Login
or
Register
Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
Passenger
»
California HSR, why was it approved?
Edit post
Edit your reply below.
Post Body
Enter your post below.
<p>[quote user="Phoebe Vet"]</p> <p><span style="color:#800000;">Conceptually the answer is simple. Since maintaining military bases in more than 100 foreign countries depends on taxes to cover the costs, raise taxes or shift the government spend priorities, i.e. take money away from another program, like transportation infrastructure and give it to the military.</span></p> <p><span style="color:#800000;">See, it's all about the perception of what is in the public good or public interest. Those other countries can afford rail because they are not running themselves into bankruptcy with an ever increasing military budget. But, like you, I don't get to decide on what the government spends my tax money. I live on the east coast and will probably never ride that HSR in California, but I consider it a good use of my tax money. Transportation infrastructure benefits the nation as a whole. </span>[/quote]</p> <p>If the California High Speed Rail Project were a good investment; i.e. likely to generate a return for the investors, it would not matter how much the country spends on the military establishment or any other public project. Investors would invest in the project in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, the probability of being able to recover the cost of the project without significant taxpayer support is practically nil. Therefore, since the project will depend on public monies, what the government, as in we the people, spends on other projects matters.</p> <p>I don't happen to believe that passenger railroads trains are a public or common good. Neither is the new Dallas Cowboys football stadium, which was funded with public dollars. They are nice to have; I ride them, and I like traveling by train. But to say that they are vital to the well being of society is a bit over the top. </p> <p>The California High Speed Rail Project is a California project. It is not part of a national system as is the case for the federal highway system, the national airways system, etc. Accordingly, if the citizens of California want to pay for a high speed rail system, that is their choice. But they should not be able to raid the federal treasury for their project any more than Texas should be able to rail the federal treasury for a high speed rail project in the Lone Star State. Point of difference to be sure. </p>
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag
Update Reply
Join our Community!
Our community is
FREE
to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Login »
Register »
Search the Community
Newsletter Sign-Up
By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our
privacy policy
More great sites from Kalmbach Media
Terms Of Use
|
Privacy Policy
|
Copyright Policy