- When the Federal government offered the state of New Jersey several billion dollars to build a new mass transit rail tunnel from New Jersey to Manhattan, the deal looked too good to be true. The construction of such a tunnel would create many short term construction jobs, long term tunnel-related jobs, and facilitate the local New York/New Jersey economy. Since the original cost of the entire construction job was only about $5 billion, with more than half of that being paid for by all American taxpayers via the Federal government, it looked like a great opportunity.
However, very shortly, that $5 billion estimate became an $8 billion estimate. That $8 billion estimate shortly became a $10 billion estimate. The current governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie, then pulled the plug on the project when his staff estimated the cost could be between $11 billion and $14 billion, with all of that expanded cost being picked up by the New Jersey taxpayer. Given that New Jersey has been hard hit by the recession, like most of the rest of the county, the Governor correctly realized that limited state funding should not be wasted on a tunnel whose cost continued to escalate, even before significant construction had begun.
Obviously, someone in the Federal political class and the government the political class operates had some pretty poor math skills if the original estimate was off by an order of magnitude between two and three times as much within five short years, going from $5 billion to over $10 billion.
- Governor Christie may have been drawing on the horrendous experiences of the Boston and Massachusetts taxpayers relative to the infamous "Big Dig" tunnel program in Boston. The objective of the Big Dig was to take down an ugly elevated highway through the center of Boston and reroute the roadway under the city via the digging of traffic tunnels.
The original cost estimate was supposed to be around $2 billion if my memory is correct. However, many years past the deadline, the final cost was well over $20 billion, for an end piece of construction that is shoddy and fatal, given the infamous event when one of the faulty ceiling panels came lose and crushed a passing motorist to death.
In this case, the political class's original math estimate was off by a factor of tenfold relative to the final cost. You wonder if the voters in Massachusetts would have tolerated a $20 billion construction burden if the politicians' math skills had been a little sharper at the start of the project?
- Two years ago, the political class, namely the Democrats and President Obama, told us that the gross cost of Obama Care in the first ten years would be $940 billion, no Americans would lose their current health care insurance from their employer if they chose not to, and the national debt would be reduced by about $130 billion in the first ten years.
Last week, we found out the the ten year gross cost is really closer to $1.76 TRILLION (about double what the estimate was just two years ago), between three and five million Americans will likely lose their current health care insurance from their employer (about three to five million more than the zero estimate from just two years ago), and that Obama Care will likely increase the national debt by over $300 billion in the first ten years (versus reducing it by about $130 billion, a missed forecast of $430 billion, about $4,000 more for every American household).
Talk about bad math skills. From $940 billion to $1.76 TRILLION in just two years. From zero to possibly five million in just two years. From a gain of $130 billion to a loss of over $300 billion in just two years. Bad political class math skills do not get any worse than this.
- A couple of years ago, Hillsborough County and its Tampa metro area were considering putting in a light rail system to serve the area. Such a system would require additional taxation and voter approval. It was looking like it might get approved under the original estimate which said it would cost about $70 million a mile to construct the rail line. However, as the vote got closer, the original estimate was revised upwards to $85 to $120 million per mile, a 21% to 72% potential increase in cost.
Fortunately, for the Tampa area voters, unlike the Boston and Massachusetts voters, this bad political class estimation process was brought forth before the vote, which was defeated in light of the more realistic math estimates.
Which brings us to the latest example of politicians' bad math skills, which in this case, is combined with pure stubbornness. A short article in the latest edition of Reason magazine, lays out the problems that the California High Speed Rail Authority is having, of which bad math is a major part:
- California is rushing to start building in-state high speed rail route in order to qualify for Federal funding to support the construction.
- In January, 2012, its CEO resigned.
- Then the Chairman of the Board resigned.
- The local newspapers are calling the project the "train to nowhere."
- The California state government auditor and the Authority's own inspector general have concluded that the project has unrealistic cost estimates (sound familiar?), has a lack of oversight, and inadequate research on eventual ridership, i.e. they really do not know how many people would actually ride this train to nowhere.
- All of the analyses from the state and the Authority recommended that the project not go forward until it was substantially revised.
- What has already been substantially revised is the original cost estimate of $40 billion, which is now obsolete with current cost estimates ranging between $98 billion and $118 billion (i.e. off by a factor of up to three times as much).
- A recent opinion poll showed that 64% of Californians would vote against the project now, probably given it out of control costs, 11 percentage point higher than the number of citizens that voted for the project just four years ago.
An interesting, philosophical question that should be answered is: "Are the math skills of the political class and those in government really that bad that they can be off a factor of two, three, or ten in their original estimates vs. the final costs or is there some deliberate deceit going on in their dealing with us, the American taxpayer?"
If they are really that bad in math, they should not be in office. The inability to develop credible and realistic estimates of any government project should be a prerequisite for being in office. Otherwise, the taxpayer gets screwed for actually believing in politicians' math skills, we never get the value for the money that was promised, and we end up with over $15 TRILLION worth of national debt.
If the answer to the philosophical question is that they are good at math but intentionally lie to get their ways and get their favorite projects approved, than they should not be in office either. Lying to one's constituents should not be a prerequisite or a characteristic of holding elected office. It is destructive to taxpayer wealth and weakens the foundations of our democracy when the leadership of our government becomes a lying sham.
Three steps form "Love my Country, Loathe My Government," would help address this bad math syndrome, whatever the underlying causes are (i.e. they are actually bad at math or they lie):
- Step 34 would hold members of Congressional committees accountable for their math estimates and performance, removing them from their committee posts for bad math skills. For example, any Congressional member who sat on the committees and subcommittees that developed and approved the Obama Care numbers would be removed from those committee posts for incompetence. You cannot say you are doing your job when your math estimates are so wrong so soon after you espoused them.
- Step 38 would require all elected officials to sign a shared values oath every year of which integrity was a primary part of that oath. At least if they have to think of the word "integrity" every year they might finally have some in their math skills and estimates.
- Step 39 would impose term limits on all politicians so that the focus is only on finally getting good, high potential problem solvers in office that will develop some long term strategies with solid math underpinnings rather than short term vanity projects with no math underpinnings.
We invite all readers of this blog to visit our new website, "The United States Of Purple," at:
http://www.unitedstatesofpurple.com/
The United States of Purple is a new grass roots approach to filling the office of President of The United States by focusing on the restoration of freedom in the United States, focusing on problem solving skills and results vs. personal political enrichment, and imposing term limits on all future Federal politicians. No more red states, no more blue states, just one United States Of America under the banner of Purple.
The United States Of Purple's website also provides you the formal opportunity to sign a petition to begin the process of implementing a Constitutional amendment to impose fixed term limits on all Federally elected politicians. Only by turning out the existing political class can we have a chance of addressing and finally resolving the major issues of or times.
Our book, "Love My Country, Loathe My Government - Fifty First Steps To Restoring Our Freedom And Destroying The American Political Class" is now available at www.loathemygovernment.com. It is also available online at Amazon and Barnes and Noble. Please pass our message of freedom onward. Let your friends and family know about our websites and blogs, ask your library to carry the book, and respect freedom for both yourselves and others everyday.
Please visit the following sites for freedom:
http://www.cato.org/
http://www.robertringer.com/
http://realpolichick.blogspot.com/
http://www.flipcongress2010.com/
http://www.reason.com/
http://www.repealamendment/
No comments:
Post a Comment