Home / Blogs / Energy / Intelligent Energy
Follow this blog:
RSS

Where should rejected high-speed rail funds go?

By | November 17, 2010, 4:00 AM PST

The Obama Administration’s decision to award $10 billion to high-speed rail projects across the U.S. has fueled debate over the worthiness of some of the projects. Some governors and state representatives have rejected the proposed railways within their borders as too expensive or ill-conceived. But they are “stuck” with the money. As of now, allocating the funds to other infrastructure or transportation endeavors is not allowed.

This hasn’t stopped state leaders from offering thoughts of where the money might be better suited.

Not keen on a Tampa-Orlanda high-speed railway, Florida Congressman John Mica (R) told the Associated Press recently he thinks the federal funds should go to the Northeast Corridor, where ridership is more likely.

Yesterday, Congressmen from Wisconsin, Jim Sensenbrenner (R), Paul Ryan (R) and Tom Petri (R), introduced a bill that would allow states to return their funds. The project in their state is for rail between Milwaukee and Madison, part of a larger rail system that would connect Chicago and Minneapolis. Calling the high-speed rail budget a “boondoggle,” they ask the government to direct the money toward the national deficit.

California policymakers have a different idea. In a letter yesterday, Senators Barbara Boxer (D) and Dianne Feinstein (D) asked Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood to give the unwanted funds to the high-speed rail endeavor in their state. Running 800 miles between San Diego and San Fransisco, the project’s estimated cost, AP reports, is $43 billion.

From the letter:

It has come to our attention that several states plan to cancel their high-speed rail projects. We ask that you withdraw the Federal grants to these states and award the funds to states that have made a strong financial commitment to these very important infrastructure projects.

California voters have committed over $9 billion in bonds to high-speed rail, putting our state in a unique position to advance this initiative quickly.

Should such a request be granted, states within the Northeast Corridor may want to speak up, get their share.

Related on SmartPlanet:

Image: Flickr_sinkdd

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Melissa Mahony

About Melissa Mahony

Melissa Mahony was a contributing editor for SmartPlanet from 2010 to 2011.

Melissa Mahony

Melissa Mahony

Contributing Editor, Energy

Melissa Mahony has written for Scientific American Mind, Audubon Magazine, Plenty Magazine and LiveScience. Formerly, she was an editor at Wildlife Conservation magazine. She holds degrees from Boston College and New York University's Science, Health, and Environmental Reporting Program. She is based in New York.

Follow her on Twitter.

Melissa Mahony

Melissa Mahony

Melissa does not have financial holdings that would influence how or what she covers. She currently works for the Wildlife Conservation Society as an editor. Should Melissa cover a topic in which the WCS is involved, she will disclose this fact in her writing.

She writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
40
Comments
Add Your Opinion

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
+1 Vote
+ -
I'd regect it to.
Tampa to Orlando is only 80 miles. Milwaukee to Madison is only 80 miles. A 200 mph train is a waste on such short runs. Under ideal conditions a train will take 10 miles to get up to top speed. Again, conditions permitting, the trains would only run at top speed for 60 miles before they have to start slowing down.

The Acela trains are capable of 150 mph, but its best operational speed to date is an average 80 mph on the 225-mile New York to Washington DC run. A train costing half as much to build and maintain could do that speed. They bought the trains, but never upgraded the tracks. What a waste.

For comparison, Japan's high-speed train Shinkansen averages 125mph, France's TGV trains average 173mph, while Germany's high-speed trains run at 153mph.

These people need to be looking at trips longer than 300 miles. Medium ranged air travel is their natural competition.
Posted by Hates Idiots
17th Nov 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
How about fixing what we have?
Seems to me our Government officials seem to skip over the fact that our rails,highways and bridges we have already need fixing and our not. But yet we feel the need to build new projects which we may have funding for now. But what is going to happen to it down the road? Will it end up like our current infastructure? Its great for the Politicians to brag about. But it begs the question who will pay to keep it up?
Posted by jscott418
17th Nov 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Where should rejected high-speed rail funds go?
Give to NJ, so they can build another tunnel under the Hudson River
Posted by mariozavala
17th Nov 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Where should rejected high-speed rail funds go?
Give it back and don't spend it.
Posted by nbjme
17th Nov 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
Weird map
It seems to be that the point of a railroad network is about
connections, and the map shown is not connected at all.
Something is worng with the picture or wrong with the concept of
a railroad. Look at France's railroad network for instance:
http://www.cosmovisions.com/cartes/VL/072a.htm
Oh wait, that map was from 1910!

Here's a more updated map:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/06/Carte
_r%C3%A9seau_grandes_lignes_radiales_fr.svg/400px-
Carte_r%C3%A9seau_grandes_lignes_radiales_fr.svg.png

Anyway, my point is about creating a network, not a few junctions.
Posted by Vahidm
17th Nov 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Where should rejected high-speed rail funds go?
I get (and to an extent agree with) the points on speed-to-
distance-versus-cost, revitalizinging existing rails, etc. But I think
one thing is missing in terms of whether or not to invest in these
projects; and that is the balance in dealing with vertical issues.

Among the benefits of these projects would be:
- improvements to state infrastructures (which states have difficulty
funding)
- decreased roadway conjestion/auto accident rates/roadway
maintance costs(over time)
- sets the stage for more/better interstate transportation options
- addresses air quality issues (to a degree) in metro areas
- and addresses everyone's hot topic of the day: jobs, jobs, jobs

All that said, I also agree with the assertion that these projects
need to be done in a way that makes use
of/replaces/upgrades/supplements existing resources in a manner
that makes sense in the states that are affected. There has been
enough in wasteful spending. However, done properly, these type
of infrastructure projects do have huge potential to give our
country and economy a boost that it needs and is not a
throwaway like what the financial sector has gotten the past two
years.
Posted by codemasterj@...
17th Nov 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Where should rejected high-speed rail funds go?
BTW, if the network looks centralized around Paris, it's by design.
Centralized is how France does it.
Posted by Vahidm
17th Nov 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Where should rejected high-speed rail funds go?
So, California will also build another boon doggle with high speed rail between Bakersfield and Fresno. There is no way that high speed rail will find a suitable right-of-way into downtown Los Angeles. The existing right-of-way through Glendale is less than 50 yards wide and is already loaded with over 60 commuter trains daily. I suspect that it could simply stay out in the dessert and bypass LA entirely with a straight shot to San Diego, otherwise, it will be bogged down with extremely slow speeds around LA negating its effectiveness.
-jk
Posted by ad.groups@...
17th Nov 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Where should rejected high-speed rail funds go?
What a bunch of short-sighted politicians! I boggles the mind to see such short-sightedness.
Here in Northern Virginia, we could desperately use these funds for mass transit! We are currently in the process of expanding metro to suburban neighborhoods, and one 8 mile stretch with 3 stations will cost over 3 billion dollars with a cost over-run estimate of at least 5 billion to even 8 billion dollars! And this is not even an underground rail...it's an above ground on an already graded space between two highways! So, I can't imagine what 10 billion dollars will get you...an additional 8 miles perhaps?
And what is probably the most short-sighted move in all of history...the W&OD rail. This *WAS* a two rail, railway line that ran from Washington DC to West Virginia, traveling through such towns as Arlington, Vienna, Herndon, Reston, Sterling, Leesburg, Purcellville, Harper Ferry...This already graded and established railway line with several bridges was demolished in the 70s to put up a bicycle path where travelers get raped and attacked on a regular basis. Meanwhile, we are spending tens of billions of dollars building an above rail metro through neighborhoods...go figure...stupid politicians!
Posted by tech_ed@...
17th Nov 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Where should rejected high-speed rail funds go?
Can you say Big Dig? These projects are like bottomless money pits, sure to go over budget and to forever need taxpayer subsidies to keep running.
Posted by philwhite42@...
17th Nov 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Where should rejected high-speed rail funds go?
I am starting to think that US citizens will have no choice but high speed rail. If people want to fly they now have the choice of being groped or exposed to radiation (even if the levels are miniscule there is a growing fear that there is a risk) I feel that the Obama administration is using the TSA to push people off air travel and towards alternate means of travel.
I know it sounds like a whack job conspiracy theory but I can not find any legitimate reasoning that the TSA is doing the things they do.
I have been thinking about this for a few days now and even though many people blame Bush for the TSA it seems that things have been turned up to 11 under the Obama administration.

So I started digging. Is the US less safe under Obama than it was under Bush meriting the need to take TSA to the hilt ? I don't think so.

What about the backlash against TSA and airlines, thousands of people are now claiming they will not fly if the TSA continues it's course. Okay what if people really do quit flying, they then have three choices; drive, bus, or train. Well we know people will slit their wrists before taking a bus. Driving is the antithesis of what lazy travelers want. This leaves the train, coincidentally Obama is trying to slam through billions of tax payer dollars on high speed rail, yet anyone who can choose flight vs rail chooses flight. What happens when the TSA has alienated people from flying ? It pushes them into Obamas high speed rail scheme !

Obama is ramping up TSA "alertness" and aggressiveness to drive people away from air travel and into train travel to justify his asinine high speed rail agenda. You heard it here first.

To be sure being harassed by TSA and exposed to either backscatter or millimieter wave technology could easily be replaced by a friendly TSA rep. using a handheld metal detector and a Beagle trained to sniff out explosives. No fear, no danger, no threat. So why are the more aggressive measures bing used instead, when there are hundreds of ways to do it that are better and less expensive.
Posted by thedudeistoocool@...
17th Nov 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
jwknight1@truvista.net
If various states don't want the high speed connection then improve their slow speed connectivity with locations that will have high speed terminals. The nation desires no requires high speed rail. An example of my point: Columbia, South Carolina is a small city in a small state but is close to Charlotte, North Carolina. Place the high speed connectivity in Charlotte and connect it to Atlanta and [Charloote] to some northern hubs. Also connect Columbia to Atlanta and Atlanta to points south [in Florida and west such as say a hub in Mississippi and from there to Dallas, Tx. From Miss. and Dallas to points west and north. Others would be improved slow speed connections to hubs. Period.
Posted by jwknight
17th Nov 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Where should rejected high-speed rail funds go?
The US has a nationwide slow speed rail service, AMTRAK.
We don't need another money pit to throw money into.
Cancel any and all 'High' speed rail projects, returning any appropriated funds to the USTreasury.
Posted by WSHBaker@...
17th Nov 2010
-1 Votes
+ -
RE: Where should rejected high-speed rail funds go?
Take the money, put it into the high risk stock market funds, and if they pick the right winners the profit can be used by the state for whatever they want, and if it is all lost it was not "their" money so it does not matter to "them" and it has been used to fuel the free enterprise system!

Realisitcally they cannot do that, but they could deposit it into any bank and earn interest on the money for a few decades and that money they can then use for whatever they want until the Federal Government asks for it back.
A few billion dollars put into a COD earning 2% a year would allow me to retire in 1 year.
Posted by TAPhilo
17th Nov 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Where should rejected high-speed rail funds go?
The Country needs a new Cross Country HIGH SPEED Land Transporter. Lets develop and build one that goes about 500 MPH. Deploy it first for cross country, and in parallel build feeders to all major cities, that go about 300 MPH. Land based, electric powered, high speed transport system is the way to go. Quit calling them "trains". America can and will be the world leader in Land Transport Systems, again. And yes, it will take a Federal program to do it, much like the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System. Once developed, then the system could be made half government owned and half public owned. Fees would be kept down using an M & R budget only, with new additions fully developed and paid by the Federal Government, which would own the "right of way" and crew development including training, salaries, and related overhead, for safety purposes.

Use the superfluous funds given to the "Defense" Department that ends up wasted on 135 foreign bases. American is in an "ECONOMIC" war now, not a physical, Mano on Mano war. So logically a major portion of this budget should be used to fight this very serious economic war, and not used to be world cop any longer.

randomotion@yahoo.com
Posted by randomotion
17th Nov 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Where should rejected high-speed rail funds go?
Wake up Americans! These funds do not exist as the government is running a deficit (I hope you know what this is) and it will be up to the Federal Reserve to create the funds which are simply inflationary. There is no easy out now and unfortunately it will take the filing of bankruptcy before we as a nation can start once again to do things related to government programs/funding correctly.
Posted by dgage19558@...
17th Nov 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Where should rejected high-speed rail funds go?
People who keep saying, "Don't spend" don't realize that not
spending is anti-capitalistic - spending is how we get out of trouble
in the US. Not spending halts progress and growth, and the size of
the problem is proportional with the growth of the population. It is
not proportional with the size of the infrastructure though - and by
this I mean that if we don't pay attention to modernizing
infrastructure, we will find higher unemployment rates, lower
personal spending, higher taxes to cover the problems caused by a
stale, regressive economy and no progressive way to get to work.
We will fall further behind in public transportation and we'll no
longer be the largest economy in the world. Who wants that?
Remember, if 300 million people spend a small amount daily, a lot
of money moves annually.

That all said, I agree that personally 'not spending' is wise, if we buy
critically - don't buy junk, don't take free gifts (encouraging more
junk to be made)... - because every time we buy some new gadget,
we encourage industry to make another one that nobody needs
which has led to planned obsolescence gone wild and landfill
crowding. Having stronger individual asset bases is better for the
country, but you don't let the roof cave in, and you don't drive a
vehicle that gets 8mpg so you can save more money, because in
the end you will have wasted it. Same thing with trains - we let the
opportunity go again and we will suffer in the world economy. The
people who believe train systems are un-viable 'boondoggles' have
no faith in the ability of our industry which is pretty sad for good
citizens too used to making excuses. When the tide finally turns
politically, we suddenly find thousands, tens of thousands and soon
millions of, say, Electric vehicles being made. TRAINS are the same
thing - if we commit to them and make them a necessary part of the
plan for our future, they will succeed (and of course, don't let the
auto industry buy any of them and put 'em out of business). Is
there a collective depression taking over or what? People are
acting like there's no money out there. It's all under mattresses
right now while politicians act like it's vaporized and whip up anti-
progress sentiment and try to take us back to the 'good 'ol days'.

Where should the money go? INTO TRAINS. Yes, fix existing
infrastructure, but also build new high speed systems to get people
where they need to go without adding more cars and pollution. I
suggest creating a fund with the rejected funds that would support
R&D and additional projects to be sure the systems are
completed... and by that I mean completely completed.
Posted by afrancis99
17th Nov 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Where should rejected high-speed rail funds go?
Found it interesting to see ABC News promote China's new 4,600 mile high-speed train. As if the US needs to take a lesson from how China was able to accomplish this in record time.

Well of course they were. Much like our cross-country rail of the 1800's, remember the Golden Spike that joined a country by rail? They were able to accomplish this because they do NOT have the likes of Greenpeace, Sierra Club, NRDC, EDF, EPA, and a zillion little city, county, state governments getting in their way!

Now I'm all for the afore mentioned environmental orgs and the work they do. In fact I'm a member of each NGO. But we need to recognize there are huge issues that all but prevent a national high-speed rail system in this country that others do not face.
Posted by jpouchet
17th Nov 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
Some 'High-Speed' Rail Projects are Not.
Ohio was awarded $400 Million for a Rail Project from Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati. It turns out much of the line will be on existing shared rail and speeds will only average 50 miles per hour. So the newly elected Governor said no way and will cancel it before construction starts. If this were truly high-speed on dedicated lines I could see building it. But how many people would use this? If those people who believe in China-style or France-style high speed rail, we need to get Private Investors in the game.
Posted by vbprgrmr@...
17th Nov 2010
-1 Votes
+ -
RE: Where should rejected high-speed rail funds go?
Give to other states that make use of it for the intended purpose. Then tell the states that rejected it to stop hijacking their regular highway funds for earmarks, pet projects and "bridges to nowhere".
Posted by CptMatt
17th Nov 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
jpouchet: Good points; also don't forget the unions...
that will benefit greatly from any new government funded projects, especially with the funding of the projects being allocated by people like Obama and the democrats who depend upon the unions to get elected.

The federal government might have reserved $10 billion in funding for high-speed rail, but, with the way unions work, if a job was scheduled for completion in 5 years, you can count on the union dragging out to 10 or more, and if the funding allocated by the feds was to be $10 billion, and matching funds from the states brought it to around $20 billion, you can count on that too becoming double the amount and very likely, a lot more, so that, by completion of the projects, the tally would likely be more around $60 dollars or higher. What happened with the big dig in Boston should be an example of what's likely to happen with the high-speed rail projects.
Posted by adornoe@...
17th Nov 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Where should rejected high-speed rail funds go?
I would take high speed rail over airlines any day, assuming comparable cost and destinations. After getting semi strip searched at an airport for the 'crime' of having a one-way ticket, I routinely opt to drive for 8-hours instead of fly for 2-hours. Airline travel sucked before all of the added security, baggage charges, and charges for crappy food. I do not understand the opposition to building out infrastructure for new technology that will improve our lives. I think our politicians are too wedded to special interest money coming from old technology companies.
Posted by josmyth
17th Nov 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
josmyth: If enough people were to switch to high-speed rail, the problem
of strip searching and groping of people would just get transferred to the high-speed rail systems.

Terrorists target the areas were they could cause the most damage and harm and get the most publicity. High speed rail might become a very attractive target if it became a big challenge to the airline industry.

And, hey, I fail to see how rail would improve our lives. There are things we can do to improve our experiences at the airports. We don't need to spend some 50 or 60 billion dollars for what might amount to very limited benefits.

What can we do to improve our experiences at the airports? Well, we can do what the Israelis already do, and their system has not had even an attempted terror attack on the air. In the U.S. (and other countries), we insist on being politically correct and we can't profile anybody entering airports, and so, we opt to strip search everybody, even little children and very elderly people. We already know what group of people are the most likely to target airports and airliners. But, we'd rather build airport infrastructure which is very costly and very personally invasive. The Israelis already have the methods and structure we can adopt and that, eventually, most people will eventually accept.

Having said all of that, I doubt that people will leave their cars and their quick plane trips to get on high-speed rail.
Posted by adornoe@...
17th Nov 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
No @afrancis99...
...I think you are the one who is confused. It's the massive mis-
allocation of capital by state borrowing, printing, forcibly taking
other people's money to spend on non-viable mega boondoggles
that is "anti-capitalistic".

And @adornoe, remember that China doesn't even have to "buy"
the land that it needs for it's rail projects. They simply take the
land they require, and move the previous inhabitants to cheap
housing or camps somewhere else.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
17th Nov 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Where should rejected high-speed rail funds go?
Just another government boondoggle where everybody pays for something only 10-20% of the people will use.
The only time they can say "No!" is when it's proposed by the opposite party.
Posted by sirpaul2
17th Nov 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Where should rejected high-speed rail funds go?
High speed rail has been acknowledged as an important component to our National transportation system for decades and it is not a partisan issue.
Two thirds of US citizens polled, are in favor of it. See "Study: two-thirds of travelers will use high-speed rail" in "Related on Smart Planet" above. That article also addresses common sense things what people want in high speed rail.
The federal money being offered to states is to start a National high speed rail system, and the segments are not intended to be stand alone. Look at the map that accompanies this article to see the bigger picture proposed for the National high speed rail system .
Presumably the cities identified, for example Tampa - Orlando, and state planning agencies were involved in deciding where the initial projects should go. Rejecting the money to start this system should not be arbitrarily decided by politicians. This is the beginning of a national system. However, any money rejected by a state should go to those which wish to participate in this National system.
Posted by rudy2d
17th Nov 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
Bakersfield to Fresno.
Another pointless 80 mile run. What is their obsession with that distance? The people running this effort truely have no clue what they are doing.
Posted by Hates Idiots
17th Nov 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Where should rejected high-speed rail funds go?
Back to the US Treasury.
Posted by AtlantaTerry
17th Nov 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
Take a good look at the map. What??
Everything on the map *seems* to go North/South. There is no plan to go coast to coast. Heck even back in the 1800s the railroad barons knew an East/West system was their key to growth!

Once again, just by looking at the map one can see no one is in charge inside the beltway that has their Thinking Cap on!
Posted by AtlantaTerry
17th Nov 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
Looking at the Map All Wrong
You are the ones looking at the map all wrong. Back in the 1800's, railroads were the only means to get around, so they had cover the whole country. North-south, east-west. This high speed rail proposal is a regional concept, not cross country. It meant to have trains supplant airlines on regional trips under 500 miles, where they could be faster and more convenient than a plane.

If you look at the map, most of the lines are north-south because the states or 500 mile regions they are covering are mostly north-south (i.e. the Northeast corridor, Florida, California, etc). If you look at the Midwest map, it radiates out in all directions from Chicago (St Louis, Detroit, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, etc).

But, of course, it makes sense that the incoming legislators would want to shoot down high speed rail, just like they've tried with Amtrak for years. They don't take trains and rail might hurt the bottom lines of their oil and airline industry campaign contributors.
Posted by CptMatt
17th Nov 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Where should rejected high-speed rail funds go?
What makes you think that he Grand Oil Party would say no to trains?
Posted by rudy2d
17th Nov 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Where should rejected high-speed rail funds go?
Our proposed "Cow Speed Rail" is a complete waste. Sure our outgoing Gov. Doyle has already spent $100M on "infrastructure" with nothing to show for it. We had trains back in the 50's and got rid of them for a reason. There is no logic having to pay $45.00/person (plus our tax $$$ subsidies) to take a train 90 minutes when I can take my family of 5 the same amount of time and still save $180.00 with the remaining $45 filling my gas tank. we had a town inquireing about putting a station fir the proposed line, when they asked how much $$$$? they were sumarily rejected. Ask a hard question, you get frozen out! The L in Chicago has a huge number of riders and they Still are going bankrupt, what makes you think an 80 mile choo choo in WI would fare any better? Thanks GOVERNOR Walker and Rep Paul Ryan, for looking out for the States Best Interest, A welcome change from our departing morons.
Posted by Waltg@...
17th Nov 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Where should rejected high-speed rail funds go?
The answer is easy: Back to the government. However, that is the wrong question. The question should be: If you do not have a highspeed rail system and/or ready to deploy plan, then why should you get any money in the first place? That is the real question!
Posted by windozefreak
17th Nov 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Where should rejected high-speed rail funds go?
1. Pay down debt.
2. Give it back to those from whom it was deducted in the first place.
Posted by bb_apptix
18th Nov 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Where should rejected high-speed rail funds go?
dgage19558 is completely correct.

These funds do not exist, as the government is running a deficit.
Posted by bb_apptix
18th Nov 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Where should rejected high-speed rail funds go?
The rejected funds should be returned to those from whom they were stolen in the first place, followed by prosecution of the thieves. Who would really be wanting to ride a train at any speed from downtown Detroit to Grand Rapids?

I have actually used semi high speed trains in England and they were very nice. There you have a high density population in a small country of people who did not get private cars in large numbers until after 1950. The natural result was a highly developed rail system. The difficulty of driving, let alone finding a place to park, in a city like London, or for that matter any city dating from the middle ages, such as I encountered when driving in Italy, makes the auto less useful than it is here. We do live here and our transportation system has evolved to fit our conditions and culture just as their systems have evolved to suit theirs. There really is no validity to pointing at what exists in some other country.
Posted by ssco00
18th Nov 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Where should rejected high-speed rail funds go?
I would personally like to see the rejected funds applied against the federal deficit.
Posted by redcaboosejr@...
20th Nov 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
redcaboosejr: I hope you understand that, the rail funding never really
existed.

The "funding" was just more deficit spending, and it could never be applied to the deficit or national debt to bring them down.

Now, once a budget for spending is "approved" or made available, it's very hard to put it back where it came from, especially when the money never existed, and more especially when government is involved. Once funding is approved and people come to believe that it's unused money that is still available, then it will continue to exist, but only as far as politicians and government are concerned. Deficit spending has become synonymous with spending of "real and available" funds, and once the money is deemed available, it's going to be used on something, even if that something is completely unrelated to the original intent.

When money is appropriated, whether it came from deficit spending or from real assets or revenue, it will be spent for the project it was intended, but if the original project is canceled for whatever reason, then that funding will be treated as "unused" assets which politicians will steer to some other project, even if they have to dream up that new project.

If one were to do as you actually suggested, then the best one could hope for is to reduce the deficit by the amount that the deficit would have grown. Deficit funding is basically playing with monopoly money. It's not really there, but, if it's used, it will just grow the deficit.
Posted by adornoe@...
20th Nov 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Where should rejected high-speed rail funds go?
Deficit spending may be an investment. Why should the government be constrained from making investments any more than any other entity? The money that Eisenhower used to build the interstate highway system was deficit spending that has paid us back many times over in the decades since it was built.
Posted by riverat1
23rd Nov 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
California
As a California resident, I'm all for that money coming to CA's high-speed rail project. We're in serious need of a fast railway linking north and south, and we're all set to do it.
Posted by LeonBA
16th Dec 2010
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!

Join Login

Keep Up with SmartPlanet

SmartPlanet Weekly Newsletter
SmartPlanet Weekly Newsletter

Facebook Activity

View Results

Quick Poll

How is your organization connecting and engaging to become social?

View Results

Blog Archive