Republicans would support his anti-tax stance and free-market stance, yet when it comes to social conservatism, strong military neoconservative nationalism, and completely dismantling government involvement in the economy, he will undoubtedly find resistance and would have a difficult time uniting a fairly fractured Republican Party.

So I'm going to sit back and just wait until a centrist -- someone that believes that government should put civil liberties and civil rights first; someone that believes in smart, proactive economic investment policy; someone that believes in justified war and not wars to  extend outdated American unilateralism; and someone that believes that the welfare state does has some merit. I like Paul because he makes people think; however, Paul is not the best candidate for me, at least in terms of my personal political alignment; Huntsman was probably the closest to it of all the candidates that entered in for 2012. I don't really have a candidate that I will have unwavering support for this election, however, I wish good luck to all those involved.

Freakolitics, Part I

This series may or may not continue, but I figure I would write this to prove somewhat of a point. 


This was a network that was, in a way, libertarian in nature. It had a very decentralized arrangement; you as the audience had the power to do whatever you wanted, and you more or less did whatever you pleased so as long as you were not ruining the experiences for others in the audience. More or less, the decentralized network administration depended on numerous constituent players playing fair. Unfortunately, the reality of this happening broke down, this setup wreaked of instability, and, finally, caused a massive revolt and subsequent drain in the audience.


This other network was organized like a strong federal government. It was a highly centralized tight setup, where this network's administrators made changes whenever they wanted, at many times to the chagrin of the audience. However, because this network more or less perfected the model of extending and enhancing your personal life structure instead of trying to enhancement through expansion (which was the model of the aforementioned network), the administrators knew they had an arrangement that was too good to be disrupted by audience disgust. It managed to become the most powerful network on earth.


I should mentioned that now the first network I mentioned actually took on the second network's approach of a much more centralized arrangement and it managed to slowly start regenerating audience growth.


What are these networks, you ask?


The former network I mentioned is Myspace; the latter network is Facebook.

We're all Transcendentalists now

I think we're all Transcendentalists now.


Seriously.

Well, at least we like to think that we are.

For those that are unfamiliar with Transcendentalism, it was the New England movement of the 1830s and 1840s that preached self reliance, independence, and the inherent goodness of man and nature. It railed against political parties and organized religion as toxins to the individual; it was a movement that was a general protest against the state of culture that persisted in the early United States (or, as noted in the Wikipedia entry on Transcendentalism,  a retort against the intellectual state and the clergy at Harvard University).

Transcendentalists included some of the most celebrated literary, philosophical, and educational figures in the history of the United States, such as writers, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Walt Whitman, William Ellery Channing, and Henry David Thoreau, women's rights advocate Margaret Fuller, education pioneer Elizabeth Palmer Peabody, amongst others.  It was notable for the Utopian experiment of Brook Farm, and 1840s communal living community that was founded by George Ripley (not the one that would be later be associated with Ripley's Believe or Not) near present day Boston.  The community didn't pan out due to agricultural issues and most of it is now a cemetery in west Boston. Take what you want from that -- where "utopia" fell victim to reality or take it as an indictment against social liberalism, it's still indeed relevant.

The United States was founded, more or less, on the idea of "utopia" or at least some concept of perpetual great promise and paradise. English Pilgrims and Quakers searched for religious tolerance, the Spanish feigned for a golden paradise, the Dutch wanted a paradise for fur trading -- so did the French.  All an utopia is, more or less, is a place of paradise where something of great promise would be perpetually provided, whether it would be freedom, gold, or, yes, fur.

So what does all of this have to do with saying that Americans are all attempting to be Transcendentalists now?

If you pay attention to a lot of the political discourse in the United states, whether it would be through the forums of the Internet or the soundbites of the political arena in a 24/7 news cycle world, the search for that utopia has never went away:

Conservatives are always looking forward to that day where unilateral American supremacy, family values, a more theological sound government, supply-side economics, lower taxes, and the substantial elimination of the welfare state will exist.

Liberals are still looking for when rights for any all demographics will be secured, where nobody is poor, and where government would finally be the hero that so many have been clamoring for the government to be.

Libertarians are still pushing for a Jeffersonian America, with extremely limited government, a non-interventionist foreign policy, protection of civil rights and liberties thanks to a limited government, a specie standard, and a free-market, lassiez-faire paradise.

Progressives are still looking for that one perfect system that would make everyone happy, where government and society will always be proactive instead of just reactive. 

While in the media conservatives are paired with libertarians and liberals are often paired with progressives, they're four different ideologies pushing for four different things. Beyond that, though, it's a representation of that endless search and aim for their American utopia where their philosophy would hold dominion over this elusive American utopia.

These days, it's not the small, out-post utopian communities being formed -- its the political party platforms, the political action committees, and the think tanks that have taken on that role. The books are still there, the essays have been replaced by blogging, but we would be hard pressed to induct the likes of Ron Paul, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Tavis Smiley, Kirsten Powers, Alan Colmes, amongst others into the pantheon of storied American authors who managed to shape American literary identity in the vein of Emerson, Thoreau, and Whitman.


The funniest theme, however, of the presidential race is that all of the candidates, in some form or another, are promising to "restore prosperity to the Untied States", even though few bring up the reality that a major catalyst to the "not-as-robust-as-we-would-like" American economy is due to a shift from the blue collar engine to the white collar engine, spearheaded by the American system that preaches efficiency that pushes companies to do more with less resources, rather than the education and training of new workers. The funny part is, the "America" that they're trying to restore is only just the America that fits their utopian vision, not the America that actually existed, because there are far greater realities to the history of the United States than just "freedom", "liberty", "justice", and "prosperity" -- all of which, that thanks to certain points and times in the history of the United States -- can be attached for being hypocritical and ignoring of greater realities.

So we're going to keep on this romantic pursuit. Why?

Because we're all becoming Transcendentalists.  At least, we like to think that we are.

The Buffett Rule and the reality of taxation

The Warren Edward Buffett rule or The Art of Illustrating The Unfair Tax System is legislation proposed by the Obama administration, named after the esteemed head of Berkshire Hathaway that would enact a 30% tax rate on all Americans bring in more than $1 million in income, inspired by the namesake's outrage that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.

In truth, I hope that Buffett would. With his wealth I would think he would have an army of accountants at his disposal to make sure he can secure every last advantage in the American tax system.

As for the Democratic Party, it's another folly (estimates put it at only a potential $50 billion in revenue that would be brought in) that is designed to score political points (by putting it voters mind that the Republican Party is still the party of the wealthy), in yet the latest example of how not to implement Keynesian economic strategies (no matter how much Paul Krugman favors legislation like this).


Candy Crowley's "spoiler" was humorous, yet true: this legislation has no chance in hell of passing. We're more likely to see Mitt Romney be consistent in his campaign banter that we would see tax-increasing legislation.


It's time to address the one thing that we long had to address: the reality of taxation. Before, I begin, there are two fundamental truths in regards to the current fiscal state of the United States government:

1. The government spends too much.
2. The government doesn't make enough money.

While the latter may seem preposterous, and there are some people accusing the government of actually being a corporation, in a way, as one of my friends put it who graduated with a degree in economics, the government is somewhat organized as a corporate firm.  The President is the chief executive, the Congress is the Board of Directors, and the constituents are stockholders. As with any company, spending is only one part of the problem: a company still needs adequate income to appropriately function. What your idea of "appropriate function" is in the eye of the beholder, in accordance to your political philosophical beliefs, of course.  For me, the function of really any government is to protect the civil liberties and civil rights of its citizens, to adequately defend the citizens of its country, and to soundly participate in a more interdependent world.

Cue the grumblings of debate. Let me stop before I digress any further.

Combine this with the expectations people have about what government should do, a distorted quandary is born. Cute pleas for tax cuts, tax credits, and the such.
So there are five fundamental facts that people should realize about "tax cuts":

1. They never pay for themselves (see the fiscal success of the Reagan and Bush tax cuts).
2. Most people do not make enough money in income to really see a benefit to tax cuts, beyond that, most people don't even pay enough in taxes to really see a benefit to tax cuts.
3. As long as private debt is high (the individual debt to income ratio stood at 112% last year), tax cuts will yield little to no economic benefit.
4. Tax cuts are a useless way to stimulate demand -- it stimulates the demand to have money to pay off debts, if you want to look at it in a smart ass, sarcastic way. Then again, in a way that is a legitimate argument.
5. Tax cuts create more fiscal issues than they resolve.

However, there are four fundamental facts about "taxing the rich":

1. Taxing the rich is of questionable economic benefit.
2. Marginal tax rates in the United States are at historical lows.
3. The wealthy actually pay more than their fair share in taxes, which may shock some people.
4. The wealthy (which for this statement, I'll consider the top 20% of income earners), for the most part still has substantial buying power after taxes over most Americans.
5. Because the wealthy take on so much of the tax burden, increased taxation on the wealthy yields little fiscal benefit, for that there are not enough Americans paying income taxes.

(Before I go any further, I wanted to elaborate on point #3. In 2009 the Congressional Budget Office released numbers that were interesting: the wealthiest 20% of Americans made nearly 56% of all pretax income in the United States, yet paid close to 70% of all federal taxes, a 14% discrepancy. The overall effective tax rate in the United States was 20.7%, which is not even top 50 in the world). Further more, the top 1% paid 28% of all federal taxes in 2007, and a 40% share of income taxes that same year. 

Now that I got "tax cuts" and "taxing the rich" out of the way, it's time to further illustrate the silliness of the American tax code:

1. 47% of American households did not pay income tax for the 2010 tax year. Of that 47%, nearly a third had incomes of $10,000 or less (which automatically puts them in the poverty threshold); of that 47%, nearly two thirds made less than $20,000; of that 47%, nearly 90% of them made less than $40,000. 
2. University of Michigan economists Joel Siemrod told NPR that while the top 10% of income earners pay 70% of the income taxes, they only make 40% of the income. It should be noted that entry into the the top 10% income club begins $110,000 for the 2011 tax year.
3.  Tax rates would have to increase by 50% on all levels to even possibly begin significant reduction of the federal deficit, Siemrod said in the same interview. However, I don't think it took into account spending cuts as it was not mentioned. 

A lot of economists are beginning to argue in favor of the value added tax system (you heard of it called "consumption tax", "luxury tax", or "FAIR tax"). While it would expand the tax base to force more people to contribute to it and end the income tax system, it comes at a cost -- it would have an adverse effect on consumption considering that a value added tax system punishes those with lower incomes. As such the cycle would begin once again in regards to loopholes, exemptions, and credits.
In truth, there are two reasons why the American tax code fails to work:

1) The tax code does not work as it was designed: For the most part, the tax code was designed to be fairly straightforward. The only issue is, the tax code got designed and redesigned for political points and pandering. The ones that benefited the most from these changes in the tax code are the wealthy and the married with children.

2) The tax code depends too much on one thing - income: As the tax code primarily depends on income for it to work properly, its vulnerable to changes in the economy and individual economic behaviors. 

So what's the solution?

A two-tier tax system that would combine two fairly brilliant ideas:

1. A value-added tax system that would equate to being roughly equal to one half of the average sales tax rate of all 50 states in the United States, with deductions placed only on food and medication.
2. A income tax system that reconciles each tax bracket to the poverty level income threshold. I wish I still had the link to where I read that idea (I do not take credit for it). The only difference would be that I suggest a multiplier system (i.e., 1.5 times over the threshold, 2.5x over the threshold, 3 times over the threshold, and so on.), with the poverty threshold formulated using the proposal by the U.S. Census Bureau put forth in 2011, which would be a vastly improved and more realistic alternative to the "thrift-basket model" that's been in use since the 1960s. 

At the same time, numerous tax credits, deductions, special case of income (i.e., a separate tax rate for capital gains taxes), and other loopholes would largely be eliminated. It forces more people to pay taxes, eases the evasion and regressive taxation issues of the value added tax system, and still maintains a progressive tax structure in regards to income.

Fareed Zakaria wrote that the best tax code would be one that can be written on two pages. Mine would take no more than five.

Close enough.

I'm well aware that I did not delve into federal spending. This post was not about federal spending -- it was about taxation, and taxation only.

The rant about tollways, the Northwest Freeway, and the South Freeway

A highly unpopular decision was made the other day when Harris County Commissioners approved a very tentative plan to add toll lanes to U.S 290 (the Northwest Freeway) and S.H. 288 (the South Freeway). How this will work out remains to be seen and relies on quite a bit -- Harris County is still owed $77 million by TxDOT over the Grand Parkway Project, better known as that-really-big-loop-that-makes-no-real-sense. This continues the massive tollway movement underway here in the Greater Houston area and the State of Texas as a whole. For those keeping score, there has been four major construction projects in regards to limited-access highways completed since 2008 -- the Katy Freeway, the eastern segment of the Grand Parkway by Baytown, the northeast section of the Sam Houston Tollway which completed the Beltway system, and the Crosby Freeway (US 90). Of those, only the Crosby Freeway has no toll lanes. I declined to include the NASA Bypass for the fact that it is only 2 miles in length.


As such, I've seen a lot of comments full of flawed logic and irritation over the infamous reneging of Harris County removing toll booths once the Sam Houston Tollway and the Jesse H Jones Houston Ship Channel bridge were completely paid off. However, the county (and as such the state) realized something -- tax revenues going into the general funds of these jurisdictions were disproportionate to what would be needed to effectively resolve the transportation issues brought on by Houston's rapid population growth (Greater Houston is now the 5th largest metro in the country at roughly 6.1 million according to a 2011 Census estimate). The issue is not really new -- it's been a reality ever since the early 1980s.


It was tollways that bailed out Harris County after the financial clusterfuck of two projects: the Beltway 8 Ship Channel Bridge and the Hardy Toll Road, both of which suffered from massive traffic shortfalls in relation to projections (for the Ship Channel Bridge it was to the degree of 58%), which left both projects stumbling into the 1990s as money-losing albatrosses. Ironically, it was the Sam Houston Tollway that saved Harris County finances with all portions of the tollways constructed on time and under budget, even if most of these projects were started late (the West Belt and the North Belt from the Southwest Freeway to the North Freeway and the entire South Belt were on time; the Northeastern portion of the Sam Houston Tollway was not). It was during this time that the purpose of tollways shifted from being a means to pay off project costs and to being a reliable generation of revenue.


In truth, I'm not crazy about tollways, but at the same time though, I understand that the following reality, considering the rather conservative lean of this state -- there would be a greater uproar amongst Texans if the state decided to increase the gasoline tax (which currently stands at 20 cents a gallon). Considering how broke the Texas Department of Transportation is, I would imagine that the gas tax would have to be increased to levels seen in California and New York (roughly 47 cents a gallon), if not higher, considering Texas is a larger state and has more state maintained highway mileage than any other state in the country. To everyone whining about the toll booths not being removed -- would you rather pay $1.30 (with the EZTag) each time you pass through the main plaza, or would you rather shell out almost 30, or possibly 40, cents more per gallon of gas and have no toll roads?


I'll take the latter -- and for conservatives and libertarians that want to trumpet the old "cut spending" shtick: Texas has a mediocre budget at it is for transportation infrastructure. If it didn't, then I'd probably wouldn't be writing this post and almost every controlled access high volume transportation project in this state wouldn't be a tollway. This is a case of Texas not having enough revenue.


Transportation in Houston is really, really bad for about four to six hours a day, 6 days a week. U.S. 290 is a total hell, and the biggest reason why I'm relieved I do not live out towards Cypress. At least heading back  down to either Pearland, Alvin, or any community really in Brazoria County, there's State Highway 35, Cullen Boulevard (FM 865), and Almeda Road (FM 521) to relieve SH 288. The plan makes some sense for SH 288 -- it is a nightmare before 9 AM and it's a living hell between 4 and 6 PM. As it goes by the Medical Center, I avoid it like the plague whenever I leave in the late afternoons from the University of Houston.


The plan, however, makes no sense for US 290, considering that there's almost no way in hell another lane could be added between Magnum and Hollister -- the throw together extended added lanes that last briefly up to Antoine are a bad enough. At least for the Northwest corridor, it's better off that Hempstead Tollway gets built, serving a similar function to the Westpark Tollway or at least widen Hempstead Road to an 8 lane thoroughfare similar to Westheimer Road with synchronized lighting to handle a higher volume of traffic.