Apparently my Sept 13 column on the value myth struck a nerve with Mr. Belton. I feel it necessary to add clarification as apparently my lack of clarity has caused him to reach the invalid conclusion that I was “insulting teachers”. Nothing could be further from the truth. I used the adjective “intrinsic” in its scientific sense, meaning that it qualifies the property of the object being discussed as invariant across time and space (e.g. density is an intrinsic property of matter that does not change at a given STP). So to Mr.Belton’s objections: “no intrinsic value” is not equivalent to “no value”. Repeat after me: value is subjective not objective. This means one cannot measure value with a machine or an equation any more than one can measure beauty. He then unwittingly makes my point for me by asking, “What dollar amount do you place on that?” Precisely. Ask 10 different people that question and you’ll get ten different answers – that is the very definition of subjectivity, not objectivity (intrinsic). As to his further assertions (“public schools are the only entity [that] can overcome the effects of poverty”) and various quotation driven argumentation from appeals to authority, these were not even remotely the topic of my article but are certainly appealing fodder for debunking in future articles. Cheers.

The main support for the proposed beltline argues for “improved economic opportunity and overall quality of life” and states that arguments that the beltline is a political boondoggle are “hollow and illusionary claims”.

A recent report shows that construction of the beltline would produce person-years of work, but not permanent jobs. Under optimistic assumptions, there would be 4,000 or jobs each year of construction, but studies suggest 2,800 or fewer jobs each year of construction to be more realistic, and most not for decades.

The main argument that supporters use is that the funding is “provided by the long-established federal Appalachian Regional Commission” and therefore somehow does not come out of the pockets of local taxpayers. What supporters whitewash is that while supporting may be “federal”, we all still pay for this out of our tax dollars. As a main local advocate states “The only ‘either-or’ consideration for these funds is that we either use this money for the Northern Beltline or we lose it to another state’s project. Period.” This is precisely the type of argument that needs to be defeated. Federal money does not appear out of thin air – it comes from our taxes. Our nation is heavily in debt and for us to argue whether we should “grab” the money before it goes to another state is beside the point.

Imagine the same debate in your personal budget. Say you have a certain amount set aside for food, a certain amount to pay rent or mortgage, and a certain amount to pay for utilities. There is, hopefully, some money set aside for entertainment and other luxuries. Now imagine you have a big deficit in your bank account. You would not go out to a casino and argue that if you did not spend the money on entertainment, it might go to some other budget item like food.

The entire system of “allocation of funds” is broken and needs to be revised. Clearly, the funding for the Northern Beltline is an “earmark”. Unfortunately our local representatives including U.S. Rep. Spencer Bachus and U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby are strong supporters of the existing earmark system and vote to quash any bills that would expose such a system or put limits on it.

The “Northern Beltline” must be defeated and all such future projects should be undertaken using private funds. If the road is such an economic driver, there should be no shortage of companies ready to take advantage. Except of course that they will be told that “you didn’t build that”!