When Words Are Taken Out of Context

I am a bit peeved right now. Here is why:

The Indiana Blog Review picked up my piece on numbers and the toll road (directly below this post). IBR published the following language from my post:

"Over the last seven years, the Indiana Toll Road has made an average of $17.9 million per year in profits (revenues minus costs). Multiply that by 75 years. You get $1.3 billion in profits that Indiana will lose if it gives up the toll road."

That certainly gives the impression that I think Major Moves is bad, given the numbers. Which is the opposite of my point. So apparently IBR neglected to read beyond my first paragraph. Bits such as:

"That leaves the state with -$3.1 billion over 75 years if the toll road is not leased..."

"The state would have to increase tolls to 230% their current level in order to simply break even..."

"the toll road’s losses would have to come from other programs (which could include Medicaid, education) or from increases in taxes or decreases in property tax relief..."

"the state can instead rid itself of the problem and collect $3.8 billion along the way (which is a lot more than -$3.1 billion)..."

And of course, the part that was in bold:

The Bottom Line: It is possible to go forward with this plan in such a way that Hoosiers both now and 75 years in the future are better off.

I do not like to bite the hand that feeds me, nor pick fights with the only decent Indiana blog roundup which could potentially generate a lot of hits to Indiana Politico.

But this is absolutely ridiculous. To use that quote from my piece and leave out all content that reflects the actual ideas I meant to convey is either incredibly lazy or incredibly dishonest.

I hope this is an error that is unique to this situation. Perhaps IBR knows me to be liberal but thinks of me as a partisan Democrat rather than the liberal technocrat that I consider myself.

Either way. I am disappointed and peeved, and I hope that my ideas will not be misrepresented in the future.