Rob Schofield closes his latest screed about transportation in the Triangle with some fantasyland thinking:
Happily, the group is not without promising models close to home. Just this week, Charlotte unveiled its new light rail system to rave reviews. While the system will undoubtedly suffer growing pains, it was clear from the enthusiastic response of Queen City residents that North Carolinians hunger for new and modern approaches. Any committee that calls itself the 21st Century Transportation Committee ought to take at least some steps to tap into that hunger.
Rave reviews? How about customers for rave reviews? But it really doesn’t matter if they meet their targets, Charlotte’s still got some ’splaining to do.
-Max Borders
Interesting contrast … OK, so what the hell are we to make of Durham?
-Max Borders
From our friends on the left…
Here are three predictable counter-narratives (read: lies) to the shite-storm the Civitas Institute managed to stir up:
1. People who think that illegal immigrants should not receive publicly subsidized higher education are hateful, racist, nativist xenophobes.
(False. One can agree that the legal immigration system should be fixed and streamlined, but breaking the law at the periphery is not the way to fix it. That is neither xenophobia nor racism, but respect for the rule of law. Personally, I say "come one, come all" — but legally.)
2. Eighteen-year-olds in community colleges are "the children."
(False. Eighteen-year-olds are adult free agents. Did I even need to write this?)
3. Community colleges are "profiting" from allowing illegal immigrant attendees to pay out-of-state tuition.
(False: If even 70 percent of the TOTAL cost (capital expenditures and all) of community college system was covered by tuition, we might say that some costs are being offset. The real number is around 12 percent. The system is subsidized by TAXPAYING CITIZENS by more than 85 percent! That’s about as close to profit as the Soviet shoe factory.)
Ultimately, the lefties are fighting the wrong battle here. Let’s reform the law — not break it. And remember, you are talking about our citizen’s resources here. If you’re attempting to make some sort of argument about civil disobedience, why not just go light up a spliff on HIllsborough Street in front of a cop to prove your point? (And – by the way – if you care about this issue so much, why not start your own private, non-profit community college for the undocumented?)
I think immigration is good on net — probably as much or more than the most compassionate lefty. But the rule of law is nothing to be toyed with.
-Max Borders
People are adopting consumer-driven health plans — like hotcakes apparently. Check out this this report (pdf). Greg Scandlen, the author concludes:
"As a result, health care costs for CDH plans are rising at one-third the rate of PPO/HMO plans and enrollment is growing at the fastest rate of any benefit innovation of our lifetimes — faster than IRAs, 401-Ks, or HMOs."
There is a revolution in the making folks. But CDH is only a component of the broader reforms we need. So the question is: can it happen before they socialize healthcare?
-Max Borders
If (and that’s a big if) man is causing global warming… and if such warming would actually result in negative or catastrophic consequences, should we allow for technological solutions that will arise from prosperity and innovation, or should we regulate ourselves into an economic recession?
-Max Borders
OK, let’s get this straight: Illegal immigrants paying $7000-plus tuition is not making N.C. community colleges profitable.
Tuition comprises only 12% of the community colleges budgets. It’s like imagining away the costs of building the buildings, paying the light bill, buying the land, etc. etc. So whether any illegal immigrant that attends a community college is being subsidized to the tune of 85% or 90%, neither affects the fact of his being subsized. People who are arguing that illegals make colleges "profit" are being dishonest.
-Max Borders
I stumbled across an interesting document from 2002 produced by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Entitled "Barriers to Minority Homeownership," it details some of the primary obstacles facing low-income minorities seeking to buy a home. Primary reasons given deal with a lack of capital for downpayment and access to credit – no surprise given that we’re talking about low-income people.
Of greater interest was point number 4, "Regulatory Burdens." Read the following points and tell me where you have heard them before:
- "The high cost of housing often results from a web of government regulations. Federal, state, and local codes, processes and controls delay and drive up the cost of new construction and rehabilitation.
- In some states, developers report that excessive regulation adds 25 to 35 percent to the cost of a new house.
- communities with the most restrictive land use and zoning regulations often have affordable housing shortages."
I’ll give you a hint, it ain’t from the "smart growth" advocates on the left. It never ceases to amaze me how they can call for more open space, zoning regulation, impact fees and building regulation and then complain about the lack of affordable housing.
Glad somebody noticed. If you’re a political junkie, you may also enjoy this month’s DecisionMaker poll, which the media have largely ignored (probably because they prefer polls that tell them (pdf) what they want to hear).
-Max Borders
OK. Suppose we agree with Chris Fitzsimon’s proposition that our immigration system is broken and the children of immigrants should at least get to go to public school. It’s not hair-splitting to say that college is a privilege, not a right — and that it’s not ‘public school’ here on earth. It’s also true that many undocumented college students are not sons and daughters of illegal immigrants at all (which is a red herring anyway), but border jumpers themselves. (Fitzsimon omits this fact like a cheating husband omits his whereabouts last night.)
So constant reference to "the children" doesn’t obscure the fact that we’re talking about extending heavily tax-subsidized higher education privileges to people who are here – because of their parents or not – in violation of the law. Respect for the rule of law is nothing to take lightly. Fitzsimon takes it very lightly, much in the same way he takes the truth lightly.
But the more critical aspect here is that the community college system is extending the privileges and goodies of tax-paying citizens to people who may- or may not be taxpayers — and are certainly not citizens. Such cosmopolitanism makes the concept of citizenship totally meaningless. And while Fitzsimon wants to streamline the "citizenship process," his suggestion is that we suspend what it means to be a citizen (and shower its benefits on everyone) until the INS or Congress gets its act together. Absurd and dangerous.
(And by the way, this issue has nothing what-so-ever to do with the Supreme Court’s decision to admit children of illegals into public schools. I know the difference between a third-grader and a college sophomore. So do our readers.)
One, like myself, might agree that we need comprehensive immigration reform. One might even agree, like myself, that something that is close to amnesty is in order (visitor visas, work visas, whatever) — not being one who thinks it is pragmatic or wise to deport 12 million people and being one who does have a severe case of the Ellis Isle mentality. But accepting your tired and huddled masses is quite different from extending government freebies. To throw public resources at people by virtue of the fact that they came here without permission is dangerously akin to saying that we owe those who trespass on our yards tea and biscuits.
-Max Borders