...Why, newspaper editors will do it, of course. Consider if you will, a Midwestern newspaper editor attempting to drum up support for a bus system that isn't paying its own way; he figures it should feed more at the public (i.e., non bus riding) trough rather than raise rates and he justifies it thusly:
"Fares cannot cover the entire cost of the service. Car travel is subsidized by government via highway funding, and public transportation deserves to be as well."
Italics mine, naturally.
Um, sir? Sir? Mister Editor? First off, there's a hefty tax on automobile fuel, a big chunk of which is supposedly goin' for, guess what, highways an' streets. (I don't know if the city's paying that when they diesel up their buses. Could be they are getting a free ride). Second -- and I'm not sure if you have noticed -- the verdammt buses are operated on the exact same tax-subsidized roads as private automobiles, albeit more slowly and with the occasional passenger-to-passenger beat-down.
City buses: already "subsidized" twice over (or thrice -- are there any magic Fedbux in the mix?) and still bleeding money. It's be cheaper to hand out free bikes to rider, with used cars for the hardship cases -- but wait, "cash for clunkers" helped dry up the pool of affordable used cars; h'mm, so much for Uncle Sam's input, hey?
But never mind; if he gets his way, the editor of the local catbox liner will tax us poor ignernt rubes into his New Socialist Man no matter what. It's for our own good, you see; besides, it's all government-funded, so it must be okay. And he'll make the buses run on time, once we've all been taxed so heavily we can't afford our own cars. Neat, eh?
Over my cold, dead $2000 Hyundai, you miserable rat.
Introduction to Sim
1 month ago