Please de-freep / explain re: NJ spends more on roads than CA..

I got caught in a "friendly argument" with a ditto-head while waiting (FOREVER) at the deli counter for my number to come up.

He was SOooo happy with his $300 refund! What a great job Bush is doing! That's more than any Democrat ever did for him...

ANYWAY, he said that because of the Democrats (of course) NJ spends more on its roads than California (and, picturing a map of the United States in my head, was a bit taken back).

Having friends who live in Texas, I know the advantages of it rarely freezing (no pot holes!) but STILL, the statistic seemed a little out of wack.

Has anyone heard of this stat and have any more on it?

is mindboggling. Just think about the difference in population density. Plus, the roads were originally built way earlier than California's, leading to a more advanced state of decay. There are also a TON of bridges to be dealt with. I'm no expert, but I do live in Northern NJ.

Huh? I don't get his point. How is comparing the highway expenditures of one Democratic state vs another Democratic state supposed to prove a point about Democrats?

It would be a specious argument even if the "thrifty" state really were a red state (the old cause and effect fallacy), but since both states are blue, that's really a stretch.

20 inches of snow and snows plows wreck havoc on roadways. Of course, the Northeast has to spend more on roadways than California.

Duh?

The "I don't get his point" was directed at the freeper, not the original poster.

I agree with you that there are lost of possible explanations for the discrepancy, not the least of which would be snow and ice-related damage. One also has to wonder whether the figure includes snow removal, which would also skew the stats.

My original issue was that comparing an allegedly "thrifty" Blue State to a "spendy" Blue State doesn't really prove much about Blue States, which is the type of argument the freeper was submitting. That's the point I don't get.

I'm glad I didn't try your reply.

His reply to that would have been: YES! New Jersey Democrats are even worse than those in California! New Jersey has the most wasteful Democrats in the COUNTRY!

You seem to have overlooked the whole "map" thing - Californians ARE *notorious* car drivers (ie: driving a lot) and it's WAY bigger than NJ with MANY more people...

On the face value it seems to be a good point for how wasteful NJ's gov't must be, but I'm sure there's a deeper answer (not answered in your reply).

With all due respect, I'm hoping to find someone who actually knows it's either not the case, that the finances are different for each state (state versus county, local etc) road expendatures, or maybe how much the freezing factors in (which is my guess).

I didn't overlook the "map" thing, I just didn't address it. If NJ really does spend more than CA, then the geography of each state means that the per-mile expenditure of NJ would be really out of whack with what CA spends. Yes, agreed.

I honestly don't know what the stats are that would support or disprove his assertion, and I agree that there is a deeper answer. Winter weather, proximity to NYC with the attendant traffic ramifications, age of the roads, etc., are the first things I would think of (as have others on this thread).

But I still think the freeper's premise is broken. You would think he would have picked a Red State as an example of low overhead compared to the alleged wastefulness of the Evil Democrats. One could find two Red States with large skews in budgets and make the same case for Republicans, and it would be just as bogus.

But whatever. I'm done.

A quite search found that NJ DOT spent $121 Million on Operating expenses in 2004 and $1.3 Billion on Capital projects. We also have about 37,000 miles of roads (all types).

True to California I just could not find a simple stat, but from the 2003-2004 budget found that the DOT covers 15,000 miles (not indicated as what type). Their budget included $2 billion for "local" roads and $1.6 billion for Capital projects. Overall they carried $6.4 billion for transportation.

Maybe you could try to make an argument over these numbers, but there are too many other factors involved. Those include the monies from the Federal Government for transportation, any other agencies (like the GS Parkway), how the state handles its contracts, the congestion, etc.

Basically, if the guy is so impressed with the way California spends its money on it road system then tell him to move there!

I found the NJ website as well, but with 7 month old twins didn't have the time to find the comprehensive CA stats either.

I'm still wondering where the hell one would HEAR / READ this kind of "localized" spin? Perhaps he pays closer attention to state elections than I do (and reads the "literature" that's mailed to him?)

Your stats clears up the matter in that it's NOT a simple apples-to-apples matter. (similar to the "tax simplification" arguments)

I had no doubt that the figure is WAaaY wrong, but it's difficult to respond to sandbagging crap like that.

Unfortunately, I'm "involved" with one-you can't reason with them because they don't understand reason, no matter what their frigging IQ or education is. For example, John (his real name-I don't care) believes that there are more trees in North America today than there was when Columbus got here. Oh yeah-this really makes sense. Why? Because Rush Limbaugh said it is so. Also, Al Gore somehow invented the internet. These are weak-minded people (John). The only thing I can do is try to bust his car radio so it will only work on FM every time I drive it. Any suggestions how I can easily do this, so that I can try to live my life in peace? BTW, this guy's father collects disability, his family received food stamps, him and sibling(s) were part of the "Head Start" program. Tell me that he is not an asshole.

As a former rush limbaugh fan, I can tell you that, underneath the vast majority of talk radio fans, the common thread is strong anti-establishment (ism?). Rush Limbaugh fans don't go around saying, "YES, GOVERNMENT! LESS FREEDOMS! FEWER JOBS! LOWER WAGES! FEUDALISM NOW!" but that's exactly what they DO when they support Republicans.

I agree that arguing "facts" with them has diminishing returns because they just make some more BS up. It's their orientation (psychologically speaking, their "attitude", but that's a much misused word) that's the problem.

The ONLY reason John subscribes to such anti-common sense stuff like the tree statement isn't because he hates trees, rather, he's been told that pro-environmentalism somehow represents the 'establishment' and they they don't care about his freedoms and want to control his life (like fundamentalist Christians do!).

Unfortunately, the democrats higher up on the foodchain only care about a few voters, ie: enough to win a simple majority, which wouldn't take much. We should pick up the slack!

I believe with work and creativity, in time we'll be able to convert the majority of dittoheads the errors of their ways, but I don't think giving up on them is the way.