Of course there are arguments to be made about how, and how much, and who gets more. But I think energy and transportation are some of the best things to subsidize.

Those are the arguments that I was hoping to elicit. I didn't post it because I agree with everything in the article - for example, I don't share the libertarian stance at all and the paragraph on how airlines supposedly price routes is downright ignorant.

I posted it because it made me wonder what a better balance of subsidies and taxes could look like. I agree that mobility and accessibility are important to subsidize and to make possible, but building roads is not the most efficient thing to subsidize. There is definitely a point of diminishing returns and in the case of road infrastructure, more investments can even lead to worse traffic (in 2 different ways).

I mean, I live in the Netherlands, essentially public transport nirvana; if I pick any city less than 100 miles away, getting there by car or by train is roughly equal in cost and time. That is in no small part because driving is heavily taxed and public transport is heavily subsidized. But it is an entirely different tax balance than in the US, and I think that this article rightfully points out the disproportionate cost that road travel in the US has compared to driver taxes.