Comments on: Drake votes with the majority for high speed rail

By: Genevieve Moilien

Genevieve Moilien — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 20:12:01 +0000

I would like to say, nice site. Im not sure if it has been addressed, but when using Safari I can never get the entire blog to load without refreshing several times. Could just be my router. Thanks

By: Drake Votes to Subsidize High Speed Rail

Drake Votes to Subsidize High Speed Rail — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 12:51:55 +0000

[...] Thelma Drake voted this week to “improve high-speed rail today.” Translation – Drake voted for a fat subsidy to [...]

By: Stephen Gunter

Stephen Gunter — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:47:38 +0000

I can’t say whether or not the Apollo program was a waste. I haven’t studied it. Sorry.

By: Jeremy Hinton

Jeremy Hinton — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:33:59 +0000

No, you miss the point. If something is a necessity, it will be built without government doing it because to not build it would be catastrophic.

You think so? Even if there is no direct profit motivator? Sure, avoidance of ‘catastrophe’ can be seen as ameliorating risk, but a real profit motivator to inspire an entrepreneur?

So i take it then you think the Apollo program was a total waste of taxpayer money? Certainly not a necessity, would never have been undertaken by an individual state, and no clear profit motivator for entrepreneurial focus.

By: Stephen Gunter

Stephen Gunter — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:35:03 +0000

And if the government HAS to do it, it should be limited to only that necessity. And it should be built, not by the Fed, but by the state.

By: Stephen Gunter

Stephen Gunter — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:33:17 +0000

No, you miss the point. If something is a necessity, it will be built without government doing it because to not build it would be catastrophic.

By: Brian Kirwin

Brian Kirwin — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:58:54 +0000

Stephen, you said necessities would be developed without government intervention. Now you disagree with yourself?

By: Stephen Gunter

Stephen Gunter — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:26:52 +0000

I would never crap on your god, Brian! Of course the military is necessary. It’s necessary for defense of our country.

Jeremy, there’s a simple test for deciding if something is a necessity. What would happen if that object were not there? If it not being built would be a catastrophe, then it’s a necessity. But if anything is a necessity, it can be built by others than the government. Look at our transit system! It’s a mess!

Now, I don’t know who funded LAX, or the other airports, but I’m sure if they were privately owned, they would work just fine. I’m sure that people like to protect their investments, especially if it’s their own capital, or the real capital of investors.

By: Brian Kirwin

Brian Kirwin — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:48:20 +0000

“If it were such a necessity, then it would have been developed by some entrepreneurial spirit without government intervention.”

By that definition, the military isn’t a necessity.

By: Jeremy Hinton

Jeremy Hinton — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 19:45:44 +0000

Stephen, you’re right – it can be argued the Interstate Highway system was not a “neccesity”. The same could be said for the Transcontinental Railroad, the Erie and Panama canals, the Hoover and Grand Coulee dams, LAX, Atlanta and other public airports, among thousands of ACoE and other public works projects.

I do believe though that if we waited for “some entrepreneurial spirit without government intervention” to finance and build the many bridge/tunnels that knit this area in to such a prosperous community, we’d still be riding the ferry from Fort Monroe to Willoughby Spit. I would think that if anyone understands the communal benefits of public works infrastructure, it would be the residents of Hampton Roads.

By: Stephen Gunter

Stephen Gunter — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 16:16:27 +0000

If it were such a necessity, then it would have been developed by some entrepreneurial spirit without government intervention. I think you’re confusing need and want.

By: J.R.

J.R. — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:33:01 +0000

Stephen,
You’re looking at this very narrowly, which, knowing your politics, doesn’t surprise me all that much.

High Speed Rail, much like the interstate highway system, is a necessity to providing continued access and distribution for a host of goods and services. Hence, there’s a role for government…the only question is how much of a role.

By: Nick Howard

Nick Howard — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:11:12 +0000

I think “reforming Amtrak” is a bit of a stretch. A more accurate description would be “the Costliest Bailout in Amtrak’s 40 Years of Federal Subsidies” (http://www.heritage.org/Research/SmartGrowth/wm1949.cfm) or “taking $12.8 billion over the next five years from the many to provide for the few”.

Additionally, the high speed rail part of the bill is “only” (as far as I could tell) $1.75 billion over the next five years, so it may be accurate that there is a high speed rail portion of the bill, but it’s hardly the focus.

If this bill “revolutionize(s) passenger rail transportation” I’ll eat my hat. It’s just more of the same from the big spenders in DC.

By: Stephen Gunter

Stephen Gunter — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:11:31 +0000

How do they expect to pay for it? I can’t even afford to fill up my gas tank hardly, so why would I want to shell out more in taxes to fund something that the government will screw up?

By: Ragnar

Ragnar — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 11:45:29 +0000

Good on ya Rep Drake! I’ve long been a supporter of high speed rail, but was never sure that it made financial sense (Amtrak has not survived w/o government subsidies). however, with gas prices out of control I think the pre-requisites may finally be in place for America to embrace this mode of transportation.