By Matthew Brown and Gene Johnson | Associated Press

COLUMBUS, Mont. — A bridge that crosses the Yellowstone River in Montana collapsed early Saturday, plunging portions of a freight train carrying hazardous materials into the rushing water below.

The train cars were carrying hot asphalt and molten sulfur, Stillwater County Disaster and Emergency Services said. Officials shut down drinking water intakes downstream while they evaluated the danger after the 6 a.m. accident. An Associated Press reporter witnessed a yellow substance coming out of some of the tank cars.

David Stamey, the county’s chief of emergency services, said there was no immediate danger for the crews working at the site, and the hazardous material was being diluted by the swollen river. There were three asphalt cars and four sulfur cars in the river.

The train crew was safe and no injuries were reported, Montana Rail Link spokesman Andy Garland said in a statement. The asphalt and sulfur both solidify quickly when exposed to cooler temperatures, he said.

Railroad crews were at the scene in Stillwater County, near the town of Columbus, about 40 miles (about 64 kilometers) west of Billings. The area is in a sparsely populated section of the Yellowstone River Valley, surrounded by ranch and farmland. The river there flows away from Yellowstone National Park, which is about 110 miles (177 kilometers) southwest.

“We are committed to addressing any potential impacts to the area as a result of this incident and working to understand the reasons behind the accident,” Garland said.

In neighboring Yellowstone County, officials said they instituted emergency measures at water treatment plants due to the “potential hazmat spill” and asked residents to conserve water.

The cause of the collapse is under investigation. The river was swollen with recent heavy rains, but it’s unclear whether that was a factor.

The Yellowstone saw record flooding in 2022 that caused extensive damage to Yellowstone National Park and adjacent towns in Montana. Robert Bea, a retired engineering professor at the University of California Berkeley who has analyzed the causes of hundreds of major disasters, said repeated years of heavy river flows provided a clue to the possible cause.

“The high water flow translates to high forces acting directly on the pier and, importantly, on the river bottom,” Bea said. “You can have erosion or scour that removes support from the foundation. High forces translate to a high likelihood of a structural or foundation failure that could act as a trigger to initiate the accident.”

Bea said investigators would also want to look at whether there was wear or rust in bridge components as well as a record of maintenance, repair and inspections.

Federal Railroad Administration officials were at the scene.

Kelly Hitchcock of the Columbus Water Users shut off the flow of river water into an irrigation ditch downstream from the collapsed bridge to prevent contents from the tank cars from reaching nearby farmland. The Stillwater County Sheriff’s Office called the group Saturday morning to warn it about the collapse, Hitchcock said.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency notes that sulfur is a common element used as a fertilizer as well as an insecticide, fungicide and rodenticide.

---

Johnson reported from Seattle.

As a long-awaited Supreme Court decision on President Joe Biden's massive student loan forgiveness plan looms, Senate Republicans have unveiled a plan of their own to address the nation's climbing student loan debt burden. However, instead of promising blanket forgiveness, the Senate Republicans' plan aims to reform how student loans are given out in the first place—seeking to direct students toward high-quality programs and limit access to schools that provide a poor return on students' investment. 

The plan is composed of five separate bills. Three of the bills focus on ensuring that prospective borrowers are aware of the financial tradeoffs of taking out student loans and the financial outcomes for alumni of specific institutions. The last two tackle the federal student loan system itself, cutting down the number of repayment plans and limiting the circumstances in which federal student loans can be given out.

The first bill in the package focuses on increasing transparency from colleges. The bill seeks to require colleges and universities to provide a wide range of data on student outcomes and enrollment trends to the National Center for Education Statistics, which would create a database of this information aimed at helping prospective students make informed educational decisions.

The proposal's second bill would require colleges and universities to use a standardized financial aid offer form in order to maximize transparency around the true cost of attending a given institution. The third bill in the proposal has similar aims, requiring that students applying for federal student loans receive information detailing sample payments for their loans, as well as how long they would expect to be paying off their student loans, and what income they can expect to make after graduating from a given school.

The fourth bill cuts down on the number of repayment plans available to borrowers. The bill would consolidate the host of current repayment options down to two—a standard 10-year repayment plan and a Revised Pay As You Earn (REPAYE) repayment plan with minor changes. The REPAYE plan is an income-driven repayment (IDR) plan, which currently allows borrowers to pay a monthly amount fixed to their income, achieving forgiveness after at least 20 years of payments. 

Importantly, the fourth bill also cuts off access to federal student loans for students attending programs that do not result in median earnings higher than those of adults who only have a high school diploma—or a bachelor's degree, in the case of a graduate program. 

The final bill in the package would eliminate Graduate PLUS Loans—a type of federal student loan whose borrowing cap was removed in 2006. The removal of this cap has been directly connected to a rapid increase in graduate school tuition, as—unlike for undergraduate programs—graduate students were able to borrow an unlimited amount from the federal government, incentivizing universities to jack up prices. 

Notably, House Republicans have also introduced their own legislation aiming to reform federal student loans. Their proposal would provide "targeted" student debt relief to those who have consistently made payments but have seen their debt increase anyway. The proposal would also reform existing income-driven repayment plans and mandate considerable warnings for borrowers before student loan payments resume in October. 

"Colleges and universities using the availability of federal loans to increase their tuitions have left too many students drowning in debt without a path for success," said Sen. Bill Cassidy (R–La.) in a Wednesday statement. "Unlike President Biden's student loan schemes, this plan addresses the root causes of the student debt crisis. It puts downward pressure on tuition and empowers students to make the educational decisions that put them on track to academically and financially succeed." 

The Republicans' plans offer a constructive solution to the problems that plague the federal student loan system. Rather than focusing on short-term solutions—like Biden's $400 billion student loan forgiveness boondoggle—Republicans' plans target the sloppy government policies which directly cause rising student debt.

In particular, the Senate's attempt to eliminate Graduate PLUS Loans and both plans' proposals to reform income-driven repayment plans take direct aim at some of the most fiscally irresponsible federal student loan policies. 

While both bills face an unlikely path toward actually becoming law, they provide a clear template for what a sensible response to the student loan crisis looks like—and policies that are actually likely to lower the cost of college, not raise it. 

The post Can Republicans Fix Student Debt? appeared first on Reason.com.

President Biden says “We’re planning to make it mandatory for airlines to compensate travelers with meals, hotels, taxis, and cash, miles, or travel vouchers when your flight is delayed or cancelled because of their mistake.”

A classic example of the Happy Meal Fallacy:

Some restaurants offer burgers without fries and a drink. These restaurants cater to low-income people who enjoy fries and drinks but can’t always afford them. To rectify this sad situation a presidential candidate proposes The Happy Meal Act. Under the Act, burgers must be sold with fries and a drink. “Burgers by themselves are not a complete, nutritious meal,” the politician argues, concluding with the uplifting campaign slogan, “Everyone deserves a Happy Meal!”

But will the Happy Meal Act make people happy? If burgers must come with fries and a drink, restaurants will increase the price of a “burger.” Even though everyone likes fries and a drink they may not like the added benefits by as much as the increase in the price of the meal. Indeed, this must be the case since consumers could have bought the meal before the Act but chose not to. Requiring firms to sell benefits that customers value less than their cost makes both firms and customers worse off.

Almost everyone understands this when it comes to burgers and fries but make it burgers, fries and air miles and some people will think this is a good idea. To recap, requiring firms to sell benefits that customers value less than their cost makes both firms and customers worse off. And if customers value the benefits at more than the cost then that’s a profit opportunity and there is no need for a mandate.

The post Free Insurance for Everyone! appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

JAW, JAW IS BETTER THAN WAR, WAR: Trump, Gabbard Warn of Nuclear Armageddon.

GOODER AND HARDER, NYC: Rents for One-Bedroom Apartments in Manhattan Hit a Record High of $5,100 in July. Here’s Why.

We’ve covered this before, but now it is out in the JPE and worthy of a repeat, because you won’t see its lessons promulgated in too many other places.  From Charles Jones:

This paper considers top income taxation when (i) new ideas drive economic growth, (ii) the reward for successful innovation is a top income, and (iii) innovation cannot be perfectly targeted by a research subsidy—think about the business methods of Walmart, the creation of Uber, or the “idea” of Amazon. These conditions lead to a new force affecting the optimal top tax rate: by slowing the creation of new ideas that drive aggregate GDP, top income taxation reduces everyone’s income, not just income at the top. This force sharply constrains both revenue-maximizing and welfare-maximizing top tax rates.

In other words, we should be very cautious about raising taxes on top earners.

The post Taxing Top Incomes in a World of Ideas appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.