A Dollar and Fifty Cents Everyday

It's editorials like this one which justify the name Wisconsin State Urinal.

The WSJ is preaching in favor of the mayor's proposal to increase bus the standard bus fare by $0.50 to $2.00 and, presumably, rates for other fares and passes would increase as well.

Madison property taxpayers keep forking over more and more money to the city's bus system.

They're paying enough.

It's time for those who actually ride the buses to contribute a bit more to maintain routes and improve service.

That's what Mayor Dave Cieslewicz's proposal for a modest fare hike would do. As part of his 2009 budget plan, the mayor wants to boost the basic cash fare by 50 cents to $2 per ride.

A couple things stand out here:

Firstly there is the use of the term "modest". Yeah, 50 cents in and of itself is modest but we're not talking about a one-time fee, we're talking about 50 cents each time someone pays a fare. This is a 33% increase. If the legislature were to propose boosting property taxes by 33%, the State Urinal's editorial board would not be calling that a modest increase and would instead be reaching for the nearest thesaurus seeking synonyms for "egregious" as they try to incite a rebellion.

Secondly the infinite wisdom of the WSJ editorial board implies that property owners don't ride Metro. This would no doubt come as a surprise to a couple of my neighbors with whom I ride the bus as well as numerous co-workers and friends. Metro ridership got a significant boost the first half of this year – up 6%. Am I to believe that all the proles in this town saved up their money so they could finally afford a bus ride? Or (gasp!) did some property-owning taxpayers stop driving as much?

A corollary of this is equally asinine, namely that those who do not own their own homes are immune to increases in property taxes. As many renters can tell you, springtime brings flowers preparing to bloom, birds & bees beginning to mate, and often times an increase in rent. I'm sure that most landlords pass increases in property taxes on to their renters. So, in the end, people like me who don't own a house and take the bus end up in a pecuniary double jeopardy as well.

Now, raising fares may be necessary. Perhaps 25 cents and not 50. But instead of arguing simply that the benefit of having the extra cash on hand outweighs the negative of transportation costs going up for many who may barely be able to afford it, the WSJ promulgates the divisive notion that buses are a subsidy for poor people. It is not just simple dichotomy of members of Bush's Ownership Society vs. renters; it's about what constitutes the commonweal and how to improve a basic service in hard economic times.

Perhaps parking rates should also rise 33%. What do you say, WSJ?