High Speed Rail Battle

Wisconsin has become a battleground over the Obama administration’s plan to create a national system of high-speed rail. Of the $8 billion in HSR grants awarded to the states in the stimulus bill, $810 million of it went toward a high-speed route between Milwaukee and Madison.

Ironically, this Wisconsin “high-speed” route would only achieve speeds of 79 mph initially and 110 mph by 2016. As a Cato essay on high-speed rail points out, HSR aficionados don’t even consider 110 mph to be true high-speed. In fact, passenger trains were being run at speeds of 110 mph or more back in the 1930s. And those “high-speed” trains didn’t prevent the decline of passenger trains after World War II.

The Cato essay also notes that the 85-mile line between Milwaukee and Madison “is only a tiny portion of the eventual planned route from Chicago to Minneapolis, and no one knows who will pay the billions necessary to complete that route.” In fact, to build a national system of true high-speed rail on the 12,800 mile network envisioned by the administration, the cost could be close to $1 trillion.

Where would the money come from? State governments are hoping that it would be all from federal taxpayers. As we recently discussed, the states’ interest in grabbing new federal HSR money has dropped now that Congress is requiring a 20 percent state match:

The states already have dedicated revenue sources for federal highway aid matching requirements (also 20 percent). With state tax revenues flat due to the recession, where would the money come from to pay for high-speed rail projects? Proposing new taxes to fund high-speed rail would probably be political suicide. And most state policymakers recognize that shifting money away from more popular programs to pay for high-speed rail won’t be any more politically rewarding.

The issue is even affecting elections in states that are in line to receive federal funding for high-speed rail. Scott Walker, a Republican candidate for governor in Wisconsin, recently said he’d send back the $810 million in stimulus funds the state has received for a rail line between Madison and Milwaukee. Walker appears to understand that his state has more pressing infrastructure needs and that high-speed rail could become a fiscal black hole.

On Tuesday, Walker won the GOP primary to replace outgoing Democratic Governor Jim Doyle, who is an ardent supporter of the Milwaukee-Madison route. Walker’s Democratic opponent, Milwaukee mayor Tom Barrett, supports the route’s construction. According to Stateline.org, the outgoing Doyle administration plans to have $300 million of the money under contract by January, which Walker says he would cancel if elected. (Source: CATO)

Go to the source for the whole argument against building the HSR.  As CATO points out it makes no sense economically to pursue this lame-brain idea.  Especially in the current financial situation.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Obama’s rail plan riding on key governor races (sfgate.com)
• The Cost of High Speed Rail (rhymeswithclown.blogspot.com)

Say Hello to PolitiCrap

This is great news from Charlie at 620 WTMJ.

From the folks who brought you the “Deep Tunnel Awards,” a new political feature: PolitiCrap. We will evaluate political ads, news stories, politicians’ press releases and spin. And, yes, we will also fact check the fact-checkers.

PolitiCrap is a joint effort of the Charlie Sykes show and the conservative Wisconsin blogosphere. More than a dozen bloggers and pundits have agreed to participate in the state’s first conservative fact check — an alternative and a counterpoint to the MSM.

Our fact check will have four catgeories:

Thinking things will be very interesting with this new blogosphere feature.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Mourning in America

(H/T – Charlie)

A very powerful video underscoring the situation at hand.

Powered by ScribeFire.

The Pledge – we’ll take it

The answer is: The pledge is bolder. The Contract with America merely promised to hold votes on popular bills that had been bottled up during decades of Democratic control of the House. The pledge commits Republicans to working toward a broad conservative agenda that, if implemented, would make the federal government significantly smaller, Congress more accountable, and America more prosperous.

The pledge divides its policy commitments into five parts. The first concerns jobs. The Republicans promise to stop tax increases, to require congressional approval of regulations with a large economic impact, and to give small businesses a tax deduction. To our minds, this section of the pledge is the least impressive. The first two policies would merely prevent government from destroying jobs, and the rationale for the third is elusive. (We like small businesses, but other companies generate jobs, too.) Still, these are better economic policies than we are getting from the administration or the current congressional leadership.

The longer-range policies are more compelling. The second section of the pledge promises budget restraint. Domestic discretionary spending would be cut back to “pre-bailout, pre-stimulus” levels, and then its growth would be capped — generating hundreds of billions in savings. The legislative budget, which has grown unjustifiably in recent years, would also be pruned back: Republicans know they cannot cut spending elsewhere if they will not cut spending on themselves. TARP would be ended, as would the federal entanglement with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. A federal hiring freeze would be instituted. And Congress would make “a full accounting of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.” If that means putting their long-term unfunded liabilities on budget, it would be an important first step toward reform.

Third comes health care, where the Republicans say they “will immediately take action to repeal” Obamacare. They also plan to work toward their own health-care reforms, including medical-malpractice reform, freedom to buy health insurance across state lines, and better-funded high-risk pools for people with pre-existing conditions. They also promise to enact a law banning federal funding of abortion. That would strengthen the existing Hyde amendment, which applies only to a portion of federal spending and has to be renewed every year. (Here, too, the pledge goes beyond the Contract, which steered clear of all “social issues.”) (Source: NRO)

Go to the source for the rest of the analysis on the plan.

As pointed out it may not be the perfect plan.  However it is a far better alternative than the current situation of “shove it down there throats” that has been endured under a Democrat majority in Congress.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Full Text: GOP Pledge To America (riehlworldview.com)
• The GOP’s New ‘Pledge’: Reduce Spending, Cut Taxes (politics.blogs.foxnews.com)