America is WAY behind when it comes to High Speed Rail. Europe and Asia are already reaping the benefits of their systems. Yeah, we have Acela, but Amtrak's Acela is not true HSR, at least, not in my mind. True HSR runs on dedicated tracks, averages faster than 150mph, and runs on voltage from an overhead wire.
Building HSR systems was cheap 30 years ago for the French. It was even cheaper 60 years ago for the Japanese. It's not so cheap for us today, but it will still be cheaper than 30 years from now. And even today, it's way cheaper than just building more freeways.
Besides, the more people using HSR (and public transportation in general) the fewer cars that will be on the road. That will not just lower auto emissions, but it will alleviate traffic jams too. It's a win-win. Whatever cost it takes to build the HSR system would be made up by the added efficiency in the freeways carrying fewer cars.
Right now, with the shift in government, a lot of Stimulus-funded rail projects are in jeopardy. Republican governors are vowing to kill the rail projects. Democratic governors want those unused funds when they are killed.
I think it's unfortunate that Wisconsin killed their HSR project, but at the same time, I hope that money comes to California, so we can get our rail system up and running that much faster.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Monday, October 25, 2010
Small government doesn't work!
It's a popular Conservative/Tea Party belief that smaller government is better government. They believe that the Federal government should be kept weak so as not to threaten the sovereignty of the people.
The problem with that is America has already had two small, central governments already. Both of them failed within a decade. And apparently, both of them have been forgotten by Conservatives.
Before the Constitution was ratified in 1787, the colonies were held together by the Articles of Confederation. The Articles were pretty much a slightly stronger version of NATO. The States had lots of autonomy, and the Federal government, by law, had to beg the states for taxes to support itself. When it was clear to everyone that the federal government could not stand on its own, that's about when the bigger, stronger U.S. Constitution was drawn up.
And then there was the Southern Confederacy, conceived ostensibly for the preservation of State's Rights...Slavery and Cotton notwithstanding. The Confederacy's reason for going to war was because the Federal government, ironically, was imposing its will on the Southern states. The Confederates lost. So now, we have a "federally mandated, top-down, one-size-fits-all, unrestricted, unquestionable" law saying that no person can own another person as property.
For all the Reaganesque talk about "government is the problem", conservatives can't see that it has already failed in the past... twice. They also fail to see that government, with all its flaws, is a great benefit to a great number of people.
The problem with that is America has already had two small, central governments already. Both of them failed within a decade. And apparently, both of them have been forgotten by Conservatives.
Before the Constitution was ratified in 1787, the colonies were held together by the Articles of Confederation. The Articles were pretty much a slightly stronger version of NATO. The States had lots of autonomy, and the Federal government, by law, had to beg the states for taxes to support itself. When it was clear to everyone that the federal government could not stand on its own, that's about when the bigger, stronger U.S. Constitution was drawn up.
And then there was the Southern Confederacy, conceived ostensibly for the preservation of State's Rights...Slavery and Cotton notwithstanding. The Confederacy's reason for going to war was because the Federal government, ironically, was imposing its will on the Southern states. The Confederates lost. So now, we have a "federally mandated, top-down, one-size-fits-all, unrestricted, unquestionable" law saying that no person can own another person as property.
For all the Reaganesque talk about "government is the problem", conservatives can't see that it has already failed in the past... twice. They also fail to see that government, with all its flaws, is a great benefit to a great number of people.
Why didn't they work already?
The Bush Tax Cuts are set to expire this year. Conservatives are saying that if they expire, it will be the biggest tax hike in history, and it will come at exactly the wrong time. Liberals say that extending the tax cuts is ok, but not for anyone earning over a quarter of a million dollars per year
The Bush Tax Cuts were enacted before the current recession. The cuts, which were already in place, failed to keep the economy from falling off the cliff. So, if they are such a good thing, why didn't they work? Why didn't they prevent the current recession?
That's the one reason that makes me think letting them expire is a good idea. Despite what you may think about the government, and taxes, the government needs money right now. And the only way they are going to get it is by raising taxes.
The Bush Tax Cuts were enacted before the current recession. The cuts, which were already in place, failed to keep the economy from falling off the cliff. So, if they are such a good thing, why didn't they work? Why didn't they prevent the current recession?
That's the one reason that makes me think letting them expire is a good idea. Despite what you may think about the government, and taxes, the government needs money right now. And the only way they are going to get it is by raising taxes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)