Discussion of politics is against the clearly stated terms of service of the Trains.com Forums. This is because political discussions tend to engender heated discussions and hard feelings. We've let this thread slide for some time because the topic being discussed directly relates to railroading, but even so, it seems like this one has gone off the rails. This thread will be locked.
--Steven Otte, Model Railroader senior associate editorsotte@kalmbach.com
DwightBranch These two facts can only lead to the conclusion that these four Republicans, in concert with the national party, turned down the money to hurt Obama's chances in 2012, not out of any concern for the welfare of their constituents. Mitch McConnell, the leader of the Republicans in the US Senate, has admitted that the Republicans' strategy all along has been to block Obama so that he would lose re-election.
These two facts can only lead to the conclusion that these four Republicans, in concert with the national party, turned down the money to hurt Obama's chances in 2012, not out of any concern for the welfare of their constituents. Mitch McConnell, the leader of the Republicans in the US Senate, has admitted that the Republicans' strategy all along has been to block Obama so that he would lose re-election.
I am aware that the Moderators wish us to keep discussions of politics on a train-oriented Web site down to a minimum, but the Parent Post is overtly political in that it ascribes motives to a group of four state governors who have turned away Federal money for trains.
To the extent that politics affect trains, I am simply asking for people to consider that the Governors in questions turned back the money because they were maybe anti-train, or in Governor Christie's case genuinely worried about the costs of the tunnel project, instead of being part of a concerted political-tactical effort to give the President a political black eye. I had also suggested that for all of his "tough Northeast-guy" talk, Governor Christie was at a somewhat different level in terms of advanced education and professional achievement than some of the other governors (being a high-level Federal prosecutor is not just some guy passing the bar exam and hanging out a shingle), and his decisions shouldn't be lumped in with the other three.
With respect to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell boasting of a Republican strategy to block President Obama's reelection, as a scholar of political science, would you consider that there is some nuance in this? First of all, being Minority Leader in the Senate is by tradition a highly partisan post whereas state governors are expected to some degree to go-along to get-along to advance the interests of their states. Senator McConnell was interviewed recently and likened himself as being in the mold of another Senate Minority Leader, Senator Mitchell, a great man and a great statesman who helped bring peace to the Northern Counties of Ireland and who was worked on negotiating peace in the Middle East, but served in a partisan opposition role contributing to President George H W Bush not getting reelected.
You also need to consider that from the viewpoint outside the Republican Party, Senator McConnell is a fierce party partisan, but from inside the Republican Party and especially the Tea Party caucus and traditional Right Wing of the Party, Senator McConnell is a moderate whose loyalty "to the cause" is being questioned -- there is a parallel in passenger train advocacy, dunno, in considering Don Oltmann to be anti-train.
I am not a scholar of Political Science, so what do I know, but do you suppose that Senator McConnell's "political war" on the President is to protect his right-flank, and that under normal circumstances he would be engaging in what the Right Wing accuses him and other Moderate Republicans of doing, engaged in business-as-usual in negotiating "deals" with the President?
Do you suppose that Senator McConnell has actually been in opposition to what he considers to be some of the more extreme actions of the Right Wing, especially in the House of Representatives, and that he has justified his more moderate positions to Republican primary voters, claiming that the more hard line positions coming out of the 2010 House Freshman Class "will only serve to turn-off independent voters and get Mr. Obama reelected?"
Do you suppose that a similar dynamic occurs within the politics of passenger train advocacy with respect to whether we all sing from the same hymn book or if we tolerate iconoclastic views on passenger trains from Sam1 or Don Oltmann or others? Do you suppose that "steel wheels good, rubber tires baaad!" in all circumstances and at all times might "turn off" independent whom we want to persuade to support passenger trains? But what do I know, I have not published any scholarly writings on Political Science, and I am not sure, but I might be on the list of people being shunned right now.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
"So, bottom line, you are saying he should have raised the gas tax to continue to pay for a bad rail project? Doing what he did sound very pragmatic to me. NJ may pay the third lowest gas tax, but the property tax make New Jersey one of the highest taxed states in the nation. You wanted the gas tax raised in the midst of the deepest recession since 1893?"
It is not just property taxes. It is the whole ball of wax.
As of January 2012 New Jersey’s gasoline tax was 14.5 cents per gallon. It is 48th amongst the 51 fuel taxing districts (includes District of Columbia) in the United States according to Tax Foundation data.
Although New Jersey is 48th in motor fuel tax rates, it is second in toll revenue collections. For example, in 2005, which is the latest data that I could find, New Jersey collected $125.77 per capita in toll revenues vs. $60.42 in fuel taxes. Only Delaware beat it on toll revenues. At the other end of the spectrum, as an example, Connecticut collected five cents in toll revenues per capita vs. $136.42 in fuel tax revenues. If one only compares fuel tax rates, it appears that Connecticut collects a substantially higher amount of money from motorists than New Jersey, but when the toll revenues are added to the equation, the picture changes significantly.
Fuel tax revenues are a function of the fuel tax rate times vehicle miles traveled divided by average or median miles per gallon. Accordingly, although the tax rate may not have changed since 1988, which is the date of the last increase according to the NJ Transportation Trust Fund Authority, fuel tax revenues have increased dramatically. Undoubtedly, most of the increase is attributable to an increase in vehicle miles traveled in the Garden State, since there has not been until recently a dramatic improvement in vehicle miles per gallon.
In 2011 New Jersey realized $483 million in fuel tax revenues compared to $88 million in 1988. Moreover, it allocates $200 million of the Petroleum Products Gross Receipts Tax and $200 million from general sales taxes to the trust fund.
Comparing state fuel tax rates is incomplete. In addition to other sources of revenues for transport funding, one should determine if the monies collected from motorists or dedicated to motoring go to other activities. For example, Texas has higher motor fuels taxes than New Jersey, but 25 per cent of the fuel taxes collected in Texas are dedicated to education.
The key question is whether New Jersey collects enough fuel tax revenue to meets its transportation needs. Whether motorists should fund partially public transportation, which they do, at least at the federal level and in Texas, is another key question that is beyond the scope of this reply.
When the state and local tax burden is calculated as a percentage of state income, again for FY09, New Jersey was number one at 12.2 per cent. New York was in second place at 12.1 per cent, and Connecticut was in third place at 12.0 per cent.
The marginal tax rate for New Jersey’s state income tax scheme is 8.97 per cent of taxable income, compared to 8.82 per cent for New York; 6.7 per cent for Connecticut, and 10.3 per cent for California, which has the highest marginal state tax rate. The actual state income tax burden differs depending on the interim rates, which vary significantly from state to state, and kick in at different taxable income thresholds. These rates are for single filers. Joint filers usually have a higher deductible and/or bandwidth. One would have to go through the tax law of each state to get a clear picture of the relative tax burden.
New Jersey’s combined state and local sales tax rates place it 22nd in the U.S. New York is 7th and Connecticut is 31st, indicating that these states rely less heavily on sales taxes as opposed to other taxes. The rate range amongst the states is relatively narrow except for a couple of outliers.
New Jersey gets 45.7 per cent of its revenues from property taxes; 16.1 per cent from general sales taxes; 20.9 per cent from individual income taxes; 4.7 per cent from corporate income taxes; and the remainder from other taxes.
New Jersey had the highest property taxes in FY10 on owner occupied housing as a percentage of the median home value. The rate was 2.01 per cent, compared to Illinois, which as number two, at 1.93 per cent and number three New Hampshire at 1.92 per cent.
New Jersey ranked fifth in the nation on state debt per capita, at $6,944, compared to $11,310 for number one Massachusetts; $9,032 for number two Alaska; and 9,018 for number three Rhode Island.
New Jersey residents had the third highest average per capita income of the nation’s states. It was $51,167 in FY10. Connecticut was number one at $54,877, followed by Massachusetts at $51,302. High-income states are able to shoulder higher nominal tax burdens than less well off states. It is important to pay attention to the debt burden as a percentage of income, as well as other wealth indicators, to determine whether a state is getting in over its head financially. As the next paragraph shows, the rating agencies believe that New Jersey has some serious financial issues.
As a result of ratings downgrades in the second half of 2011, New Jersey has one of the lowest bond ratings (AA-) of any state, which means it must pay a higher interest rate to attract capital for its projects and perhaps operations. The relatively low ratings have been issued by all of the major rating agencies, i.e. Fitch, Moody's and S&P. As of 2011 only California and Illinois had lower ratings. The inability or unwillingness to fund the state’s pension obligations appears to be a major factor in the low ratings. The high debt burden is also a contributing factor. New Jersey’s debt is still investment grade, although less so than before the 2011 down grades, but uniform down grades of a state's credit standing should never be taken lightly.
All up it appears that Governor’s Christie’s concern about taking on additional state debt, whether for capital projects or to fund ongoing operations, is warranted.
daveklepper For me, it was a deficient project in any case, because it would have ruled out through Connecticut - New Jersey commuter service, something I think will be important in the future.
For me, it was a deficient project in any case, because it would have ruled out through Connecticut - New Jersey commuter service, something I think will be important in the future.
I agree with this and the other post that was critical of the NJT stub ended part of the terminal project. The precedent of this is Philadelphia, where the stub-ended PRR Suburban Terminal and the Reading Terminal were joined with a "thru" connection. I have been in the replacement to the 11 track Reading Terminal which is now an efficient 4 track thru station. The trains continue off the Reading lines to paired PRR lines back out into the suburbs. It both eliminates turning trains, and enables cross suburb trips. The same could be done with pairing NJT and Metro-North New Haven line trips. NJT and Metro-North already have combined operations on the Port Jervis diesel route.
DwightBranch As a former political science professor I can tell you that politicians care about one thing above all else-- getting re-elected-- and given the fact that federal money stimulates their economy and helps them to do so, it is very unusual for a governor to turn any free money down. Further, Christie, Scott, Kasich and Walker have all been shown to be deliberately misleading and incorrect in the reasoning they used for turning down the money. These two facts can only lead to the conclusion that these four Republicans, in concert with the national party, turned down the money to hurt Obama's chances in 2012, not out of any concern for the welfare of their constituents. Mitch McConnell, the leader of the Republicans in the US Senate, has admitted that the Republicans' strategy all along has been to block Obama so that he would lose re-election. Now, when you adopt such a strategy, you can expect a response. Christie is now trying to be associated with the new project, but you can expect him to be kept a million miles away by New York and the Obama Administration, the plan will have very little input from New Jersey, and Christie will be seen standing around with his finger in his a*s by his constituents. It will still benefit New Jersey residents, but the New Jersey state government will find themselves completely marginalized in decisions about where it goes, which trains get priority, etc.. Turnabout is fair play.
As a former political science professor I can tell you that politicians care about one thing above all else-- getting re-elected-- and given the fact that federal money stimulates their economy and helps them to do so, it is very unusual for a governor to turn any free money down. Further, Christie, Scott, Kasich and Walker have all been shown to be deliberately misleading and incorrect in the reasoning they used for turning down the money. These two facts can only lead to the conclusion that these four Republicans, in concert with the national party, turned down the money to hurt Obama's chances in 2012, not out of any concern for the welfare of their constituents. Mitch McConnell, the leader of the Republicans in the US Senate, has admitted that the Republicans' strategy all along has been to block Obama so that he would lose re-election. Now, when you adopt such a strategy, you can expect a response. Christie is now trying to be associated with the new project, but you can expect him to be kept a million miles away by New York and the Obama Administration, the plan will have very little input from New Jersey, and Christie will be seen standing around with his finger in his a*s by his constituents. It will still benefit New Jersey residents, but the New Jersey state government will find themselves completely marginalized in decisions about where it goes, which trains get priority, etc.. Turnabout is fair play.
"As with the invisible hand in economics, businessmen pursue immediate ends without necessarily being aware of how they contribute to the wealth of nations. So too, politicians pursue immediate ends without necessarily being aware of how they contribute to national power. Some are clearer in their thinking than others, perhaps, or possibly all presidents (also politicians and/or former political science professors) are crystal-clear on what they are doing in these matters. We do not dine with the great."
BaltACD Politicians are double dealing & twin tongued snake oil salesmen charged with making policy decisions - decisions they are ill equipped to make. Christie is a politician - nothing more and nothing less.
Politicians are double dealing & twin tongued snake oil salesmen charged with making policy decisions - decisions they are ill equipped to make.
Christie is a politician - nothing more and nothing less.
..and sometimes the right thing happens, anyway!
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
DwightBranch oltmannd: What I'm trying to get across is that all the political intrigue and anti-rail evilness that is being heaped on Christie might not be deserved. Out bias going into these things is "rail = good" and "road = evil". But, that is our bias. When others disagree, they are not always "out to get us" or "rail haters." Lets just suppose an apolitical, fair-minded, even-handed, loves everyone, independent person took a look at ARC and said, "Wow. This isn't a very good project. Would be wise to pull the plug on it." Is it possible that such a judgment could exist or, because we don't like it, we have to read into all manner of bias, intrigue and other BS? When facts don't fit how we feel about something, the facts take a back seat to our emotions. That's just a fact of life. http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/05/09/152287372/partisan-psychology-why-are-people-partial-to-political-loyalties-over-facts If you are claiming that Christie is a partisan (offering arguments not made in earnest but in support of his political party, the republicans) I agree, for reasons I have documented above. If you are claiming that I am a partisan you are wrong, I support neither the right of center nor the far right of center branch of the Republicrats. Further, you would seem to be arguing against earnestness, and for sophistry and hidden agendas, i.e. it doesn't matter what reason Christie gave, the ends justify the means. Finally, despite your claim that it was a bad project there can be no doubt that additional tunnels need to be constructed between under the Hudson River between New York and New Jersey to supplement the 102 year-old North River Tunnels (which have been at 100% capacity for years), and the ARC Tunnels would have more than doubled the number of trains from New Jersey to Midtown Manhattan, and would have provided a direct, one-seat ride for most of NJT's trains. It is okay to quibble about the actual plans, discussion about alternatives can be useful (but again, only if made in earnest, honestly, not as a way to stall and block something you don't want because of a hidden agenda) but Christie rejected the plans out of hand, not because it was unnecessary or not useful, but to bolster his own position by putting off the inevitable gas tax hike. For that reason I have no difficulty calling a liar where I see one. One last point: you post about partisanship but your opinions seem driven by a strident anti-passenger train mentality masquerading as concern for efficiency. In my opinion.
oltmannd: What I'm trying to get across is that all the political intrigue and anti-rail evilness that is being heaped on Christie might not be deserved. Out bias going into these things is "rail = good" and "road = evil". But, that is our bias. When others disagree, they are not always "out to get us" or "rail haters." Lets just suppose an apolitical, fair-minded, even-handed, loves everyone, independent person took a look at ARC and said, "Wow. This isn't a very good project. Would be wise to pull the plug on it." Is it possible that such a judgment could exist or, because we don't like it, we have to read into all manner of bias, intrigue and other BS? When facts don't fit how we feel about something, the facts take a back seat to our emotions. That's just a fact of life. http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/05/09/152287372/partisan-psychology-why-are-people-partial-to-political-loyalties-over-facts
What I'm trying to get across is that all the political intrigue and anti-rail evilness that is being heaped on Christie might not be deserved.
Out bias going into these things is "rail = good" and "road = evil". But, that is our bias. When others disagree, they are not always "out to get us" or "rail haters."
Lets just suppose an apolitical, fair-minded, even-handed, loves everyone, independent person took a look at ARC and said, "Wow. This isn't a very good project. Would be wise to pull the plug on it."
Is it possible that such a judgment could exist or, because we don't like it, we have to read into all manner of bias, intrigue and other BS?
When facts don't fit how we feel about something, the facts take a back seat to our emotions. That's just a fact of life.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/05/09/152287372/partisan-psychology-why-are-people-partial-to-political-loyalties-over-facts
If you are claiming that Christie is a partisan (offering arguments not made in earnest but in support of his political party, the republicans) I agree, for reasons I have documented above. If you are claiming that I am a partisan you are wrong, I support neither the right of center nor the far right of center branch of the Republicrats. Further, you would seem to be arguing against earnestness, and for sophistry and hidden agendas, i.e. it doesn't matter what reason Christie gave, the ends justify the means. Finally, despite your claim that it was a bad project there can be no doubt that additional tunnels need to be constructed between under the Hudson River between New York and New Jersey to supplement the 102 year-old North River Tunnels (which have been at 100% capacity for years), and the ARC Tunnels would have more than doubled the number of trains from New Jersey to Midtown Manhattan, and would have provided a direct, one-seat ride for most of NJT's trains. It is okay to quibble about the actual plans, discussion about alternatives can be useful (but again, only if made in earnest, honestly, not as a way to stall and block something you don't want because of a hidden agenda) but Christie rejected the plans out of hand, not because it was unnecessary or not useful, but to bolster his own position by putting off the inevitable gas tax hike. For that reason I have no difficulty calling a liar where I see one. One last point: you post about partisanship but your opinions seem driven by a strident anti-passenger train mentality masquerading as concern for efficiency. In my opinion.
You are partisan. You are "pro-rail" and "anti-highway". Me, too.
You are right about the demand for more capacity from NJ to Manhattan. But, ARC was grown in a vacuum in Newark and is a bad solution compared to alternatives.
This all seems pretty simple to me. ARC was a bad project. It got killed. That is good. A better project is forming. NJ is supportive. Also, good.
Want another example? Amtrak spending money on baggage cars instead of coaches = Bad. Virginia spending money for NEC extension to Norfolk = Good.
oltmannd What I'm trying to get across is that all the political intrigue and anti-rail evilness that is being heaped on Christie might not be deserved. Out bias going into these things is "rail = good" and "road = evil". But, that is our bias. When others disagree, they are not always "out to get us" or "rail haters." Lets just suppose an apolitical, fair-minded, even-handed, loves everyone, independent person took a look at ARC and said, "Wow. This isn't a very good project. Would be wise to pull the plug on it." Is it possible that such a judgment could exist or, because we don't like it, we have to read into all manner of bias, intrigue and other BS? When facts don't fit how we feel about something, the facts take a back seat to our emotions. That's just a fact of life. http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/05/09/152287372/partisan-psychology-why-are-people-partial-to-political-loyalties-over-facts
DwightBranch oltmannd: So, bottom line, you are saying he should have raised the gas tax to continue to pay for a bad rail project? Doing what he did sound very pragmatic to me. NJ may pay the third lowest gas tax, but the property tax make New Jersey one of the highest taxed states in the nation. You wanted the gas tax raised in the midst of the deepest recession since 1893? If anti-train types want to continue to claim that highways pay for themselves through fuel taxes then they need to make sure that highways pay for themselves through fuel taxes. Or drivers can navigate potholes, I don't care. If the governor of a state wants a share of funds set aside for transit the funds should be spent on transit.
oltmannd: So, bottom line, you are saying he should have raised the gas tax to continue to pay for a bad rail project? Doing what he did sound very pragmatic to me. NJ may pay the third lowest gas tax, but the property tax make New Jersey one of the highest taxed states in the nation. You wanted the gas tax raised in the midst of the deepest recession since 1893?
So, bottom line, you are saying he should have raised the gas tax to continue to pay for a bad rail project? Doing what he did sound very pragmatic to me. NJ may pay the third lowest gas tax, but the property tax make New Jersey one of the highest taxed states in the nation. You wanted the gas tax raised in the midst of the deepest recession since 1893?
If anti-train types want to continue to claim that highways pay for themselves through fuel taxes then they need to make sure that highways pay for themselves through fuel taxes. Or drivers can navigate potholes, I don't care. If the governor of a state wants a share of funds set aside for transit the funds should be spent on transit.
Doesn't a good chunk of the NJT funding come from fuel tax set-aside? A good chunk of the Fed funding for transit comes from the fuel tax.
Killing a bad rail project is always a good idea - no matter where the ear-marked money goes...
oltmannd So, bottom line, you are saying he should have raised the gas tax to continue to pay for a bad rail project? Doing what he did sound very pragmatic to me. NJ may pay the third lowest gas tax, but the property tax make New Jersey one of the highest taxed states in the nation. You wanted the gas tax raised in the midst of the deepest recession since 1893?
DwightBranch oltmannd: Christie killed to keep from throwing more money down the rat hole of a bad project. Better late than never. That is what he would have us believe, but sorry, no sale. From one of the articles I linked to above: "So why did Governor Christie willfully deceive and beggar the citizens of his state? As Streetsblog reported at the time, it was all about New Jersey’s empty, debt-ridden transportation trust fund. New Jersey’s gas tax, the third-lowest in the country, hasn’t been raised for 23 years. The infrastructure funding woes that can be found across the country, therefore, are even more acute there. When Christie killed the ARC tunnel, the highway trust fund was expected to go bankrupt within a year. The sustainable fix would have been increasing the gas tax, at least to the level of New Jersey’s neighbors, but Christie went for the fiscally irresponsible and politically explosive option of stealing from transit riders instead. By taking almost $3 billion from what the Regional Plan Association’s Ingrid Michaelson at the time called “the cookie jar of money that previous governors have set aside for ARC,” Christie bought himself two or three years of road-building and national attention from conservatives (including an impassioned movement to recruit him to run for president). “In hindsight, it’s apparent that he had a highly important political objective,” said Martin Robins, a former director of the ARC project now at Rutgers, to the Times: “to cannibalize the project so he could find an alternate way of keeping the transportation trust fund program moving, and he went ahead and did it.” This article also puts the lie to the idea that highway spending pays for itself without non-users being required to pay for it.
oltmannd: Christie killed to keep from throwing more money down the rat hole of a bad project. Better late than never.
Christie killed to keep from throwing more money down the rat hole of a bad project. Better late than never.
That is what he would have us believe, but sorry, no sale. From one of the articles I linked to above:
"So why did Governor Christie willfully deceive and beggar the citizens of his state? As Streetsblog reported at the time, it was all about New Jersey’s empty, debt-ridden transportation trust fund. New Jersey’s gas tax, the third-lowest in the country, hasn’t been raised for 23 years. The infrastructure funding woes that can be found across the country, therefore, are even more acute there. When Christie killed the ARC tunnel, the highway trust fund was expected to go bankrupt within a year.
The sustainable fix would have been increasing the gas tax, at least to the level of New Jersey’s neighbors, but Christie went for the fiscally irresponsible and politically explosive option of stealing from transit riders instead. By taking almost $3 billion from what the Regional Plan Association’s Ingrid Michaelson at the time called “the cookie jar of money that previous governors have set aside for ARC,” Christie bought himself two or three years of road-building and national attention from conservatives (including an impassioned movement to recruit him to run for president).
“In hindsight, it’s apparent that he had a highly important political objective,” said Martin Robins, a former director of the ARC project now at Rutgers, to the Times: “to cannibalize the project so he could find an alternate way of keeping the transportation trust fund program moving, and he went ahead and did it.”
This article also puts the lie to the idea that highway spending pays for itself without non-users being required to pay for it.
oltmannd Christie killed to keep from throwing more money down the rat hole of a bad project. Better late than never.
One of the more difficult management decisions is knowing when to cut the losses. Christie seems to be a pragmatic guy, not one to get too tied up in politics.
In a similar vein, I wouldn't be too upset if the Cal HSR proposal gets drooped or gets thoroughly redone. While it would be nice to get to the Bay Area in less than three hours by train, I can think of a lot better ways for the money to be spent to improve rail passenger service in Calif.
- Erik
ARC was a bad idea - stub end, NJT only terminal deep under the ground. Low capacity and low utility , particularly for the price tag. It was born as an NJT-only project when it should have been a joint project with Amtrak and MetroNorth (LIRR) right from the start. Who ever let it get as far as it did should have earned the derision of rail advocates. Christie killed to keep from throwing more money down the rat hole of a bad project. Better late than never.
An "all comers", through tunnel is a good idea. He is for it and is willing to fund a "fair share". Determining that will be fun. "Fair" seems to have become political code for "somebody else should pay".
Scorched earth politics has a tendency to burn the posterior of those ignited the scorching fire.
Paul Milenkovic DwightBranch: blue streak 1: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20120512_N_J__to_contribute_to_proposed_Amtrak_tunnel.html Christie says they will contribute to Gateway tunnels project; but he is long on words and short on funds /? Guess he got a lot of flack from ARC cancellation ?? When Republican governors Christie, Walker (Wisconsin), Scott (Florida) and Kasich (Ohio) refused money to build HSR in what in electoral "swing" states (up for grab, unlike say California or Texas) it was perceived as a deliberate, concerted effort to hurt Obama in the 2012 election by denying him credit for job creation. Turnabout is fair play, you can expect those four to get no more cooperation than absolutely necessary from the federal government (e.g. transportation infrastructure spending) that might make them look good. I am arguing that the advocacy community in Wisconsin contributed to the loss of the Milwaukee-Madison train line by viewing everything through the lens of partisan politics. The view, openly expressed at advocacy meetings, was that the people you speak of represented such an extreme tangent in U.S. politics that there was no way they would be elected in November, 2010, and there was no contingency plan for what would happen if that were the case. You may reason that if the voters in Wisconsin put Mr. Walker into office, and Mr. Walker was vocal in his opposition to the train, there was really nothing the advocacy community could have done about it. On the other hand, the local bricks-and-morter advocacy group was so much in the mode of "free expression of their views" and was oblivious to the possibility of Mr. Walker getting elected, his positions were so extreme and he was against trains, which we knew everyone wanted, that the group was more of a slowing-down of implementation of the plan by making a tremendous town-hall meeting fuss about the Downtown Madison train station location than any manner of help. The other thing is that Christie is not Walker is not Rick Scott is not Kasich. New Jersey has plenty of trains -- the NEC runs right through it and it has numerous commuter lines, both radiating from NYC/Hoboken and from Philly. New Jersey is not Wisconsin either. Governor Christie did not dream of imposing his will on the unions, maybe because the popular support for unionism is even stronger in New Jersey than it is in Wisconsin, maybe because for all of his "tough East-Coast guy" talk, Governor Christie as a high-profile prosecutor and having a lot more education than the other guy, understood the political dynamic much better. He offered the teachers in New Jersey an either/or proposition -- pay cuts or layoffs and the union went with layoffs, and neither side is happy with the other, but what took place in New Jersey isn't anything like what happened in Wisconsin, and a certain Wisconsin Governor admitted in interviews that maybe if he followed Governor Christie's lead a little more closely, he wouldn't be standing for a recall election right now. It is also arguable that when Governor Christie backed out of the tunnel project, he was sincere in his worry about cost overruns and a state strapped for money. When (Governer Elect!) Walker got us out of the Madison train, this was pretty much a turn-key project for which the ungoing operating subsidy that the state would have to pick up didn't seem that much out of line with what Wisconsin was paying for the Chicago-Milwaukee train. On the other hand, over a 50 year time horizon, those operating subsidies can approach the costs of the original capital project. Do you suppose that either of those governors was acting on what they thought was the best interests of their respective states with regard to taking on expensive obligations, and that a "concerted effort to hurt Obama" had nothing to do with it? Do you suppose that the inherent goodness and necessity of passenger trains is far from self-evident outside passenger advocacy circles, and these Governors acted in good faith based on conditions, seen from their point of view, but they had just won elections where the voters expressed a preference for that point of view? The thing is that there are many in the advocacy community inhabiting a partisan-political bubble who are quick to lump political actors all together based on the partisan labels. Doing this hurts the cause of passenger train advocacy. For example, we are told "Turnabout is fair play" and that a second Obama Administration should play tough with the four opposition-party governors. Such talk, especially coming in the context of passenger train advocacy feels really good because we really need to punish political leaders who are "too stupid" (words used in our local advocacy group meetings) to understand the benefits, no not the benefits, the existential necessity of passenger trains. But whom are we punishing, those governors or the people who voted them into office. And if we really mean to punish voters, and to even subject New Jersey, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Florida to "collective punishment" (they tell me that the U.N. views that as a human rights violation) that those governors were put into office, what does it say about passenger advocacy, in trying to gain the broadest popular appeal to get trains? Yeah, yeah, money-in-politics, low election turnout, those folks getting into office reflects dark nefarious moneyed Concrete Lobby and Oil Company interests. Look, it is like the 60-vote effective super-majority requirement to get any major legislation out of the United States Senate. It is not "fair" and it is far from "democracy", but it is the political system we have. Trains don't compete at the level of people "voting with their money" because we all know that trains need subsidy. OK then, if trains don't compete at the free market level, let them compete at the political level that enough people believe they merit subsidy money. As a passenger train advocate, my belief is to work within the political system as it is constituted and make the case to persuade as broad swath of the electorate so support trains, a super majority of the electorate, as if something has broad enough popular support, all of those lobbies and Super PACs and whoever don't matter in the end anyway. Does playing political revenge games help in this process? Or in the end would it set us back?
DwightBranch: blue streak 1: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20120512_N_J__to_contribute_to_proposed_Amtrak_tunnel.html Christie says they will contribute to Gateway tunnels project; but he is long on words and short on funds /? Guess he got a lot of flack from ARC cancellation ?? When Republican governors Christie, Walker (Wisconsin), Scott (Florida) and Kasich (Ohio) refused money to build HSR in what in electoral "swing" states (up for grab, unlike say California or Texas) it was perceived as a deliberate, concerted effort to hurt Obama in the 2012 election by denying him credit for job creation. Turnabout is fair play, you can expect those four to get no more cooperation than absolutely necessary from the federal government (e.g. transportation infrastructure spending) that might make them look good.
blue streak 1: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20120512_N_J__to_contribute_to_proposed_Amtrak_tunnel.html Christie says they will contribute to Gateway tunnels project; but he is long on words and short on funds /? Guess he got a lot of flack from ARC cancellation ??
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20120512_N_J__to_contribute_to_proposed_Amtrak_tunnel.html
Christie says they will contribute to Gateway tunnels project; but he is long on words and short on funds /? Guess he got a lot of flack from ARC cancellation ??
When Republican governors Christie, Walker (Wisconsin), Scott (Florida) and Kasich (Ohio) refused money to build HSR in what in electoral "swing" states (up for grab, unlike say California or Texas) it was perceived as a deliberate, concerted effort to hurt Obama in the 2012 election by denying him credit for job creation. Turnabout is fair play, you can expect those four to get no more cooperation than absolutely necessary from the federal government (e.g. transportation infrastructure spending) that might make them look good.
I am arguing that the advocacy community in Wisconsin contributed to the loss of the Milwaukee-Madison train line by viewing everything through the lens of partisan politics. The view, openly expressed at advocacy meetings, was that the people you speak of represented such an extreme tangent in U.S. politics that there was no way they would be elected in November, 2010, and there was no contingency plan for what would happen if that were the case.
You may reason that if the voters in Wisconsin put Mr. Walker into office, and Mr. Walker was vocal in his opposition to the train, there was really nothing the advocacy community could have done about it. On the other hand, the local bricks-and-morter advocacy group was so much in the mode of "free expression of their views" and was oblivious to the possibility of Mr. Walker getting elected, his positions were so extreme and he was against trains, which we knew everyone wanted, that the group was more of a slowing-down of implementation of the plan by making a tremendous town-hall meeting fuss about the Downtown Madison train station location than any manner of help.
The other thing is that Christie is not Walker is not Rick Scott is not Kasich. New Jersey has plenty of trains -- the NEC runs right through it and it has numerous commuter lines, both radiating from NYC/Hoboken and from Philly. New Jersey is not Wisconsin either. Governor Christie did not dream of imposing his will on the unions, maybe because the popular support for unionism is even stronger in New Jersey than it is in Wisconsin, maybe because for all of his "tough East-Coast guy" talk, Governor Christie as a high-profile prosecutor and having a lot more education than the other guy, understood the political dynamic much better. He offered the teachers in New Jersey an either/or proposition -- pay cuts or layoffs and the union went with layoffs, and neither side is happy with the other, but what took place in New Jersey isn't anything like what happened in Wisconsin, and a certain Wisconsin Governor admitted in interviews that maybe if he followed Governor Christie's lead a little more closely, he wouldn't be standing for a recall election right now.
It is also arguable that when Governor Christie backed out of the tunnel project, he was sincere in his worry about cost overruns and a state strapped for money. When (Governer Elect!) Walker got us out of the Madison train, this was pretty much a turn-key project for which the ungoing operating subsidy that the state would have to pick up didn't seem that much out of line with what Wisconsin was paying for the Chicago-Milwaukee train.
On the other hand, over a 50 year time horizon, those operating subsidies can approach the costs of the original capital project. Do you suppose that either of those governors was acting on what they thought was the best interests of their respective states with regard to taking on expensive obligations, and that a "concerted effort to hurt Obama" had nothing to do with it? Do you suppose that the inherent goodness and necessity of passenger trains is far from self-evident outside passenger advocacy circles, and these Governors acted in good faith based on conditions, seen from their point of view, but they had just won elections where the voters expressed a preference for that point of view?
The thing is that there are many in the advocacy community inhabiting a partisan-political bubble who are quick to lump political actors all together based on the partisan labels. Doing this hurts the cause of passenger train advocacy.
For example, we are told "Turnabout is fair play" and that a second Obama Administration should play tough with the four opposition-party governors. Such talk, especially coming in the context of passenger train advocacy feels really good because we really need to punish political leaders who are "too stupid" (words used in our local advocacy group meetings) to understand the benefits, no not the benefits, the existential necessity of passenger trains.
But whom are we punishing, those governors or the people who voted them into office. And if we really mean to punish voters, and to even subject New Jersey, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Florida to "collective punishment" (they tell me that the U.N. views that as a human rights violation) that those governors were put into office, what does it say about passenger advocacy, in trying to gain the broadest popular appeal to get trains?
Yeah, yeah, money-in-politics, low election turnout, those folks getting into office reflects dark nefarious moneyed Concrete Lobby and Oil Company interests.
Look, it is like the 60-vote effective super-majority requirement to get any major legislation out of the United States Senate. It is not "fair" and it is far from "democracy", but it is the political system we have. Trains don't compete at the level of people "voting with their money" because we all know that trains need subsidy. OK then, if trains don't compete at the free market level, let them compete at the political level that enough people believe they merit subsidy money. As a passenger train advocate, my belief is to work within the political system as it is constituted and make the case to persuade as broad swath of the electorate so support trains, a super majority of the electorate, as if something has broad enough popular support, all of those lobbies and Super PACs and whoever don't matter in the end anyway.
Does playing political revenge games help in this process? Or in the end would it set us back?
DwightBranch blue streak 1: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20120512_N_J__to_contribute_to_proposed_Amtrak_tunnel.html Christie says they will contribute to Gateway tunnels project; but he is long on words and short on funds /? Guess he got a lot of flack from ARC cancellation ?? When Republican governors Christie, Walker (Wisconsin), Scott (Florida) and Kasich (Ohio) refused money to build HSR in what in electoral "swing" states (up for grab, unlike say California or Texas) it was perceived as a deliberate, concerted effort to hurt Obama in the 2012 election by denying him credit for job creation. Turnabout is fair play, you can expect those four to get no more cooperation than absolutely necessary from the federal government (e.g. transportation infrastructure spending) that might make them look good.
blue streak 1 http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20120512_N_J__to_contribute_to_proposed_Amtrak_tunnel.html Christie says they will contribute to Gateway tunnels project; but he is long on words and short on funds /? Guess he got a lot of flack from ARC cancellation ??
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.