My Democratic newspaper, the New York Times, disappoints again. Yes, they are high-speed rail endorsers, but this editorial is a "piling on" with ridicule for the Florida's Governor's decision to reject the $2.4 billion to build a high-speed train from Tampa to Orlando.
Indeed, the Governors of states like New Jersey, Wisconsin, Ohio and Florida, all of whom rejected federal HSR-related funds, have been sneered or laughed at not only by the media, but more sarcastically by those states that are now on the receiving end of that funding; fifteen of them. What does that prove? That HSR, as conceived by the Obama Administration, is not about transportation, it's about redistributing PORK.
Let's be clear here. I'm not that crazy about many of the actions of these particular, rejectionist Republican Governors. They have, and are now leading some programs to which I strongly object. However, it has been amply demonstrated that by receiving the HSR "seed" funding from Washington, dollars for which the Democratic states are so irrepressibly eager, those particular states commit themselves to initiating and sustaining a vastly overpriced enterprise, high-speed rail. And they will pay dearly for it.
Admittedly, a lot of those dollars are going to Amtrak upgrading of passenger service to bring it into the 20th century, and that's not a bad thing to do, especially for those rail segments that support daily commuter passenger traffic. And, that's what's going on in most of the fifteen states on the receiving end of these recycled Department of Transportation ARRA funds. But, the first step toward full-blown high-speed rail is like a step into serious drug addiction. The demand for ever more funds is unquenchable.
Throwing $300 million more of those dollars after all the funding already shipped to California is not merely a waste of resources, but the trigger for sucking ever more funds from the state and federal tax-revenue base.
You can see this in our state where considerable HSR funding from Washington has already produced conflicts in most of the sectors intended for the rail corridor. The rest of California's Amtrak rail system is pathetic, but there is no upgrade agenda on the scale of what Amtrak intensive states in the Mid-west and East are proposing. Why not?
The California HSR builder/politicians intend to put down as much new rail corridor as they can afford, and then stop when they run out of cash. It will be a rail corridor from nowhere to nowhere, waiting for further funding from somewhere. In short, a hugely six plus billion dollar exercise in futility.
This editorial does it's host newspaper a gross injustice by parroting all the advocacy marketing hype of the rail promoters, rather than taking the necessary hard, investigative look at the realities behind the inflated platitudes. Gasoline prices up? HSR is cheaper. Traffic jams? HSR solves that. Economy moribund? HSR stimulates economy. Unemployment? HSR hires thousands. States that "want infrastructure?" HSR is the answer. Where are fact-checkers when you need them?
And here is where the editorial gets sleazy. The central premise is that any state that rejects federal funding is a bad and/or stupid state. Boy, does that ideology play into the hands of those with opposing ideologies.
The editorial fails by not separating out the unnecessary (such as HSR) that the feds want to fund for political reasons, from projects -- upgrading the state's existing infrastructure -- that are essential to the well-being of a state and don't become a permanent drain on the states' resources. Instead, the editorial singles out high-speed rail as the test case for smart and stupid states (or Governors).
And that's the Democrats' tragic flaw, by over-reaching on their argument, justifying and 'painting' political pork with high-speed rail 'lipstick;' it's still pork! The title of the editorial alone suggests it's own problem. It's a "Windfall." The building of the economy of states cannot and must not be driven by windfalls, or lucky lottery winners. And, the NYT doesn't acknowledge that these "windfall" funds have strings attached that cash-poor states can't afford.
The DOT high-speed rail program should, but does not have a medical warning sign: Beware, accepting these funds is addictive and can cause irreparable harm.
You have to ask, which states have acted stupidly and which ones were actually quite smart.
===========================
May 9, 2011
The Rejected Windfall
After Gov. Rick Scott of Florida thoughtlessly rejected $2.4 billion in federal aid for a high-speed rail line, he claimed last month that he was doing a huge favor for the national Treasury, which he expected would give away the money in tax cuts. That was nonsense, of course; Mr. Scott was really doing a favor for train passengers in the Northeast, Midwest and California, which were given $2 billion of his money on Monday for better service.
Florida voters might want to think about that decision as they sit in traffic jams, burning up $4-a-gallon gasoline. In fact, some of them clearly have thought about it because Mr. Scott now has some of the worst approval ratings of a Florida official in the last decade.
He has joined other newly elected Republican governors so rigidly opposed to the Obama administration that they are willing to harm their states to score points. The result is a crazy quilt of state relationships with Washington, stitched more with ideology than reason.
None of the money in Monday’s announcement will be going to Wisconsin, for example, where Gov. Scott Walker has also decided that his strapped state could do without rail improvements and the construction jobs that go with them. Nor will it go to Ohio, where Gov. John Kasich preferred rejectionism to the improvement of rail service among the state’s largest cities, which could have produced 16,000 jobs.
Instead, it will go to 15 states that have more farsighted leadership, who understand the important role federal dollars can play in stimulating the economy, moving people quickly from place to place and reducing tailpipe emissions. Some of those states are led by Republicans: Gov. Rick Snyder of Michigan happily stood beside Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood on Monday to accept nearly $200 million to upgrade the rail line between Dearborn and Kalamazoo, the bulk of the Chicago-Detroit corridor.
The difference between states that want better infrastructure and those that do not is likely to grow in coming years. Some states will accept federal aid and tax themselves to pay for better trains, upgraded roads and bridges, and effective water systems. Others will not.
In the Northeast, several Amtrak corridors will be upgraded, including a sliver of the Acela line and the Empire line through upstate New York. The Chicago-St. Louis corridor will be improved, and $300 million will be invested in the high-speed project between Los Angeles and San Francisco. Texas is accepting $15 million to start work on a fast line between Dallas and Houston.
Transportation is not all that is at stake. Last year, Utah Republican lawmakers tried to refuse $101 million in federal money intended to save teachers’ jobs; they backed down when it was clear that Washington could send the money directly to school districts. Oklahoma and other states have rejected federal dollars connected to health care reform. Earlier this year, Missouri nearly rejected extended jobless benefits for 10,000 residents after a handful of Republicans said the money was wasteful.
Refusenik Republicans glorify shopworn principles like smaller government and states’ rights. They will have to defend them to their voters when the public hears the passenger trains whistling from the next state over.
