The Metro crash: shocking in its mildness

            When we take a look back at mass murders and tragic accidents—the D.C. Metro and Air France flight crashes of last month or the Virginia Tech shooting of 2007, for instance—what outrages us the most?  Is it the fact that so many people needlessly died in a preventable accident?  Or is it because we knew that the tragedy could have befallen us and we are selfishly demanding, out of fear, that it never be allowed to happen again?

            To me, the Metro crash is many things: a warning to a society heavily dependent on computers that even the most fail-safe systems may indeed fail; a case of possible managerial neglect of passenger safety; an egregious example of what can happen when crowded public transportation is starved of funds to buy reliable equipment; and the personification of heroism among both the passengers and the train operator, who did everything they could to minimize the tragedy.

            Although the National Transportation Safety Board will not release its painstakingly thorough analysis for several months, the apparent cause of the crash seems to lie in a trackside circuit which flickered on and off so rapidly that its failure could not be detected by dispatchers.  In the “off” mode, the circuit could not relay information about a train parked on a curve to the following train, causing it to rear-end the parked train under the control of computers.  The train’s operator dutifully applied the emergency brake; but alas, since the train was traveling nearly sixty miles per hour and the curve limited her reaction time, not only did the train not have time to stop but she also did not have time to escape from the driver’s compartment.

            Even though only nine people were killed in the crash, the number is dangerously misleading: this was a reverse-flow train during rush hour, meaning there were probably only a dozen people per car.  Had it been two rush hour trains that had collided, casualties could potentially have numbered in the hundreds.  And that is the most unsettling factor: the failed track circuit could have been anywhere at any time.  There is no guarantee of safety.

            True enough, there is no guarantee of safety anywhere.  Each day in the United States, 119 people die in vehicular accidents.  Considering that this is Metro’s first crash in which passengers were killed since 1982 (and that annual rail fatalities on occasion don’t exceed double digits), taking the train is way safer than driving.  And undoubtedly more lives would be saved through programs that promote safer driving, rather than spending millions of dollars overhauling public transportation.  But we have become acclimated to high road deaths because we understand that humans are directly responsible for most of them; on subways and airplanes and trains, everything is highly choreographed by computers.  When a failure happens, it rattles our faith in the system.

            I don’t necessarily think that lack of funding is a direct cause of the Metro crash, in the sense that throwing more money at the problem might not have prevented it.  However, Metro also has to fix crumbling platforms, deal with increasingly crowded trains, and perfect its communication network.  Those items could potentially cause a disaster in the future if not fixed.  Metro is unique among mass transit systems: it has no dedicated source of funding, and each year it is involved in a tug of war between the District, the suburban Maryland and Virginia counties, the federal government, and the legislatures in Annapolis and Richmond.  Political infighting and grandstanding are part of the reason why President Obama did not include Metro funding in next year’s budget—he wants to see some stability before opening the money faucet.

            My point is that while certainly there are some tragedies which are preventable, terrible things can happen at any time and in the most controlled of environments.  Part of the solution is to take the necessary precautions to ensure that disaster is not repeated; but the other part is an acceptance that the risk inherent in common behaviors can never be eliminated, only minimized.  Millions of people taking minimal risks each day is what makes society work; the fact that we are so outraged when a handful of people die is a sign that the system is working.  Nine deaths in 17 years is an accident; 119 deaths every day is a regrettable fact of life.

Virginia’s single term limit: a unique aberration

            When Sarah Palin called herself a lame duck—in reference to her resignation from the governorship of Alaska—it struck me as an odd use of the term.  After all, she has two more years left to govern, meaning there are two legislative sessions that require her input.  What’s more, she could have ran for reelection, meaning instead of assuming “lame duck” status, she could have ramped up her efforts to pass key legislation to boost her portfolio of achievements by 2010.

            In fact, there is only one state in the country in which a first term executive is always a lame duck: Virginia.  Article V of the Virginia Constitution reads that the executive “shall be ineligible to the same office for the term next succeeding that for which he was elected….”  Now, technically, this language allows a governor to serve as many terms as he is elected; they simply cannot be succeeding terms.  This odd scenario happened once in the twentieth century: Mills E. Godwin served as a Democrat from 1966-1970 and as a Republican from 1974-1978.  But as a practical matter, no recent governor has attempted to reclaim his job—most have attempted (and all but one have succeeded in) running for the Senate.

            I wrote to Dick Howard, a professor at the University of Virginia and author of Commentaries on the Constitution of Virginia, asking why Virginia has remained the sole bastion of the single-term limit.  Here is his answer:

When I directed the most recent revision of the Constitution of Virginia, I laid this question before the Commission on Constitutional Revision.  The commissioners (who included two former governors, Colgate Darden and Albertis Harrison) chose to leave the one-term limit in place.  For my own part, I would allow a governor to run for a second term.  Virginia is now the only state in the country retaining a one-term limit.  The conventional argument, which I think overblown, is that Virginia’s governor is sufficiently powerful vis-a-vis the legislature that he ought not to have more than one term.

Democratic governors Mark Warner and Tim Kaine

            Upon ratification of Virginia’s first constitution in 1776, the executive was weak (like most governors, powers were mostly limited to commanding the militia and granting pardons) and was appointed to one-year terms, twice renewable, by the General Assembly.  The governor shared power with an eight-member Council of State, also appointed by the General Assembly.  In 1851, the governorship became an elective office, the Council was abolished, and the term became a four-year, non-renewable one.

            The legislature has made multiple attempts to raise a constitutional amendment to repeal the single term limit, but it has never been approved twice (two votes are required, before and after a general election) in order to be submitted to voters; the last attempt was made in 1995.  The argument against a renewable term is that Virginia’s executive has been strengthened with succeeding constitutions, now having line-item veto power and the ability to make some appointments.  Legislators would like to see the appointment power curtailed in order for the governor to be eligible for reelection.

            While recent governors, including Douglas Wilder, Jim Gilmore, and Mark Warner, support a two-term limit, at the time of the last constitutional revision (1970) there was no interest among former governors to scrap the provision.  With every passing election, this part of our Constitution becomes more and more archaic.  A single term provides no ratification or repudiation of the incumbent’s agenda by the voters.  The proxy measure of success is whether the next governor is of the same party as the incumbent, but think of how much more work could get done with the cultivation of relationships between legislators and civic leaders if one individual were to serve for eight years.

            Gov. Tim Kaine, for instance, has few legislative victories to boast of besides a smoking ban in bars and restaurants and a significant buildup of the Democratic Party machinery.  His campaign promise to fix transportation issues has gone unfulfilled, and he blames this impasse on an adversarial Republican legislature.  Furthermore, his last year-and-a-half in office has been consumed by steering the state through a recession—cutting budgets rather than implementing new policy. 

         And while few people will suggest that Kaine is not a hardworking executive (at least, compared with other governors whose personal antics or managerial skills have embarrassed their states), he already has a job lined up after his term expires—as the chairman of the Democratic National Committee.  That is something we can avoid with a renewable term: preventing the governorship from becoming a placeholder position on the road to bigger and better things.

         Virginia has myriad legislative battles to fight in the coming years.  But some time in the near future, I would hope that the General Assembly will see fit to give incumbent governors the ability to put their tenure on the line for voters to renew.  It could not only tame the parochialism in the legislature, but it could reward excellent managers with the ability to establish a more permanent legacy.

Why Fairfax County should get the ultimate makeover: cityhood

            *Unless another Republican governor besmirches his/her office and brings embarrassment to his/her state, this week’s posts will be devoted to local issues.*

            Last week, The Washington Post reported that Fairfax County executive Anthony Griffin has suggested that it could be tactically beneficial to change our orientation.  He recommends that we transform ourselves Fairfax City or, simply, Fairfax—a chartered city of 1.1 million residents that is the largest jurisdiction in the Washington metropolitan region and where one in seven Virginians lives.  It is proximate in population size to the cities of San Diego and Dallas.

            The move is mostly political: Virginia treats chartered cities differently from counties.  Most notably, cities benefit by having control over their own road funding and road maintenance; all county roads are owned and maintained by the Virginia Department of Transportation, with which local governments sometimes have a love-hate relationship.  Ostensibly, Griffin is implying that Fairfax would be able to implement new taxes to pay for new and existing road capacity.  What is not clear is whether a new Fairfax City would be able to retain a larger percentage of the tax dollars currently sent to Richmond for dispersal throughout the state.

            That last point is a huge contention among Northern Virginians, who note that the wealth and vibrancy of the D.C. suburbs (largely defense contracting, communications, and IT firms) is disproportionately meted out to the rural parts of the state—with the result being that Route 29, which runs through some of the least populated counties of central Virginia, is in pristine condition.  Meanwhile, there are too few lanes and too many potholes on the feeder roads into the District, as well as unreliable funding for Metro and the Virginia Railway Express.

            Northern Virginians feel that even though we are home to one-third of the state population, hillbilly legislators who have no sympathy for the plight of the suburbs refuse to raise statewide taxes or provide adequate funding for roads and rails in the North—even though it truly is a statewide problem.  Many people who work in D.C. who either choose to live beyond Northern Virginia or who cannot afford to buy a house there commute for hours each day of the week from as far away as Richmond, making it more than just our responsibility to pay for our infrastructure.

            The Chairman of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, Democrat Sharon Bulova, said she is open to the idea of cityhood.  But her predecessor, now-Rep. Gerry Connolly, says that with a multimillion-dollar budget hole, “This is not the time to be talking about taking on new responsibilities.”  This is coming from the man who, when he first ran for chairman, said that the way the Dillon Rule inextricably links the local governments to partisan infighting in Richmond is a “terrible impediment” to innovation.

            Basically, I think this a good idea, provided some basic conditions are met.  First, I would have to wonder if cityhood would allow Fairfax to retain a larger percentage of the tax dollars sent to Richmond, which will increase revenues without triggering a rise in taxes—even if they are of the non-real estate variety (like cigarette or hotel-occupancy taxes).  Counties have limited weapons in their arsenal to combat rising expenditures, and the common remedy (done, to my knowledge, in all Washington metropolitan counties this year to balance the budget) is to raise the real estate tax.  Second, I do not want the Democratic majority on the Board of Supervisors to use this as an excuse to raise taxes whenever a new project needs funding.  I don’t doubt that Fairfax residents are used to having excellent social services and public safety programs and would willingly pay to keep these.  But the Board proved this year that millions of dollars can be cut from the budget relatively painlessly with only a slight increase in taxes.

            There are also questions for which I don’t have answers but will surely need to be considered before cityhood is made a reality.  First, we already have chartered cities and towns within the county—Vienna, Clifton, and a 23,000-person Fairfax City.  I have read that although Virginia does not currently have any townships, this label would be conferred upon such independent entities within the city.  If that is the case, will each of these municipalities readily accept their new status or will they lobby against cityhood?

            Second, cityhood would not only expand the jurisdiction of the Board of Supervisors when all of the existing town and city councils are eliminated, but it would revise our governmental organization.  Currently, we have the Board, which is the chief policymaking body—with the chairman wielding the most power.  We also have the two other branches, in the form of the District and Circuit courts and a county executive.  The executive, who is appointed by the Board and serves at its pleasure, is purely an administrator—working with the budget and ensuring that laws are carried out.  (In Maryland, the county executive—who is elected, not selected—also has policymaking powers and is the head of government.) 

         But cityhood would require a city council and a mayor, along with his/her appointed administrators.  Would current supervisors be willing to yield some of their influence and exposure to a single individual in charge of 1.1 million people, and be prepared to butt heads when eventual turf wars and episodes of egotism arise?

         Third, where would the new Fairfax City’s “downtown” be?  The existing Fairfax City would be the obvious location, but it is not readily accessible by transit.  Tyson’s Corner would become more viable once the Metrorail extension and redevelopment is complete.  But the relatively new government center is on a semi-secluded campus that is not within walking distance of any major urban center.

         Fourth, if Fairfax declares itself a city, will the other jurisdictions in Northern Virginia (or elsewhere) follow suit?  Granted, it is far from certain that the legislature or the voters will approve of cityhood, but will the General Assembly be offended that the more populous counties are using this mechanism as a means of retaining revenue that would otherwise be diverted to rural districts without the larger, wealthier tax base?  Or will they say good riddance to the snobs in the North, acknowledging that regional tensions are beyond repair?

         Lastly, will cityhood change the way in which County residents see the County’s mission?  The County as it stands is diverse developmentally—there are rural enclaves (I live down the street from a horse pasture), cul-de-sac neighborhoods, historic “old town” stretches, and rows of condominiums and “new urbanist” development connected by bike lanes and bus stops.  If we see ourselves as a single city, will we want to homogenize development by producing more smart growth opportunities (a dereliction of duty by the Board of Supervisors for many years)—extending Metrorail, possibly introducing light rail, demolishing strip malls and bedroom communities and installing tightly-packed, walkable residential-business enclaves?  Or do we come to terms with the fact that diversity of development precludes us from taking such progressive actions in developing our region to be more efficient and less prone to creating endless traffic jams?

Letter to Va. Sens. on healthcare

To Sens. Jim Webb and Mark Warner

Re: Healthcare

Gentlemen,

         First and foremost, I believe two things.  One, that my health, your health, and the health of our fellow Virginians should not merely be a line item to a for-profit industry.  Operating for profit always creates an “in-group” and an “out-group”, in which the corporation need only respond minimally enough to the needs of the in-group to retain them as investors or customers.  For the healthcare industry, this not only means that rationing of care takes place (i.e. preexisting conditions) where unprofitable, but people themselves are rationed when they are ineligible for health insurance.  No one should be relegated to the out-group simply because of accident, circumstance of birth or wealth, or an economic downturn.

         Along those lines, my second belief is that at this stage in our country’s history, it is a disservice for our government, which is constitutionally tasked with promoting the general welfare of society, to tolerate a system in which the richest nation in the world either cannot provide care to its hardest working citizens or provides inadequate care vis-à-vis other industrialized nations.

         Franklin Roosevelt in 1944 outlined an “Economic Bill of Rights,” saying “true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence,” naming the rights one has to competition among businesses, an adequate industrial job, a home, and protection from accident, illness, or debility.  Indeed, how can we be expected to fully exercise our constitutional freedoms if we are too infirm to participate productively in society?

         To me, the key to healthcare reform is to ensure choice: choice of doctor, choice of insurer, and even the choice to purchase care from the government if the private sector is too expensive or inadequate.  I am in favor of a mandate for employers to provide coverage for their employees, or else pay them the monthly minimum amount to purchase the least expensive regional form of coverage.  The government’s plan, rather than edging out all private competition, could be the insurer of last resort for millions of families, albeit one whose quality of care and whose ease of enrollment would preclude stigmatization.

         To pay for this, new revenues must be raised.  Some conservatives are arguing that we should cut spending, and I cannot disagree with that in principle.  But the actual act of reducing spending is nearly impossible for this Congress.  The singular question is: what do we cut?  As a Virginian, I enjoy being able to ride Metrorail into the nation’s capital, as I’m sure Marylanders do as well.  But if funding for Metro were put before representatives of the other 48 states, they would unflinchingly exorcise it from the budget as pork spending.  Repeat that process for federally-funded projects all around the country and the critics will clash with the defenders in such a way that nothing ever really is eliminated, no matter how small a constituency it serves.

         I do, however, advocate the implementation of pay-as-you-go legislation to limit the soaring deficit.  Although it may preclude valuable projects from being supported by Uncle Sam’s pocketbook, it would also force lawmakers to prioritize budget items at the national level.  In the interim, though, taxes must ultimately be raised to pay for this expansion and the aftereffects of a $787 billion bailout and years of deficits under the Bush administration. 

         I would argue that the best target is the federal gas tax, currently at 18.4 cents per gallon.  Raising this tax gradually and substantially would not only increase revenues for this particular undertaking, but would promote numerous agenda items of the Obama administration: reducing dependence on oil (foreign oil particularly), providing down payments on new renewable energy and mass transit projects, replenishing the Highway Trust Fund, and encouraging people to drive less frequently and thus reduce carbon emissions.

         There is no obvious solution to fixing health care and there are many pitfalls to each approach.  What I hope you will support is a plan that reduces the discretion of insurers to extort those who need care the most and that covers every individual from cradle to grave without indebting the nation further.  Expanding freedom of choice is key way to ensure quality of care over profitability, and a dedicated funding mechanism that cuts across legislative priorities will be both efficient and effective.  This momentous foray into reform need not be perfect, but it must be better than where we are today.

The clock is ticking on healthcare

            Although President Obama has learned from the health care debacle of the Clinton years by tasking the House and Senate committees with drafting a health care overhaul (placating the egotists in the world’s most deliberative body), the fact is that in order to win enough GOP and moderate votes, the plan will unfortunately not be as strong as it should be due to the numerous competing interests—doctors, insurers, neo-socialists, laissez faire-ists, unions, small businesses, etc.

            That having been said, the number of questions that Congress has to answer is staggering.  First, how far should health care be stretched?  Forty-six million people are uninsured, and millions more are doubtless underinsured (such as being denied coverage for preexisting conditions).  To close the gap would require $1.6 over the next ten years—not a huge sum considering that we spend $2.5 trillion annually on health care.  But given the bailout fatigue of Congress and the American public, ensuring that the plan hovers around $1 trillion is a key way to win the votes of moderate lawmakers.

            Second, how should the system be structured?  Should we mandate private coverage for every citizen and have the federal government subsidize those who cannot afford it?  Can a government-run system be created that will still allow insurers to compete?  Or can non-profit insurance cooperatives be formed in areas where there is not sufficient competition between insurers, wherein the policyholders own the corporation?  And what about the dreaded single-payer option—should we legislate insurance companies out of existence?

            Lastly, how will we pay for it?  The least aggressive option would be to tax sugary drinks, alcohol, and limit charitable deductions for the rich.  Another option would be to tax employees’ health care benefits above a certain level (in the $15,000-$20,000 range).  Or a national sales tax (Value-Added Tax) on all goods and services could be implemented—if the tax were high enough, millions of new families could even be exempted from paying income taxes.

            Naturally, Republicans do not want the government to run any aspect of health care, since they think a government-run system will be inefficient, incompetent, ration care, and augment the size of the federal bureaucracy.  Yet, they also seem to think that a single-payer system will edge out private insurers by somehow being more competitive.  It’s a seeming contradiction, but a demagogical sticking point.

            Part of the problem is envisioning what kind of monster will be in existence fifteen years down the road.  Obviously the government is able to run some programs well—it would be impossible to privatize our military, even though the Bush administration used an astronomical number of private security contractors in Iraq.  Other programs, like the Department of Motor Vehicles (which is run by the states) are demonized for being slow and inefficient.

            But then there are creations like Amtrak, which separated the social goal of providing passenger train service throughout the country from the economic goal of eliminating the burden of freight railroads having to operate money-losing, noncompetitive passenger trains by shifting operations to the government.  And the Postal Service is a government corporation which has competition from the private sector in the form of FedEx and UPS.  And then there are just plain old subsidies—like the kind the government gives to the airlines, without the government actually having to operate one.

            But the issue of funding a new system is even more problematic because someone must disproportionately bear the burden of new expenditures.  Taxing the benefits of workers would be unfair to unions, which have fought for greater benefits at the expense of higher wages—and not to mention it would break the spirit of President Obama’s promise to avoid raising taxes on the middle class.  It would also be unfair to northern states, whose citizens have a higher percentage of health coverage.  A national sales tax would impact poor people the most, while a limitation on charitable deductions would affect the wealthy.

            In short, for every American to agree to a revamped healthcare system, the government must prove that reform is superior to the status quo.  If everyone is to share the burden, everyone must benefit—either from improved care, increased productivity, or near-term reduction of the debt.

            Check back tomorrow for more comprehensive thoughts about health care.