Konrad Heid, former president of Commerce Bank in Joplin, shared with us in Sunday‘s Joplin Globe his enthusiasm for Joplin’s “regional” airport. Now, ordinarily, that wouldn’t be a big deal, because most of us can’t afford to fly out of our own airport anyway, but Heid’s article is a fine example of conservative hypocrisy.
He wrote about his and his wife’s reasons for choosing to utilize Joplin’s airport:
During the churning of airlines this past year we had gotten in the habit of driving to other cities to catch flights; now we’re back. The fares are a little more than I’d like, but you know what, the convenience, ease of checking in and going through security and the short waiting time and free parking are worth it. We don’t have to get up in the middle of the night or go a day early and book into a hotel to make a morning flight, and we don’t have to pay those pesky parking fees, fill our auto gas tank or spend two to three hours on the highway, going and coming.
I, for one, am grateful that Mr. Heid has found a way to avoid all the pitfalls of jet setting, but it needs to be pointed out that to the extent he does so, he is doing it on the taxpayers dollar. And since Mr. Heid routinely entertains us with assaults on the Democrat’s fiscal profligacy, it just a trifle off-putting to see him extol the virtues of having our very own publicly-funded, underutilized airport.
Just a month ago, commenting on Democratic plans to reform the health care system, which is targeted at helping those in need, he wrote:
Why is it so difficult? Spin it however you want, there is no free healthy lunch or just a free lunch.
It gets down to how much do you want or how much can you afford? I really had hopes the abuses would be attacked first, then we would have a better handle on what the real costs might be. In the meantime, Barbara and I will continue paying $8,000 each year in health insurance premiums plus another $4,000 for long-term care insurance; yes, we’re old and under Medicare.
Unfortunately, Mr. Heid doesn’t apply his air-tight, conservative fiscal analysis to airport subsidies.
Last summer, the Joplin Regional Airport opened a new terminal. It was such a big deal that our own fiscally conservative congressman, Roy Blunt, made the trip to Joplin to attend the dedication. About the new terminal, joplinmo.org wrote:
Construction of the total Terminal project cost $15 million with federal dollars providing approximately 90% of the cost. “The City of Joplin is appreciative of Congressman Blunt who helped to secure federal funding for this community project,” said Steve Stockam, Airport Manager. “The airport is such a vital part of the economic development of Joplin and the area.”
This past summer, the Globe reported:
The Joplin Regional Airport is being given $78,000 in state money from the Missouri Department of Transportation to market its aviation services.
To whom do you suppose the airport is marketing its aviation services? The unemployed? People on welfare?
I am curious as to whether Konrad Heid, or any local politician, would support an airport dedicated to serving the needs of those on fixed incomes, like, say, a senior citizens airport, or maybe an airport dedicated to serving unemployed people who are job searching around the country.
Well, I’m not really curious because I know the answer. Konrad Heid would be among the first to write a lengthy column explaining how subsidizing airports for the poor or unemployed was bad economics.
It’s nice to know that Konrad and Barbara Heid have discovered a way to minimize their difficulties as they travel around the world, but at least they could send us taxpayers a nice postcard once in a while.
Maybe the Globe would publish it.
The Erstwhile Conservative: A Blog of Repentance 
ansonburlingame
/ November 2, 2009Duane,
You have accounted for $13.578 million of taxpayer funds to subsidize the airport and you have a good point.
What you neglected of chose not to mention is the affect on NOT having an airport on business development. I have no idea how much it accounts for but it does make a difference.
Airlines and thus airports live and die on business travel, not “jet setters”. One of the reasons my wife (before we married) chose to move the Joplin from OKC was the availability of a regional airport with free parking. Drive to KC (6 hrs round trip) and pay for a work week of parking during a business trip and you are spending close to the amount to fly out of Joplin at no additional cost.
I wonder how many folks from Legget and Platte or the battery makers, etc use Joplin airport? There are some advantages to its presence. How to quantify that in dollars is beyond me.
Anson
LikeLike
Duane Graham
/ November 2, 2009Anson,
Of course there are some benefits–mostly unquantifiable–to having an airport! And there are also unquantifiable benefits (besides the obvious morality of the thing) to having a costly social system that places a premium on making sure your vaunted “Suzies” of the world are not left to fend for themselves, even if they have made bad life decisions.
The problem is conservative Republicans are willing to accept the unquantifiable advantages of having expensive things like regional airports–which most people can’t utilize–simply because they benefit directly from them and argue that they seem to make good economic sense, but they frequently fail to see the advantages of having a robust social safety net.
Why don’t Roy Blunt or any local politician or local conservative blogger lament the enormous amount of federal and state money—all borrowed—going into our airport? Well, you might say it is because there are some advantageous connections to “business development.”
In other words, you are saying that putting borrowed money into our airport amounts to an “investment,” that may or may not pay off. Think about that.
And you say I neglected to mention the effect of “NOT having an airport on business development.” Funny, that’s what I say about your failure to account for “doing nothing” on health care reform. I am willing to admit there may be ancillary benefits stemming from a disproportionate investment (relative to the perceivable effects) in our airport. Are you willing to say that doing nothing on health care reform may be worse than doing what the Democrats are proposing?
Duane
LikeLike
ansonburlingame
/ November 3, 2009Duane,
You asked, “Are you willing to say that doing nothing on health care reform may be worse than doing what the Democrats are proposing?”
My answer, I have deep and grave concerns that the answer may well be YES. I HOPE it is not, but again, grave and yet to be answered by you or any politician concerns. I go back to “what did we do for the first 225 years in our country?” Seemed to work pretty well for that period of time.
Anson
LikeLike
Ben
/ March 15, 2011You sound like a person who would rather ride on a dinosaur and eat your food with a caveman’s club. I don’t even know the guy you are trying to assault and I join him just because you are such a jackass. You and yours is the reason that today only a quarter of the citizen’s of our fair country think the country is going the right way. 75% say there is no recovery; judging from your stoneage thinking there never will be….
LikeLike
Duane Graham
/ March 15, 2011Ben,
Your response here is a glaring non sequitur. I confess, I don’t have the slightest idea how what you said relates to what I wrote.
Duane
LikeLike