In a New York Times op-ed entitled "Cannibalize the Future" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/13/opinion/krugman-cannibalize-the-future.html?_r=1&smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto), Krugman excoriates Christie for his 2010 decision to cancel work on a new rail tunnel between New Jersey and New York. Referring to a recent Government Accountability Office critical of Christie's determination and alleging "mendacity" on Christie's part, Krugman writes:
"Much press coverage of the new report focuses, understandably, on the evidence that Mr. Christie made false statements about the tunnel’s financing and cost. The governor asserted that the projected costs were rising sharply; the report tells us that this simply wasn’t true. The governor claimed that New Jersey was being asked to pay for 70 percent of a project that would shower benefits on residents of New York; in fact, the bulk of the financing would have come either from the federal government or from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which collects revenue from residents of both states."
Just a moment, Paul. What's this about "the bulk of the financing" coming from the federal government "or from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey"? Would Krugman have us believe that New Jersey has no responsibity for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, because responsibility is shared between New Jersey and New York?
But more to the point, I have a two-word response to Krugman: "Big Dig." As reported in 2008 by Sean P. Murphy of the Globe (see: http://www.boston.com/news/traffic/bigdig/articles/2008/07/17/big_digs_red_ink_engulfs_state/), Boston's underground highway project entailed massive cost overruns that will cripple Massachussets for years to come:
"Now, three years after the official dedication of the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel, the state is reeling under a legacy of debt left by the massive project. In all, the project will cost an additional $7 billion in interest, bringing the total to a staggering $22 billion, according to a Globe review of hundreds of pages of state documents. It will not be paid off until 2038.
Contrary to the popular belief that this was a project heavily subsidized by the federal government, 73 percent of construction costs were paid by Massachusetts drivers and taxpayers. To meet that obligation, the state's annual payments will be nearly as much over the next several years, $600 million or more, as they were in the heaviest construction period.
Big Dig payments have already sucked maintenance and repair money away from deteriorating roads and bridges across the state, forcing the state to float more highway bonds and to go even deeper into the hole."
Bear in mind, the "Big Dig," which was scheduled to be finished in 1998 at a cost of $2.8 billion, was actually completed in December 2007. Even factoring inflation into the equation, there is an enormous difference between $2.8 billion and $22 billion.
Would Krugman have us believe that the new rail tunnel between New Jersey and New York would not have entailed cost overruns? Would he also have us believe that the less than solvent federal government would have foot the entire bill without any liability on the part of New Jersey? Yeah, right.
But Krugman always knows best. Christie's remarkable popularity among New Jersey residents in these tough times doesn't matter to him (see: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/04/12/chris-christie-high-approval-rating/#more-790915), nor does it impress Krugman that for the first time in 10 years, a majority of New Jersey voters feel that the state is "headed in the right direction" (see: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/03/poll_for_first_time_in_10_year.html).
Maybe Krugman thinks that great expanse west of the Hudson is inhabited by cretins . . .
ReplyDelete