In today's Seattle Times, Kate Riley attacks Initiative 912, which will repeal the nine cent gas tax, and its supporters.  There is much wrong with the arguments she makes in the column, but I was most struck by this:

Just take the two counties hoping for taxpayer help to save their farming industry.  Between 1984 and 2003, Adams County received about $3.32 in transportation funds for every $1 its taxpayers contributed.  Grant received about $1.20.  And both benefited from a reliable state highway system carrying crops to market.

During that same period, King County received an extra 9 cents for every $1 contributed.  That's reasonable since it is the state's major economic center, attracting not only outbound goods but commuting workers from neighboring counties.

Update:  I received a reply from Kate Riley with some questions.  I've added it to the end of the post with my answers.

Why did this bug me?  Because I had explained, carefully, why the argument was wrong here.

I have seen this same argument for decades, often applied to rural states, rather than rural areas within states.  It has always struck as so obviously bogus that I wonder about those who make it.   Are they simpletons, or are they dishonest?

And then repeated the explanation, with more examples here.  Riley is using a ratio to make her argument, and when you look at the ratio carefully, you realize that neither the denominator nor the numerator in the ratio measures what Riley thinks it does.

First, the numerator in the ratio does not measure benefits to a particular county because federal and state roads are not used just by those who live in that county.  The denominator does not measure the transportation taxes paid by residents of a particular county for much the same reason.   So the ratio is meaningless.  And I am certain that some of the professionals at the state's Department of Transportation know that it is meaningless.  The ratio is a propaganda tool used by those who want to pit one group of voters against another.

Second, it is simply wrong even to try to apportion road benefits by county because even those who never use roads in a particular county often benefit from those roads.  If this point is still not obvious, imagine how high the food prices in Seattle would be if there were no roads from Seattle to rural areas.  Or how much manufactured goods would cost in rural areas under the same scenario.

Oddly, Riley seems to understand the second point — but does not realize that it invalidates the part of her argument that relies on the ratio.

After I had posted this, I sent an email to Kate Riley and received this gracious reply:

I see your point.  But do you see any other way to counter the idea that out-of-Puget Sound people say they're subsidizing Seattle like crazy.

I didn't even talk about school levy equalization money -- though I would have if I had more room.  Now there's an indisputable subsidy from more populous areas to smaller areas.

First, I oppose using the ratio because it is meaningless, and because it divides people politically.  I think that we should decide where to build highway improvements by using old-fashioned engineering studies of traffic and projected traffic.  And I think that a state administration that uses such standards will be more likely to get support from the entire state than one that uses that bogus ratio.  In short, I think that politicians should appeal to our best instincts, rather than try to divide us.

Second, I am not familiar with the details of the school levy equalization money, but I would guess that you could describe it more accurately as a subsidy from the wealthy areas to the less wealthy areas.  Whether that is the best way to aid our poorer students is something I will leave to others who know more about the subject.  But I must add that expenditures for higher education generally redistribute money from the less wealthy to the more wealthy, given our state's reliance on the sales tax, the kinds of students who attend the universities, and the locations of our public universities.

But I think that this kind of discussion misses the central cause of the underlying dissatisfaction in our rural areas.  When I was growing up in Washington state many years ago, the local school districts received much less aid, but had much more control of their own schools.  I think many rural areas would be happy to trade some of that aid for more local control.  But we all know that can't happen while the WEA has the power to block reforms.  And I know that many in rural areas would be happy to give up other kinds of aid in return for a relaxation of the growth management rules.  But we all know that can't happen given the power of the environmentalists.

In short, I think those in rural areas will be unhappy — no matter how money is distributed — as long as they can not control their own affairs.  To make those in rural areas happy (or at least less unhappy), we need some decentralization of power.  That could happen by returning power to local governments, or by privatization, or both.  The argument is more over power than money, and we need to understand that if we want to settle it.

(Making those in rural areas happy isn't the only reason I favor some decentralization.   There are good reasons to think that more local control and some privatization would improve outcomes — on the whole.  But that's such a large subject that I must leave it for another time and another post, or perhaps a series of posts.)