Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
<p>[quote user="V.Payne"]</p> <p>The CBO numbers were from the WSJ <a href="http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304626104579123403196916722?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop&mg=reno64-wsj">article</a> directly linked in my earlier post written by the "<em>deputy assistant Treasury secretary in the Reagan administration", click on the red text. </em>Maybe the difference is a denominator of spending versus revenue? The source would seem reliable.</p> <p>My broader point is that non-discretionary spending is going to eat the US budget. Federal health and benefit costs are a much larger worry than discretionary spending and automobile caused disability in particular is an "operating" expense that is off the automobile "books" but rail accidents are on the NRPC books.</p> <div><em>As to determining automobile disability costs, start with <a href="http://www.nsc.org/news_resources/injury_and_death_statistics/Pages/EstimatingtheCostsofUnintentionalInjuries.aspx">NSC</a>, then multiply 52 by the number of automobile deaths by the disability costs, as there are 52 disabling accidents per death on average (there are others ways I have posted before as well). I got a significant portion (3/4) of the $200 Billion noted by the author above. As is typical this is a discussion about the relative value of passenger rail, so automobile accidents seem germane.</em>[/quote]</div> <div></div> <div>I suggest you refer to the CBO's budget databases, which are on-line, as well as those of the OMB, which are also on-line.  They are primary source documents.  Surprising as it may seem news articles, even those in the Wall Street Journal and NY Times, don't always get it correct.</div> <div></div> <div><span>Presumably this is the line from the article that you referenced.  "One good starting point for presidential leadership is the fraud-plagued federal disability programs that cost taxpayers $200 billion annually."  It is part of an opinion article, is unsupported, and does not agree with the numbers contained in the Social Security and Medicare Trustee's Report.  </span></div> <div></div> <div>Vehicle generated disability costs have nothing to do with passenger rail. Moreover, if I have interpreted you correctly, you are chalking-up all auto accidents that have disability costs associated with them to the federal budget, which is incorrect.  Most motorists have health insurance. If they are involved in an accident that results in a disability, their insurance policy, for which they or their employer paid for, will cover most of the cost. If an accident victim is permanently disabled, to the point where he cannot work, and he has not other resources, he may be placed on permanent disability, which is embedded in the Old Age Survivors and Disability Insurance, more commonly referred to as Social Security.  You have not given any hard data as to the cost of disability stemming from automobile accidents. </div> <div></div> <div>Like it or not people want cars because of their convenience, flexibility, and economics. In most instances they are technologically superior to passenger and transit trains. They are willing, sometimes without complete awareness of the costs, to bear them. And that is unlikely to change in the near future. Which brings me to the point that I have argued from the get go. Passenger trains only make sense in relatively short, high density corridors, where the cost of expanding the highways and airways is prohibitive. And as of now that is very few corridors.</div>
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag