I guess an argument can also be made that taxes are the result of public project activity, so we really do “owe” the government because it empowers us to make money. But in the MTA’s case, the borrowing is so far removed from reality as to be basically harmful to the whole enterprise.

How much would it cost to run at grade from Carroll to 4th and 9th, and put in a lift bridge over the Gowanus Canal? The whole point of that viaduct was to allow tall ships to pass under the subway, and that hardly seems like a concern these days.

That was true in the good old days, but not any more. You’re probably thinking of the Robert Moses era. He would sell bonds to build a bridge, then raise enough from tolls to service the debt and fund the next bridge. All of the MTA bridges and tunnels were paid for this way.

But nowadays, politicians issue debt for another reason: it’s easier than raising taxes. That’s because tax bills hit immediately, but debt payments stretch out for years into the future. So politicians can take credit for improvements, but the bill is left for future generations. It’s the same reason why the U. S. national debt keeps going up.

Why not pay now? And if the government refuses to fund the MTA, it could at least give it a loan. Why not give the MTA a federal loan the same way banks get them? MTA’s collateral is falling apart, but still pretty solid, and is a guaranteed money-generator by virtue of being a monopoly. I’d argue that the MTA generates as much business (directly and related) as any bank which can get several billion dollars in loans from the Fed. OK, the Culver Viaduct project will never “make money”, in the traditional sense, but at least the taxpayers will be repaying the federal government, and not private investors.

This is what the Iraq War and the bailout has done to my thinking- quarter of a billion dollars? What a joke. The federal government can, and should, loan or simply give us this money, like it is doing with foreign countries and big business.