Editor,
How interesting it was to read the commentary by Robert Sheipe enumerating “some of the problems” of mass transit in the March 11 edition of the Current in Carmel. Before reading this article, I was unaware that mass transit would be responsible for more burglaries, robberies and thefts on our now safe streets and in our homes. I am just wondering how that thief is going to get my 42” flat screen from my house to the nearest bus stop without drawing too much attention. Do you think the bus driver will take a lesson from the air lines and require an extra fee for the TV?
Sheipe says we do not need to subsidize companies that support mass transit. Does that mean that the families of minimum wage fast food workers should not be allowed to receive public assistance? More than half of them do. Since I do not patronize this type of restaurant, I can emphasize with his assertion that 95 present of taxpayers will be paying for a service they don’t use. He calls this redistribution of income. I certainly hope no one sees my social security check. I just might receive more than I contributed during my 49 years of employment.
And then, he claims that unionized government workers will require high operating expenses…perpetually. There are few words that boil the blood of the free market crowd more than union. Attach it to government and you have a double whammy. I’m just wondering why he didn’t find a way to include the word Obamacare. He would have then hit the trifecta.
Finally, he claims that mass transit will transport low value labor to low paying jobs. This one totally confuses me and it is condescending to label people you don’t know as low value. If there is one thing I have heard over and over from “the government is too big” believers, it is the “dignity of work” mantra. What happened to that? Are those boot straps to be replaced with zippers to protect us from people unlike us? Should I feel better if a “low value” worker can’t get to his low paying job to help make my life a little more comfortable?
The mayors who prompted this commentary made a good argument for support of mass transit. I am sure there is an equally good argument for an opposing view. This is not one of them.
Michael Sweeten, 46033