Republican Governors Decline Federal Funds for High-Speed Rail

on February 18, 2011 at 9:38 AM

train President Obama sets aside large chunks of change in his 2012 budget for research and development in high-speed railroads. Because throwing billions of dollars at a choo-choo train is exactly what it’s going to take to fix the economy and lower those unemployment numbers.

The recently released 2012 budget proposal allocates $53 billion over the next six years for high-speed rail projects across the country. So far, three Republican governors have said ‘no thanks’ to federal funds to implement the trains in their states.

On Wednesday, Florida Governor Rick Scott joined his colleagues in Ohio and Wisconsin in rejecting more than $2 billion from the federal government for the rail project. Scott cited historically optimistic revenue projections and capital cost overruns in his decision. He stated:

The truth is that this project would be far too costly to taxpayers and I believe the risk far outweighs the benefits … higher taxes and more government spending is a recipe for disaster. Government has become addicted to spending beyond its means and we cannot continue this flawed policy … my background is in business, not politics. But you don't have to be an economics expert to understand that if you spend more money than you take in, your business will fail.

Bravo to Governor Scott for turning down funds for a shiny new toy in his state. Thank goodness he has the good sense to recognize that the federal government’s place is not in research and development within the states. High-speed trains are pretty cool (those suckers go over 200 mph), but that’s irrelevant if it’s not profitable. With $14 trillion in national debt, now is not the time to be spending money on high-speed rail.

If high-speed rail is really a valuable, profitable investment in Florida, someone will privately invest in it. Because that person or persons will own it, they will make it as profitable as possible … which means more tax revenue for the state. Wherever there is money to be made, some American will find it, and then reinvest it back into the community.

The government doesn’t need to tinker in technology, because Americans are better at it. We are smart, resourceful, entrepreneurial, and innovative. The government is slow, awkward, and has no incentive to turn a profit. Let’s stop pretending that it’s a good idea for Uncle Sam to invest in new trains rather than pay down our impossibly high debt.

Image via Jon Curnow/Flickr

Filed Under: barack obama, economy, politics, taxes, technology

Like What You Just Read?

Click the "Like" button below to get Jenny Erikson's stories on Facebook.

Comments (20)

katherine.pryde

on Feb 18, 2011 at 10:36 AM

this situation makes me sooooo angry. we are fastly falling behind the rest of the world. no one wants to think about the future, only the right now. high speed rail will not take off in this country thanks the the likes of the oil lobby and big business. the goverment should be responsible for infistructure, we aren't in the times of the great cross continent railroad building now, no company wants to invest in these projects cause they can make faster cheaper money other ways. the whole thing makes me sick.

Report this comment

Nonmember comment from Beth B.

on Feb 18, 2011 at 12:58 PM

I agree with this blog. Everything our government gets involved with ends up costing too much and has unintended consequences. Liberal blogs seem to be way more popular on this site, but thanks for having the nerve to comment on this. Well done.

Nonmember comment from LarryD

on Feb 18, 2011 at 12:59 PM

That money and high speed rail could create up to 25,000 jobs in my state. I think people would like to have jobs. People with jobs spend money, grow the economy, pay taxes, etc..

Nonmember comment from Rocin

on Feb 18, 2011 at 1:27 PM

A solution for Larry's quandary: just give 25,000 people a year's salary; this is cheaper than actually build the rail, and creates the needed jobs, grows the economy, etc. etc., and you don't end up with the need to subsidize a looser transportation system! Voila!!

Nonmember comment from angry_floridian

on Feb 18, 2011 at 1:32 PM

You forgot to mention that members of BOTH parties are working together with US Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood to try and get around Rick Scott's refusal. Florida needs the investment in the infrastructure and the jobs. Besides, I don't know anybody in Florida who actually admits to actually voting for this suspected crook even though he won the election by a "mandate" of 1% (rumor has it that 81,000 voters left the governor blank b/c respectable Republicans couldn't vote for him - I'm still tracking that fact down). Hopefully, Rick Scott takes his cues from Sarah Palin and quits mid-term.

PonyChaser

on Feb 18, 2011 at 2:15 PM

If a state wants a high-speed rail system, let that state pay for it. Don't get me wrong, I love trains, I think they're cool, and I think they might even be a viable alternative to the ridiculousness that is air travel in this country.

But right now, we're looking at a $13TRILLION defecit, and Obama's proposed budget INCREASES that over the next ten years!! There is NO MONEY for the rail system!

We need to be cutting taxes, making it easy and profitable for companies to manufacture goods here, rather than shipping everything to China, Indonesia, etc. We need to be drilling for our own oil, not shipping it in from ever-more hostile countries. We need to start being AMERICANS again, the ones who were fiscally responsible, and who lead the world in innovation and prosperity.

When you can't pay your mortgage or the interest on that mortgage, you don't go out and buy an airplane, which is exactly what this proposal does.

Nonmember comment from John

on Feb 18, 2011 at 2:54 PM

There was a time in this country when 'the government', you know- WE the people, invested in infrastructure; post offices, interstate highways, bridges, etc. because it was the right thing to do to make this country stronger (which all of those things did in addition to creating real jobs). Now today, we have to rationalize that if it can't turn a quick profit, it's not worth doing??? I just visited Europe last month and can say that we are so far behind the curve for this century's green options. Having a capitalistic society doesn't mean that we must be handcuffed to OIL, just because it makes an irresponsible profit. Scott was irresponsible for turning down this opportunity that is VERY MUCH needed in the state of Florida (you know... tourism! His justification is lame and is obviously political). Florida can't afford not to build a useful rail system.

Facebook comment from Brekke Ferguson

on Feb 18, 2011 at 3:44 PM

My first thought when I read this was "Have you actually researched high-speed rail?" Because from your stance, I kind of suspect that you have not. Your argument that "If high-speed rail is really a valuable, profitable investment in Florida, someone will privately invest in it," actually is inaccurate. Private companies do not want to invest in high speed rail because there are high start-up costs; however, that does not make it a less worthy investment. As a couple of other commentors have pointed out, infrastructure is something that the federal government should be concerned with and since interstate travel is very likely with high-speed rail, it falls to the government to be in charge of it.

The fact that high speed rail is cleaner and more efficient and would actually generate real competition for the airlines as well as create jobs seems to escape you. What surprises me is this: even my ultra conservative father thinks that high speed rail is a good idea and something that we should be looking into. It kind of makes me look at the Republican governors who are refusing funds and go, "Wow, you really are just trying to say, 'No' simply because a Democrat thought it was a good idea. Way to act like a five year old!"

Facebook comment from Ashley Castillo

on Feb 19, 2011 at 12:13 PM

High speed rail is expensive and a logistical nightmare to build. It takes the willingness of the people to see it out, a private company wouldn't even bother. I think you can liken high speed rail situation now to the electrification of America a century ago. The government needed to get involved because it was too costly for private companies to start it, but everyone agreed that this new technology was for the better good. Government agencies like the TVA brought electricity to rural america, and that was done during a time of even greater economic depression.