Monday, April 18, 2005

Is a Hovercraft Responsible Spending?

When I think about taxes they don't really bother me in theory. I pay government to protect my property rights and uphold my contracts. I am better off to pay those taxes than I would be if I didn't pay them.

Taxes also don't bother me since an income tax is constitutional. But I also have a constitutional right to property. This means to me that government can tax me if they use that money to make me no worse off than I would be had I employed my tax payments myself.

This is why when I read an article in the New York Times about a hovercraft being built in order to prevent a dirt road from being built through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge for ambulance and other emergency vehicles only for $8.8 million out of a $35 million transportation plan I was disgusted. Doesn't Congress have a responsibility to spend tax funds in a reasonable manner?

I am pretty sure a cost benefit analysis of the situation would yield results confirming the benefits to such a road far outweigh the costs endured by the wildlife refuge. I can think of huge military debt that might use the $8.8 million more effectively than the eelgrass beds or sea geese called brants will. After all, these wonders of nature are using the money for a hovercraft.

No comments: