RALEIGH – I know I’ve made this point this many times before, but given the prominence of the funding-equity issue in the 2008 governor’s race, it’s worth repeating: everyone can’t be below average.
After years of making speeches in nearly all 100 counties, I can assure you that the leaders of every North Carolina community I’ve ever visited strongly believe that they don’t get their fair share of state spending. State lawmakers help to perpetuate this belief by incessantly promising to bring more tax dollars home – which can only happen if those incumbent lawmakers are re-elected. It’s a convenient argument for them, obviously, and all too often it is an effective one.
The entire discussion would greatly benefit from a conservative approach to political rhetoric and liberal dose of common sense.
If the issue is solely one of divvying up a fixed amount of state tax dollars, politicians and their constituents must be playing a zero-sum game. That is, if one group wins, the other loses. If Republican nominee Pat McCrory says that the current equity formula for transportation dollars takes insufficient account of traffic congestion, thus directing too few dollars to projects in urban areas, that must mean some rural areas are currently getting more transportation dollars than is prudent. If Democratic nominee Beverly Perdue then complains that McCrory’s idea of making traffic congestion count more in the formula would take away too much money from rural areas, that must mean that she believes urban areas are currently being treated fairly.
Clear away all the rhetoric, and these are the inescapable options. But who wants to alienate a political constituency just days before what looks to be a close statewide election?
A more productive approach would be to focus on potential positive-sum trades, on proposals that offer greater benefits than costs for most North Carolinians. In transportation, for example, it’s simply not the case that local residents benefits from highway projects only to the extent they live near them. As a whole, North Carolinians are better off if goods get to market faster, with less fuel wasted as engines idle in traffic jams. If additional highway capacity moves trucks more quickly through bottlenecks around urban areas such as Asheville, Charlotte, the Triangle, the Triad, or Wilmington, people in rural areas still benefit – either because the goods originated in their local businesses or because the goods will end up in their local retail stores. Similarly, many North Carolinians travel for business or pleasure throughout the state. Improved public safety and congestion is in their interest, regardless of their zip codes.
As long as the state dominates the collection of highway taxes and the distribution of highway dollars, the appropriate rule for state policymakers is to maximize the benefits accrued for every dollar spent. The benefits include low accident rates, reduced commuting times, and the economic consequences of each.
That doesn’t necessarily mean that every North Carolinian benefits equally from highway projects. That will never be possible. Even if projects are sited according to quantitative measures of merit, some individuals, businesses, neighborhoods, or communities may gain more than others. But statewide, the majority of North Carolinians would derive more benefit from a data-driven process – less affected by logrolling, political pull, and pork-barrel considerations – than they derive from the current system.
But that’s not the way politics works. So expect to see more contradiction and confusion, not less.
Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation.