Obama Caves on HSR Funds
We’ve been tracking the ongoing budget battle in Congress for some time now, and been wondering which of Obama’s priorities would prevail: his support for high speed rail, or his desire to appease the Republicans no matter the cost. Last night, we learned the answer to that question:
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, most of the $2 billion in cuts in the one-week bill come from a $1.5 billion reduction in the Federal Railroad Administration’s High Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail program. Another $220 million was cut from the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Community Development Fund.
To be clear: Obama just gave up $1.5 billion in high speed rail funds for a one-week funding bill. One week.
There’s been some discussion about exactly what HSR funding got cut. According to The Hill, the cuts are from the FY 2011 money and not the stimulus:
Section 298 reduces FY 2011 funding for FRA High Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail to $1 billion, a reduction of $1.5 billion from FY10.
Remember that in 2010, the House had approved $2.5 billion in HSR funding for FY 2011. Obama had only proposed $1 billion. So Obama is basically back where he started on HSR – but given the struggle to get HSR funding from the Republicans, this is a big loss. California has gotten about 40-50% of federal HSR funding to date, and so this will likely reduce HSR funding available to California by $500 to $750 million. As far as I know, however, the California High Speed Rail Authority had not yet received or were counting on these funds. But it’s still a bitter blow.
And it’s made worse by the fact that Obama only got a week’s worth of funding for the government out of it. Not only will there be another battle in the near future, but there will be a fight over raising the debt limit this summer, and a fall battle over the FY 2012 budget. Congressional Republicans, dancing to the tune played by their oil company funders – particularly the Koch Brothers – are determined to kill high speed rail, and Obama has made it absolutely clear he will cut HSR funding in other to cut a deal.
At least California remains strongly committed to HSR, Diane Harkey’s crazy comments notwithstanding. We’ll need that commitment to help ride out the HSR funding battles that are to come.
Democracy in action ~ Americans elected people to the House in 2010 to be massively economically irresponsible, cutting national incomes at a time when millions are unemployed and we are spending far inside our means in the face of multiple challenges demanding infrastructure investment, so it makes sense that while social war measures are used to provide the glittering objects to distract the Democratic primary electoral base, economically suicidal cuts feature in the actual deal.
Elections have consequences. Enough people stay home while candidates promising economic suicide are on the ballot, economic suicide is what we reap.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 9th, 2011 at 11:27 am
Americans elected people to the House to prevent the government from taking over Medicare.
StevieB Reply:
April 9th, 2011 at 12:00 pm
Are you referring to Paul Ryan’s plan to dismantle medicare and require seniors to purchase private insurance instead?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 9th, 2011 at 12:27 pm
He’s referring to the people who show up at rallies with signs that literally read “Keep the Government out of my Medicare”
Risenmessiah Reply:
April 9th, 2011 at 9:20 pm
It worked too. Paul Ryan delivered.
BruceMcF Reply:
April 9th, 2011 at 7:50 pm
Those who showed up did ~ it was typical midterm turnout that made that into an decisive vote.
VBobier Reply:
April 10th, 2011 at 7:38 am
Any more and things might be different, It would have helped, Any less than now and control of the Senate would have been lost. Thankfully the RED Tsunami broke beyond the California border…
I have always been a strong supporter of Obama but I’m extremely disappointed in his jettisoning the (additional) $1.5B in HSR funding.
I must confess to being completely unaware of its existence in the first place, though. I always thought the annual discretionary spending disbursement to the FRA for HSR was $1.0B.
You don’t know what you lost until its gone…
* * *
I’m really not sure of what the strategy is here. Obama was adamant that HSR was to be party of our spending priorities. Is he hoping to get it back in the Transportation Bill?
Beta Magellan Reply:
April 9th, 2011 at 11:53 am
A transportation bill will likely require a new revenue source, so it’s unlikely to happen in the next 2+ years.
YesonHSR Reply:
April 9th, 2011 at 12:13 pm
It never really was there.. Obama proposed 1 billion for high-speed rail this fiscal year the same as he did last fiscal year… the Democratic-controlled house increased to 4 billion for 2010 it was then decreased to 2.5 by the Senate and that is what we got last year for 2010.. this year’s 2011 funding was set at I think originally 1.5 billion by the house and then by the Senate to one billion. I was under impression even with the continuing resolution it was only to be 1 billion and was surprised that it had a place card holder of 2.5 billion so this is where the 1.5 billion cut is.. the one billion coupled with return money from Florida will give us almost 3.4 billion this year to distribute and not bad at all.. and I’m sure that’s what Obama looked at..plus he has proposed 4 billion for next fiscal year let’s see if Republicans can kill all that ,I don’t think so as the Senate should build back half of it… hopefully
Donk Reply:
April 9th, 2011 at 12:53 pm
Obama is only using HSR as a sacrificial lamb during the negotiation process. He never really intended to give $53B to HSR, this is just a target he created for the Republicans to go after instead of other programs that are more important to him.
But yeah, Obama is a huge pussy – the Republicans are making him look like a chump.
YesonHSR Reply:
April 9th, 2011 at 1:10 pm
I don’t agree with that at all.. the only reason we have any kind of high-speed rail funding and programs is due to the man sitting in the Oval Office and the vice president.. if McCain had somehow squeaked by and won the election we would be sitting right now with 9 billion high-speed rail bonds and not a penny for a match because everyone knows every time any kind of funding that would come to his desk he would’ve vetoed it.. of course politics are what they are and he played the card that he would give up this 1.5 that he never really asked for knowing that we would have 1,000,000,000+ the Florida money to equal over 3.4 billion to distribute this year thats almost 1 billion more than last year.. of course extra 1.5 would’ve been even more icing on the cake and we would have almost 5 billion… the reason I don’t like this is the Republicans and the tea party is now going to uses this propaganda as they have curtailed the high-speed rail program. Which is totally incorrect we actually got 1 billion more than last year… now if somehow the 2010 money gets rescinded which of course is a very rare thing and hardly ever done then we will have something to complain about how Obama is running things for high-speed rail..
synonymouse Reply:
April 9th, 2011 at 1:26 pm
The fiscal wars are just beginning. Jerry is threatening to push thru the tax extension on a simple majority and dare the voters to overturn it. There is plenty of blame to slap on both factions: the Democrats are blind to the corruption, boondoggling, and unsustainability of the welfare state just as the Republicans are oblivious to the inevitable disastrous consequences of all the money in the hands of a sliver of the population and starve out the masses trickle-up Reaganomics.
Witness the pathetic spectacle of a 40 year naval hospital in Oakland, roughly contemporary to the godawful SF TransAmerica Tower, being implpded. How can you ask voters and taxpayers to bankroll infrastructure that we can’t or won’t maintain a few years down the road. How can you reconcile “green” with a throwaway Sin City mentality?
The CHSRA has the same problem – infrastructure that will in short order prove to be ill-conceived, ineffectual, redundant and marginally maintained. Fiscal restraints can have the salutary effect of forcing attention back to basics, namely attending to the most pressing needs. Borden to Corcoran is blatantly not that. TRAC-Tolmach is overall correct – slip a choke leash on PB, yank on it good and hard, and drag it back to the drawing board.
No Fortunate Son Reply:
April 9th, 2011 at 1:44 pm
But previous history would contradict this. He has repeatedly made it a focal point of his administration. He has fought for it to be included in the stimulus, and in appropriations.
Donk Reply:
April 9th, 2011 at 3:16 pm
We’ll be lucky if we see $1B/year of HSR money in 2012 and beyond, despite his pledge of $53B over 10 years. He is such a pussy that he will cave to any Republican demands. You have to pay for the tax cuts somehow – why not trade HSR for tax cuts for the wealthy? Pussy.
Donk Reply:
April 9th, 2011 at 3:21 pm
The only reason we actually have any HSR funding is because Joe Biden is a train nerd. He and D.P. Lubic chill together on weekends in WVA, smoke cigars, and talk about their model train sets and the steam trains of yore.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
April 9th, 2011 at 3:33 pm
How I wish that was true. . .
YesonHSR Reply:
April 9th, 2011 at 4:03 pm
I also think that the vice president is one of the big backers of this high-speed rail initiative and of course has a similar thinking partner in the president… would it be great if Obama gets reelected followed by the election of Joe Biden as president to truly solidify a high-speed rail program over a decade or so that truly is required to build something meaningful.
VBobier Reply:
April 10th, 2011 at 7:47 am
Biden, That’ll be up to Him and His Doctor, As He is getting up there, But We’ll see.
Alan F Reply:
April 10th, 2011 at 8:30 am
Biden is not going to run for President in 2016. He ran several times on his own without much success and will be 74 years old in 2016. The 2016 Democratic field will be wide open. But Obama needs to win in 2012 first to keep the Republicans in check – to the extent that Obama does that.
BruceMcF Reply:
April 9th, 2011 at 7:55 pm
Beyond 2012 will depend on a Congress elected on Presidential year turnout, whatever the economy is after two years of economic suicide by Republic national income cutting, whether Republicans over reach their victories on points that the Democratic and Hedge Fund wings of the Democratic party cannot agree on and walk into an electoral landmine on a point where they can … and gerymmandering and Modern Jim Crow electoral laws.
Anybody who looks into their crystal ball and sees what the House is going to be like in 2013 is projecting some mix of their own hopes and fears into the crystal ball.
Risenmessiah Reply:
April 9th, 2011 at 9:19 pm
On paper, the House is going to swing more and more favorably to Democrats over the course of the decade, for the simple reason that constituencies that tend Democratic are growing and reaching maturity…whereas Republican groups are dying off (literally). Of course, this isn’t stopping people from trying every trick in the book to slow this process down. So, the GOP will likely hold the house in 2012…the real question is whether the Tea Party caucus becomes the bigger half of the GOP, or the lesser one. Obama has a good shot at holding on in 2012…leaving the Senate in the balance.
VBobier Reply:
April 10th, 2011 at 7:50 am
The Tea Party, I’d like to see them split off and form their own 3rd party for real and not be the parasitical hangers that they are currently.
Nathanael Reply:
April 10th, 2011 at 9:56 am
Pussies are way tougher than Obama, whether you’re referring to cats or something else.
He’s a gutless, spineless wimp.
Out of curiosity, does anyone know if this effects the PTC mandate? I remember reading earlier that funding for to assist in the changeover was cut from HR 1—anyone have any info of where it stands now?
Alan F Reply:
April 9th, 2011 at 1:14 pm
I suspect the federal funding to assist freight and commuter rail operators for PTC, which was pretty small to begin with and a lot less than what it cost to implement, has either been cut entirely or severely slashed. Which makes PTC even more of a unfunded mandate. My bet is that in next year, that Congress will extend, maybe 3-4 years beyond 2016, the implementation deadline for PTC.
Nadia Reply:
April 10th, 2011 at 7:17 am
Agreed – an extension is likely. I heard the same thing from people “in the know”
Boy, talk about a half empty glass point of view. The deal last night was for the FY11 budget, so if the $1 billion for HSIPR is still in there, that actually represents a partial victory for the Obama administration HSR efforts over the efforts of the Tea Partiers to slash all rail spending. The $1 billion was the amount that was in the FY11 appropriations bill that came close to getting passed by the Senate last December, before the 40 Republicans said no and denied the Senate the opportunity to vote on the bill on a majority vote basis. If, after all the drama, the $1 billion is still there AND none of the $10.5 billion of stimulus and FY10 HSIPR funds along with the TIGER grants are subject to rescission, then HSR and intercity passenger rail came out ok.
But until the final bill is written, posted, and someone who knows how to read it pulls out the actual FY11 numbers, we won’t know how HSIPR or Amtrak fared. What are the FY11 funding amounts for Amtrak? For TIGER? If Amtrak is at FY10 levels, it will a lot less than the capital funding Amtrak needs, but it is better than the slash and burn the Tea Partiers were seeking for Amtrak. It is the FY12 funding and the 6 year Transportation reauthorization, where it will get nasty. The past few weeks have been batting practice. Of course, this assumes the deal made last night is passed by the House and that is no sure thing.
If the stimulus and FY10 funds don’t get rescinded, then the contest for the re-allocation of the Florida funds may actually help the case for HSR funding going forward. Smart move on LaHood and the FRA’s part to put everybody through a quick new application round because it shows that many states are interested, despite the actions of 3 very ideological governors.
CA HSR and several vital projects on the NEC will get funding that would have taken years to get. The re-allocation process has gotten TX to submit a $18 million application for PE and EIS for a proposed Dallas/FW to Houston HSR line. That is enough for TX to do some real work and get serious about planning for a HSR line. If Texas gets serious about HSR, that can only help CA HSR. Missouri submitted a $600 million application to get started on a St. Louis to Kansas City HSR line. MO won’t get the request, beyond maybe some study and planning funds, because let’s face it, St. Louis to Kansas City is something like a Phase 3 of Mid-West HSR system and their application is way too soon. But it means other states are willing to consider HSR. The glass is 3/5ths full, not 2/5ths empty.
Now, I do think $1 billion a year for HSIPR is WAY too little and wish that Obama would have stepped up to $2.5 to $4 billion in FY11. And I think the administration made a mistake in not pushing for a 6 year Transportation re-authorization bill with a tax increase for gasoline on their terms last year. If they were going to get clobbered in the mid-term elections, should have taken care of transportation and infrastructure when they had the opportunity. OTOH, if McCain had been elected, Amtrak would have been subjected to the same defunding attempts it got in the early years of the Bush the younger administration. And HSR would be going nowhere, while gas would still be moving up to $4/gallon.
VBobier Reply:
April 10th, 2011 at 8:24 am
I’d like to see TX get that $18 Million, But then We could use some HSR allies, CA HSR needs allies in Congress and not the current crop of idiots, Plus a few other areas around the USA that could use a bit of HSR money, As We all know Who’d rather defund stuff that the courts had long ago ruled Constitutional, But then some are just those Who want to defund what they’ve always objected their tax money going to, I’m not sure that defunding an agency is even morally proper, As the US economy is a huge spider web of interdependencies, FHA, FRA, EPA(clean water/air act, private industry can’t be trusted & the market can’t either) and other agencies are a part of that web, Nothing stands alone, Without FHA some home mortgage loans can not be made, Cause of FHA guarantees, Not that FHA makes loans… I’d rather go forward and not back to the 19th Century and Robber Barons with nearly as much power as the Federal Government and No accountability… We’d then need another TR & I doubt the Kochs would allow another Theodore Roosevelt to rise up and bust their chops.
One week of federal government operations costs $69 Billion these days. Bear that in mind.
This is why I say we should not put our hopes on federal support. California will ultimately have the first HSR system in the world that was built up without federal money. This makes things a lot more difficult, but the benefit is railways funded by the governments of Japan, South Korea, Europe and China on American ground. Isn’t that the American dream?
Beta Magellan Reply:
April 9th, 2011 at 4:48 pm
The history of state-level HSR isn’t an illustrious one. I’d recommend looking through Chapter 4 of Anthony Perl’s New Departures for more:
http://books.google.com/books?id=-B5NgROwk9wC&lpg=PP1&ots=VzRfKejxT3&dq=new%20departures%20perl&pg=PA134#v=onepage&q&f=false
“To be clear: Obama just gave up $1.5 billion in high speed rail funds for a one-week funding bill. One week.”
This is false, Robert.
The deal is for the whole 2011 budget, which runs thru the end of the fiscal year. And as others have noted, Obama had only proposed 1 billion for HSR this year in his own budget plan. So Obama gave up 1.5 imaginary billions for 1/2 a year of federal funding, which includes $1 billion in real cash for HSR.
I would call that a good start, considering the opposition in the House to ANY government funding for transportation.
YesonHSR Reply:
April 9th, 2011 at 2:56 pm
I agree if all the wheeling and dealing is done and we’re just waiting to be signed off this week and there has been no recession or limitation of the 2010 funding we will have $3.4 billion to distribute for high-speed rail not bad at all and enough to give us at lease 1.4 billion to reach downtown Merced and downtown Bakersfield and still have enough to give the rest of the country something significant. I guess by the end of the week we will know everything is worked out.
Spokker Reply:
April 9th, 2011 at 3:02 pm
“I would call that a good start, considering the opposition in the House to ANY government funding for transportation.”
This is false. Once a Republican takes back the White House, money will flow to highways and roads very easily.
Jack Reply:
April 9th, 2011 at 3:25 pm
Who??? Trump, Romney, Bachman??!?!? Republicans need a viable candidate. The tea party movement has lost steam and they are even more pissed because they think Bonner caved on this budget deal. I’m a conservative and I can’t stand any of our front runners.
Say all the nasty things you want about Obama, he’s gotten more done in 2 years than many other presidents accomplish in 8. There predicting he’ll raise over 1Billion for his campaign…
VBobier Reply:
April 9th, 2011 at 8:12 pm
If President Obama was White and not Black, Would He be questioned as to His Citizenship or what not? I think not, He’s a Black Man in the White House, Racism is at work, Cloaked and Hooded… The Secret Service had to increase His Protection I’d read. Since President Obama is running for Reelection in 2012, I hope He wins, Although I’d hope We get a firmer stance on HSR out of Him, It wouldn’t hurt if the US Congress shifts back of course, To something more HSR friendly and more sane, While still reducing the deficit, If It does He should have learned something, Don’t waste an opportunity when It’s handed to You, You just might need It.
Wad Reply:
April 9th, 2011 at 11:20 pm
Obama is in the position to lose 2012. More whites will vote against him than for him, plus he has burned the goodwill of his 2008 coalition. Remember, the presidential electoral vote regime gives disproportionate power to rural, white voters — the very people who will sink Obama’s candidacy.
He’ll lose if the GOP nominee is Romney or Gingrich. Romney could play the centrist well enough to woo enough independents; he was governor of Massachusetts, after all. Gingrich, on the other hand, is a polarizing figure — he could best be described as America’s General Franco — but he will win because he practices the politics of power and he’s unstoppable when he does.
Obama needs to go Machiavelli for 2012. No Democrat upstart stands a chance to unseat an incumbent, so there’s no need for Democrats to support him in the primaries. Democrats, progressives and most of the lefty camp ought to false-flag the right wing and split the electorate (setting up a 3-way race, which helped Clinton get elected in 1992 and 1996) or back the least electable candidate to set up for a pummeling in November.
If you don’t want the country to go ‘bagger in 2012, support a ‘bagger in the primaries.
VBobier Reply:
April 10th, 2011 at 8:47 am
CAGW is running an Ad on TV with a Chinese Slant which ends with the Red/Yellow Chinese flag… I sure don’t like It, As It attacks this and that, The Stimulus that took a bit to sink in, As in We want instant results and If there aren’t results, It’s then seen as a failure… Of course the economy is getting better according to the News on TV and I’ve seen reports of unemployment going down again. Of course I saw the old proposed budget for 2011, Sure there were the cuts/defunding of this and that and there is the increased spending on the Military, Which I think even the DoD doesn’t want($800 Billion I think).
VBobier Reply:
April 10th, 2011 at 8:51 am
Edit: that should be “As in We want instant results and If there aren’t instant results, It is then seen as a failure…“
Beta Magellan Reply:
April 10th, 2011 at 8:57 am
You’re really overestimating Gingrich’s popularity—early polling (via talkingpointsmemo) shows that if Gingrich runs Obama would even be competitive in Georgia, of all places (slightly ahead, though within the poll’s margin of error).
No Fortunate Son Reply:
April 10th, 2011 at 10:13 am
Gingrich and Romney are both seriously flawed candidates.
Gingrich is toxic. While he is shrewd, poll after poll has found him extremely unlikeable. His personal history renders him unappealing to social conservative primary voters. He could hope to bypass Iowa and other social conservative primary states, but with such a troubled past, I don’t see how he can match up against Obama in the worst of economic times.
Romney is a moderate, which unfortunately in this climate, also renders him not an option to primary conservatives. His mormonism is a strike against him with social conservatives. His healthcare plan is a strike against him with all conservatives. Romney’s plan (“Romneycare”) is very similar to Obama’s plan (“Obamacare”) in that it relies on an individual mandate. How Romney can overcome these hurdles in the primary is beyond me, although as a white moderate, he would fare better int he general election against Obama.
Right now, the biggest threat to Obama is from Mike Huckabee, who so far, has yet to delcare his intentions to run. He has the social conservative credentials to help in the primary, but his past embrace of cap and trade is still problematic. Huckabee struggled in 2008 raising money, and it has been argued that he really lacks the commitment needed to make another run at it.
In short, the weaker the Republican field, the better Obama does. The better the economy, the better Obama does. Right now, Obama is getting all the help he needs on the first front. How much help he’ll get from the economy remains to be seen.
Donk Reply:
April 9th, 2011 at 3:26 pm
Yeah like Donald Trump or one of the other clowns is going to beat Obama in the election. Only way Obama loses is if gas is at > $5/gal in November 2012 – then everyone will blame Obama and the Democrats for high gas prices.
Spokker Reply:
April 9th, 2011 at 8:09 pm
It doesn’t matter who the nominees are. It basically amounts to economy = bad? Vote out the incumbent.
Nathanael Reply:
April 10th, 2011 at 10:00 am
The Republican candidates are objectively disastrous. If they field someone who is half-sane and doesn’t have a record of sheer thuggishness, they’ll win, because Obama is pretty much inviting them to.
However, it seems likely that they will field someone who looks completely demented. Don’t underestimate the eat-their-own-young behavior of the current Republicans.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 10th, 2011 at 10:15 am
There is already a political party for half-sane people. It’s called the Democratic Party. Fully sane people can go to hell.
Nathanael Reply:
April 10th, 2011 at 10:42 am
Heh. So true.
Brandi Reply:
April 9th, 2011 at 8:08 pm
I agree with you 100%.
Walker is cutting transit while increasing spending on roads in WI.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/119228829.html
and Christie is using the ARC tunnel money mostly for roads in NJ so he can look like he didn’t raise taxes.
http://www.app.com/article/20110324/NJNEWS10/103240347/1007/NEWS03&source=rss
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 9th, 2011 at 8:17 pm
He’s gotta get the governor of New York to go along with the reallocation of the Port Authority funds. Assuming the Port Authority goes along. Turnpike might be a bit easier since it only operates in New Jersey but then he’s gotta get the Turnpike Authority and the Turnpike’s lawyers to go along.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
April 10th, 2011 at 4:50 pm
This sets the precedent for the Republicans that Obama is willing to cave on his support for high speed rail. They will come after the rest of the money in the debt ceiling fight or at some other time. Obama has signaled here that he will not necessarily stop them from doing so.
No Fortunate Son Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 2:09 pm
Robert, I see your point, but the slippery slope argument can always be made regarding any spending. If they start cutting now, when will they stop? When the political climate changes, that’s when. And in this era, it changes quite rapidly.
So far, we got $10B for HSR, the majority of which looks like it is going to CA. That’s enough to break ground and start building.
Apparently transportation was one of the main things Obama was willing to sacrifice. This article confirms the $1Billion for HSR. It also includes a $280 Million reduction for money that would have went to the ARC Tunnel.
http://www.favstocks.com/government-shutdown-averted-in-last-minute-budget-deal-with-some-cuts-to-transportation/0943411/
I’m not really sure what this means:
One of the toughest fights, casting the White House as the budget cutter against reluctant Republicans, was in highway and transportation spending. But here the administration succeeded in cutting about $630 million in so-called orphan earmarks and $2.5 billion in unexpended contract authority.
Shows that Obama was the one willing to throw high speed rail and new starts under the bus. It sounds like he initiated it. I guess he really is Obummer.
Brandi Reply:
April 9th, 2011 at 7:47 pm
Well I mean it sounds like Highways were spared. Including those in Iraq and Afghanistan which will be getting a $5 Billion dollar increase in spending.
YesonHSR Reply:
April 9th, 2011 at 8:40 pm
This 1.5 billion was nothing more than a mirage.. it had already been cut by the Democratic controlled House down to 1 billion.. and had the budget gone through it would’ve been set, due to the budget not passing the previous year’s figures were still in effect .. some people are looking at this as we just lost 1.5 billion that is not true .. we never had it and was used as a bargaining chip to keep the current 1 billion funding and the rest of the money to equal 3.4 billion for this year’s distribution then I think it was a good move.. as posts above state will see by the end of this week but Im thinking it’s a done deal for the 2011 budget..fingers crossed
Risenmessiah Reply:
April 9th, 2011 at 10:10 pm
Actually, no. The “orphan earmarks” referred to in that paragraph refer to what the Politico earlier reported on:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47079.html
Its a clever strategy by Obama. He wants to make sure people in the hinterland feel the cuts, and that voters don’t assume that DC is Government and that all Government is DC. He knows that in places where he’s not as popular that local candidates are going to run against him. So the priority has to be to on effectively two platforms: what his supporters and other Dems would want…and what would appeal to Republicans and Independents.
No Fortunate Son Reply:
April 9th, 2011 at 10:47 pm
It sounds kind of small to accuse Obama of giving up something he never proposed int he first place.
The important thing is that the $1B a year remains, and that the FL HSR funds are free to be disbursed.
YesonHSR Reply:
April 10th, 2011 at 9:23 am
Whatever this 1.5 billion was an earmark some technical item or whatever most people didn’t even know it was there.. I didn’t I assumed 1 billion was it.. now the real danger was losing not only the 1 billion but the recession of the FLA ARRA money and the 2010 funding..
The republicans are at war with the urban voter. Every cut they propose hurts city dwellers, while subsidies to rural areas continue to increase, even though urban areas give more than theyr eceive in tax monies.
And Obama is going along with it.
Wad Reply:
April 9th, 2011 at 11:44 pm
And he’ll do so until 2013 or 2017, for two reasons. One, he’s the Democrats’ bribe-taker in chief. Two, he’s black.
The Democratic Party is not much different than a for-profit corporation. The Democrats realize there’s much more money and power in beating back their electoral base and advancing the ruling elite’s agenda when the GOP is in power. Since the Democrats can’t win a game rigged against the non-right, they realize it’s best to join them.
On the second point, Obama personally realizes that his well-being and his safety depends on him keeping whites in their comfort zone. Obama, despite being an Eisenhower Republican politically, has let himself be debased and defined by his haters (spear-chucking Kenyan Muslim) and yet goes calmly about his business with confidence and poise. This is more of a disciplined survival mechanism than a reflection of his character. If Obama goes on the defensive, he’ll make his haters uncomfortable. He puts his life, as well as the lives of his wife and children, in jeopardy.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
April 10th, 2011 at 6:50 am
Wad,
If what you say is true, then our current president is a very smart man indeed. I wish him the best.
I am strongly of the opinion that much of the difficulty and unrest he faces is, unfortunately, because of the color of his skin. Nobody will admit this of course, and many would argue that the Democrats have been the party of “government interference” (which is the states’ rights argument), but the racism question still persists. How else do you explain the birth certificate debate against a man born in Hawaii with a state certificate available (and two notices of his birth in local papers) vs. the fact that his opponent, John McCain, really wasn’t born in the US proper, but in the Panama Canal Zone? Wouldn’t McCain have also been technically disqualified as a presidential candidate because of this?
Having said this brings up some questions, though. Specifically, we have been told that this HSR drive is important for American competitiveness, but we haven’t really been told why. No one that I can recall has mentioned peak oil, no one that I can recall has laid out how our oil-driven transport system is a logistical Achilles’ heel, no one in authority has told us that this is a security risk, no one in authority has pointed out the enormous highway subsidies and the highway system’s poor cost recovery ratio, and no one in authority has pointed out that the current highway funding mechanism may no longer work in a world of alternate-powered vehicles, or even vehicles that just burn less gasoline. No one has mentioned the generational shift, no one has mentioned how trains have been, are, and can be wonderful ways to travel.
All of these things have been discussed here; everyone, even critics like Synonomouse, knows these things (and Syn has mentioned some good rail trips he’s had), but we are getting nothing of these points from the rail supporters in authority; what we get is this undefined business of “competitiveness” and talk about “reduction in greenhouse gases” (boy, talk about a sexless campaign slogan, and on a subject some are skeptical about anyway).
Why do the people in authority do such a poor job of selling? Almost anybody here could do better, myself included. Heck, I could do Wendell Cox’s job better–just think of what we could do with a good rail campaign.
I’ll make like I’m on “Mad Men” to kick things off;
Let’s see, there is a tradition of talking about a “lost generation” that goes back to at least the WW I era, and since then we have talked about “generations at risk.” typically when discussing problems in education. There is also a generational component in this rail debate; it’s amazing that rail passengers are turning out to be a bunch of younger people, and that same young crowd isn’t as enamored of cars as their elders once were.
How about a positive spin on this? How about a campaign based on a “found generation,” one that knows what is good and right for our future? How about a generation that knows where it’s going because it can read a timetable, and because its transportation system, to borrow a sports car phrase, “handles like it’s on rails?”
What could we do with this?
Any other cool ideas out there?
YesonHSR Reply:
April 10th, 2011 at 8:45 am
Outside of sending everyone to Europe to actually see this is not some kind of hoax and how beautiful it works I would say opening the first system probably ours will jumpstart the entire high-speed rail nationwide ,unfortunately we have eight years at minimum.. your first comment on Obama’s spot on.. This is a generation that grew up in the late 50s and early 60s before civil rights the first generation that moved to the suburbs and they had their Chevrolet and American apple pie .. and now theres a White House urban black president born in the late 60s mixed race on and on and just too foreign for them.. socialists is a kind word there attacking him with.. I’m sure there’s some of that crowd would love to say something else.. of course its not a blaket statement of everybody that’s in their late 60s 70s or 80s.. my parents voted for Obama but my father was a very big union person but this is the age group the voted in the least for him..well at least the white rural ones
Beta Magellan Reply:
April 10th, 2011 at 9:14 am
Well, there was the Mad Men pro-HSR video. Siemens also has a very aggressive advertising campaign and has put out the odd “study” justifying HSR investment.
Otherwise, I’d say that a campaign for HSR would probably go nowhere—things like health care, jobs, taxes, social security, and to a lesser degree the environment make people alert because people’s well being or money are on the line. Transportation doesn’t really register as an important political matter for most people, which is one of the reasons why transportation projects have been sold more on job creation than their mobility benefits as of late, and why HSR is often sold as an economic growth engine, not a means of coping with a growing intercity travel market.
In other words, for most people transportation is a low priority, and given the folk economics prevalent today—macroeconomics=household budgeting—it seems like something whose support will go up and down with economic cycles.
Nathanael Reply:
April 10th, 2011 at 10:03 am
I think urban mass transit is suddenly going to become a very high priority for many people as gas prices go up, second only to housing. (Food thankfully is not as much of a problem yet as it may be soon thanks to global warming.)
The carless people who can’t afford planes will start asking about intercity rail too, because even they like to take vacations sometimes.
BruceMcF Reply:
April 10th, 2011 at 7:35 pm
In the US it won’t be “food” at the outset so much as meat ~ we eat so high on the hog that we have a long way to climb down, cutting back on meat and cutting factory farm consumption of food in the process, before food itself is in short supply.
Wad Reply:
April 10th, 2011 at 11:58 pm
D.P. Lubic wrote:
Why do the people in authority do such a poor job of selling?
Because high-speed rail is not an established constituency in the money-political axis yet.
The only time people in authority will get with the program is when there’s a money-giving constituency that depends on buying policy makes it worth their while.
The military-industrial complex and the highway lobby, to name two, have created the perpetual motion of contribute-grow fat-contribute more-grow fatter. Along the way, they create a larger coalition of economically dependent subsidiaries (military base towns and the web of small contractors for the former; prefab home developers and financiers for the latter) that can claim, often plausibly, that cutting off funds pushes the entire system into a black hole.
The question is, do you want high-speed rail to have its spot in the trough? There’s the rub.
Nothing about Rescission of existing funds. Morris, must be fuming. Once the backbone is built it’s full speed ahead. Obama will be re-elected in 2012 and one of his legacy projects will be HSR.
I’ll still buy you that beer Morris on our first ride together!
YesonHSR Reply:
April 10th, 2011 at 8:51 am
Yes… this could turn out to have a very happy ending dollars drawn on budget sideshow… with a 1 billion staying in and Florida giving up their money will be a nice amount of funding for high-speed rail after all… more than enough to give us 1.4 billion to build the full spine and also to support other high-speed rail programs nationwide
VBobier Reply:
April 10th, 2011 at 9:01 am
Yeah the current deal which has yet to be voted on by either house, Seems to avoid that and yet have $38 Billion in spending cuts, Hopefully for 2012 the White House will follow more closely the commissions report on reducing the deficit, It would undercut some of the republican trolls and the tea parties support… But then some spout a lot of shortsighted nonsense and think compromise is weakness.
Nathanael Reply:
April 10th, 2011 at 10:05 am
Remember, there was no Deficit Commission Report. The commission failed — it didn’t manage to come to agreement.
Alan Simspson, the Republican chair, of “Social Security is a cow with a thousand teats” fame (yes, he hates Social Security) issued one report, the one people including Obama are PRETENDING is the Commission report.
Jan Schakowsky issued a much better report for the Democratic minority. Nobody except the Congressional Progressive Caucus was willing to talk up this equally valid, and much better, report. Go dig it up.
synonymouse Reply:
April 10th, 2011 at 11:22 am
George P. Schulz authored an article in today’s SF Chron in which he claimed that 30% of the California education budget goes to the educrat bureaucracy. If that were chopped $15 billion could be saved, balancing the budget.
The government waste and bureaucratic proliferation issues simply aren’t going to go away, because they produce an insupportable level of expenditure.. We have the crazy situation in this country where private companies are excessively penurious and treat the lower level employees like mierda and the government spoils theirs. The same SF Chron features an article which details how to make a fortune and pay a 17% tax rate. Tycoons are literally paying a lower tax rate than the peons cleaning their mansions. This is disgusting and believe it the patronage machine is as much responsible for it as the tea party.
Here are some ongoing challenges and questions for the hsr foamers:
Where is Richard Branson and all that entrepreneurial dinero?
Where is that promised investment grade CHSRA scheme analysis?
Where do you plan to get the money to defray hsr maintenance and operating deficits?
Do you really want to blow the little dough you may get from the feds on Borden to Corcoran? Political agendas are always subject to revision when funding is reduced.
High Desert Freeway May Finally Get Built Between Palmdale And Victorville reports the Beverly Hills Courier. More interesting is the possibility of DesertXpress using the corridor. This link is vital to DesertXpress to connect to the Los Angeles basin for long term viability. Las Vegas to Victorville is a start but connecting to Los Angeles should be the goal.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 10th, 2011 at 5:28 pm
Does this freeway have a business plan showing profits, like HSR is required to?
Spokker Reply:
April 10th, 2011 at 6:18 pm
It’s being justified by the high fatality rate on the current highway. Now if only we could justify HSR by citing high fatality rates on current railroads, haha. No wait, they are already safe!
Alon Levy Reply:
April 10th, 2011 at 8:49 pm
Those people really need to look at a graph of American highway fatalities, with the construction of the Interstate system superimposed. There’s really no such thing as a safe road – there are only people who are used to cars and are careful around them.
Spokker Reply:
April 10th, 2011 at 6:18 pm
I sent in a public comment saying that while I have no opinion on the freeway itself, the public would be served by leaving room in the median of this freeway for a railroad right of way. This would allow Palmdale and Victorville to be connected, which would make Desert Express a useful project.
synonymouse Reply:
April 10th, 2011 at 6:51 pm
How come this proposed median is ok for hsr but not the already paid for median of I-5? NIH?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 10th, 2011 at 7:08 pm
Because using the median of the proposed highway passes right through all the population centers between Victorville and Palmdale.
synonymouse Reply:
April 10th, 2011 at 7:14 pm
And this route has more patronage potential than express Bay Area to Lalaland?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
April 10th, 2011 at 7:27 pm
No but 60 miles of track through the middle of nowhere connects most of California to Las Vegas.
Spokker Reply:
April 10th, 2011 at 7:15 pm
I didn’t even think it would have any stops between Victorville and Palmdale.
Alon Levy Reply:
April 10th, 2011 at 8:48 pm
There are no population centers between Victorville and Palmdale. Logically, statements of the form “for all X” are always true if X’s do not exist.
Inspired by D.P. Lubic’s April 10th post at 6:50 a.m., I have a vision for why we should build high-speed rail, and why California is the right state for the job.
I’m going to repost part of my reply to the Urbanophile post from October 15, 2010, “What’s killing California?”
I do have a theory on what has kept much of California so dynamic despite its market and tax disadvantages.
California’s motto is “Eureka” (I have found it.) A more apt motto is “Why the hell not?”
What California has been exceptionally good at doing is trying our hand at stupid, waste-of-time endeavors and turning them into blockbuster successes.
Southern California, once a prodigious agricultural growing region, uprooted its fertile soil to replace it with an urban land form we now know as sprawl. “We’ll starve and run out of water.” Southern Californians said “Why the hell not?” It turned out that we traded agriculture for comparatively higher-value industrial production — the kind that gave birth to a web of interconnected businesses — we were able to buy food, and per-capita water usage was lower than agricultural demands even with an influx of people.
Both the Bay Area and Southern California invested heavily in seaports in the hopes of bolstering state-made exports. “California doesn’t make enough goods for other places to buy.” Californians said “Why the hell not?” and for a while it did help our exports. Over time, economic values became higher and our goods became more expensive. It turned out that our seaports became useful for importing goods, and this has helped us gain higher-value logistics knowledge that’s becoming ever more vital.
California saw that the automobile was going to be a big deal and became one of the early adopters of the limited-access highway system. “We have trains and planes to go long distances and roads already connect our homes to our job sites.” California said “Why the hell not?” Our highways helped gain access to jobs and recreational opportunities, and added tremendous value to homes and land, and California also became the nation’s — and one of the world’s biggest car markets. Our love for automobiles has also tipped the hands of carmakers to make cleaner, more fuel-efficient cars.
Some farmers in San Francisco’s northern hinterlands figured the land and climate was ideal for growing grapes and making wine. “But the people who drink wine can have the world’s finest from France, Italy or Germany. Average Americans are too thrifty or ‘upright’ to be caught drinking wine, namely a cheaply made version. You have to be insane to think people will want to choose Napa Valley over Bordeaux.” The growers said “Why the hell not? There’s bound to be a market for our wines locally or within the state.” We now how this turned out, and the world has more wine than ever primarily because every winemaking region on the globe thinks it will be the next Napa Valley.
California’s boldest “Why the hell not?” moment came when taxpayers were asked to approve a Master Plan for Higher Education. California dared itself to build a statewide network of four-year schools from the Oregon to the Mexican border to guarantee that any California student who got at least a B average in primary school a college education. California then complemented the universities with more than 100 community colleges to give any adult who wanted one a college education.
This was a hard sell in its time. The main criticisms were that the state essentially creating a mass market for college degrees would debase the value of a college education. It would drive out private institutions of learning like Stanford and USC. It would also be very expensive to provide this education, and furthermore, it would only turn out students with no jobs waiting for them.
The California model of public education may have given taxpayers the best public investment ever. The higher education system brought in jobs and then some. It has raised the standards of living for millions of Californians. The value of a college degree had not been debased, and the research output has proven to be top-notch academically.
This “Why the hell not?” spirit of California has imposed the biggest burdens on California, but it has also enriched millions not only in state, but around the world.
I see that high-speed rail will be California’s next “why the hell not?” endeavor. It just follows the Golden State’s track record (pun semi-intended).
If we didn’t get 78 cents per dollar we put into the federal system while siphoning off our tax money to hick states like Mississippi who get $2.02 per dollar, we wouldn’t be in this budget mess in the first place.
Can’t we just like, split off from the Union and become the California Republic again? Things would be much more easier if we didn’t have to use Californian tax money to help build Interstates like in nowhere North Dakota or clean up the oil spills in the Gulf Coast. Tax money Californians pay should all go back to California.
Donk Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 8:22 am
Maybe we would have been better off if the South won the Civil War.
Peter Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 8:27 am
Right, because slavery is a good thing.
Donk Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 12:08 pm
That obviously was not what I was referring to.
Peter Reply:
April 11th, 2011 at 12:15 pm
;)