Don’t subsidize Greyhound

Dear Editor: Re: “Gov’t should offer bus service” by Gunther Ostermann, Courier, July 24.

Greyhound will cease operations by October because they lost $70 million over the past six years. Ostermann’s suggestion — echoed by many others — is for the government to take over operation of this service. He further suggests that this could be accomplished by merely adding another billion dollars to B.C.’s already $66 billion debt or to the existing $657 billion of federal debt.

This is wrong on so many levels. Any time government attempts to get involved in an enterprise that was previously run privately, the costs escalate through the roof and the losses pile up. Look no further than ICBC and we will soon see the negative financial effects from our federal government taking on the running of a pipeline. Had the government been running Greyhound for the past six years, the losses would have been multiplied many times over the $70 million.

Secondly, this cavalier attitude of hopelessness when it comes to debt is how we got so deep into the red. Our governments have spawned this idea and it would seem that the general public has bought in with the thought that we’re so far into debt that we can’t possibly ever get out, so we may as well just keep going deeper into the red.

Greyhound should have raised their prices to the level that they were profitable. Possibly another carrier will take over some of the routes and set fares high enough to remain a viable enterprise. Greyhound’s management should not end up costing the taxpayers.

There are plenty of middle-class income earners that struggle to balance their monthly budgets, which includes the ownership and operation of a vehicle.

Why should they be further burdened with paying to operate provincial bus system? What percentage of British Columbians used Greyhound as transportation? If it was significant, Greyhound would not have lost money.

It’s long past overdue for all levels of governments to start paying down the debt and stop the insanity of mortgaging the future of Canadians who aren’t even born yet.

To some, it will seem harsh, but if you have grandchildren and love them, why would you want the government to keep adding to the debt?

There is nothing wrong with a user-pay system.

If you can’t afford the fare, why should it be subsidized by the taxpayers so some person who is yet to be born should be expected to pay it for you with compounding interest several decades from now? Guy Bissonnette

Lake Country