Is NBC still in business? Oh yeah, The Office is on Thursdays.
Plus Keith Oberman on MSNBC, how could I have forgotten him?
I can’t find the story directly from NBC News, but here is a link to the general coverage of the bill now that the bill has passed. It does contain a reference to the NBC story about the middle of the page:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2009/02/17/abc-champions-how-stimulus-will-enable-mayors-create-jobs
I am surprised that anybody is surprised that there is skepticism about the stimulus bill. While it may appear that NBC is committing some kind of heresy now by pointing out a bit of the skepticism about the bill, I note that they (along with ABC and CBS) were completely mute on disclosing the mountain of popular skepticism before the vote when it could have made a difference. That’s the good old NBC that I know. The only motive that I can see for them to mention skepticism at this point is to cover their behind if this all goes south.
We DON'T need HSR here in the U.S. What we NEED is a rebuilding of key mainlines in the key corridors that would eventually support 110-120 MPH passenger rail service.
The "Stimulus" bill (actually an appropriation bill) recently passed was vague in many aspects. Intentionally so. It was passed quickly and without full reading of the bill, nor was the bill made available for the public to read. Why? When in doubt, follow the money.
The money trail basically leads us to $8/week for a taxpayer, and that is if you earn under a certain amount of money. This bill will establish higher levels of baseline spending which will in turn grow our government's role in our lives. We have been notified that our decisions regarding spending money is not nearly as important as centralized planning and spending. This is what we voted for, this should not surprize us.
There are no details in the bill as to how the money will be spent. This should not be a surprize.
China recently declared they are sick of our deficit spending, the implications being dont expect us to buy your debt. We are now in a situation where the flight to safety has led to a bubble in the US Treasury debt. How much longer can we expect this to last when a major buyer of that debt has indicated a reluctance to buy more?
Ask for details of how the $8B will be spent. We have been told there will be change in Washington and transparancy is the key to this change. Yet, there doesnt appear to be transparency. Why?
ed
Railway Man Bucyrus I understand the concern that this Harry Reid story conflicts with the bill, but that does not mean that the story could not or did not happen last night on the network news. My ears don’t lie. The same story is running right now on the NBC Today Show at 7:00 AM, 2/18. They do attribute the charge to “critics,” and those critics are probably conservatives, but who else is going to criticize it if it is worthy of criticism? And besides, it is NBC who is running the story, hardly a bastion of conservatism. And moreover, NBC is not using the story to criticize the Reid critics, but rather to join them. The thrust of the story is pork in the bill. In any case, I don’t see how the story actually conflicts with the bill. It seems only like a possible result out of the more general language of the bill. Do you think NBC and ABC are acting responsibly and ethically? RWM
Bucyrus I understand the concern that this Harry Reid story conflicts with the bill, but that does not mean that the story could not or did not happen last night on the network news. My ears don’t lie. The same story is running right now on the NBC Today Show at 7:00 AM, 2/18. They do attribute the charge to “critics,” and those critics are probably conservatives, but who else is going to criticize it if it is worthy of criticism? And besides, it is NBC who is running the story, hardly a bastion of conservatism. And moreover, NBC is not using the story to criticize the Reid critics, but rather to join them. The thrust of the story is pork in the bill. In any case, I don’t see how the story actually conflicts with the bill. It seems only like a possible result out of the more general language of the bill.
I understand the concern that this Harry Reid story conflicts with the bill, but that does not mean that the story could not or did not happen last night on the network news. My ears don’t lie. The same story is running right now on the NBC Today Show at 7:00 AM, 2/18. They do attribute the charge to “critics,” and those critics are probably conservatives, but who else is going to criticize it if it is worthy of criticism? And besides, it is NBC who is running the story, hardly a bastion of conservatism. And moreover, NBC is not using the story to criticize the Reid critics, but rather to join them. The thrust of the story is pork in the bill. In any case, I don’t see how the story actually conflicts with the bill. It seems only like a possible result out of the more general language of the bill.
Do you think NBC and ABC are acting responsibly and ethically?
RWM
No, I don’t think they ever act ethically because they present themselves as objective news while being slanted far to the left. I only watch them to evaluate positions of the far left. But given their bias, I am surprised they even ran the story. The fact that they did gives credibility to the story in my mind. The story works against the expansion of government, so I would expect it to come from a right wing source, not a left wing source.
jeaton I prefer to hope that intelligent people will make rational decisions for the expenditures.
I prefer to hope that intelligent people will make rational decisions for the expenditures.
Amazing how just a few months ago hardly anyone would have used the words 'intelligent' or 'hope'in any statement regarding politics. Perhaps we do have a chance of getting through the current mess.
BucyrusI understand the concern that this Harry Reid story conflicts with the bill, but that does not mean that the story could not or did not happen last night on the network news. My ears don’t lie. The same story is running right now on the NBC Today Show at 7:00 AM, 2/18. They do attribute the charge to “critics,” and those critics are probably conservatives, but who else is going to criticize it if it is worthy of criticism? And besides, it is NBC who is running the story, hardly a bastion of conservatism. And moreover, NBC is not using the story to criticize the Reid critics, but rather to join them. The thrust of the story is pork in the bill. In any case, I don’t see how the story actually conflicts with the bill. It seems only like a possible result out of the more general language of the bill.
Bucyrus -
I don't doubt you or your ears a bit, but words and nuances matter in things like this.
1.) It's one thing (and fair enough) to criticize and say that: "The general wording in the bill would alllow - or what is the same thing, wouldn't preclude - Reid from getting some or all of that $8 billion HSR money and using it for the Las Vegas train." That much is plain enough from the language of the bill that RWM has provided.
2.) It's something else (and equally fair enough) to criticize and say that: "Even though there's nothing specific in the bill about the Las Vegas route, there's an unwritten understanding in the nature of a "gentlemen's agreement" or "Cngressional courtesy" [or whatever else you want to call or characterize it] that the money will be used for the Las Vegas train." I'd want to see or hear somebody who's definitely "in the know" stand up "for attribution" and say that - such as one of the Democratic senators, or a senior Obama administration official - or else have it confirmed by numerous "off the record" sources, as is more usually done. So far, I haven't seen or heard either of those.
3.) It is also something else (and not fair to anyone, least of all us taxpayers) to criticize and say that: "This bill spends $8 billion on the Las Vegas train", when that is demonstrably not accurate or true (see RWM's post above). That is inventing something and saying that it is there when it is not, and is not supported by any credible evidence. In my world, if that's done while the speaker knows all the while it to be false or with reckless disregard of the facts, that's lying - big-time.
4.) Finally, however, it is something else for the media to do their usual "We're just reporting what we heard someone else say" thing, whether that is a direct quote or the media's summary report, and whether what they said was on- or off-the-record. In theory, there's nothing evil or wrong about it - it's just the media performing its usual 1st Amendment / Fourth Estate reporting function - but practically it is weak, and lends itself to all kinds of abuses. That's known as "hearsay", and the principle problem with it - both in this scenario and in the courtroom - is that we don't get to hear and see it as spoken for ourselves. That prevents us from assessing the credibility and demeanor of the speaker - if we even know who the speaker is - or ask questions for clarity, completeness, to remove vagueness and ambiguity, ascertain motives and competence, intent, intellect, etc. Also unfortunately, this is the most common type of such reports these days.
Most of what I've seen so far on this falls into the latter two categories. I'm inclined to think that what you heard or saw on NBC was in the last category. But as you point it - you heard it (not me) - what do you think ?
- Paul North.
Unless FRA is going to administrate the funds start to finish, and keep the funds out of state hands in a majority of the states, you have a bigger problem. Not thrilled with a new and inventive way to subsidize the rubber tired transportation officials.
I just did a Google "Advanced News Search" for "vegas" and high speed rail", which should have - and looks like it did - pick out anything related to this. Although I didn't look at every single link, I conclude that:
- None of the "main stream media" ("MSM") are printing , publishing, or saying anything to the effect that the $8 Billion is for Las Vegas HSR project only;
- The most that is being said in the MSM is that such a project would be eligible, or quoting / repeating the comments of others that it is for the Las Vegas project;
- It's interesting to see who is saying that the $8 B will be for the Vegas train - mostly Republican politicians, bloggers, columnists, editorials, etc. who are against the "stimulus bill" anyway. None of them point to a specific section, commitment, amendment, or "understanding", of course;
- That last leads me to wonder about their credibility on this and other matters. Wasn't it George Orwell's book 1984 that introduced - or at least popularized - the concept of "The Big Lie" ? Why are they doing this ?
- That said, there's nothing in the relevant portions of the bill (as excerpted above by RWM - thanks, by the way, for that service* to us here) to prohibit the SecTrans from deciding that, "Yeah, all that money should go to the Las Vegas HSR project". But I too doubt if that will happen.
* - Anybody who can do that spends way too much time with laws, lawyers, legislators, politicians, and others of that kind. As one who knows that first-hand, if I have some free time later today, I'll look up what all those cross-references in the quoted portion mean, and post them so that there are no lingering questions.
Very well said, Jay!
Although I also heard the Harry Reid thing and the maglev report on NBC's news, I can find no basis for it in fact. The 8 billion was put into the compromise bill after the House and Senate had approved their respective versions by Rahm Emmanuel. According to one article I read, Harry Reid was as surprised as anyone. I'm sure he'd like to get his hands on it, but that is very unlikely to happen.
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
The bill has assigned the task of deciding which of the many potential projects will get the funding to the Secretary of Transportation and that Department. If that is not the place where such a decision should be made, where else?
Since Secretary LaHood is a Republican, I don't see him especially motivated to send the money to projects in states with Senators from the Democratic Party.
It is obvious that the appropriation is not going to be sufficient to build regional 150 - 200MPH+ rail passenger lines radiating out up to 500 miles from every big city in the US. However, maybe it could make a good start at getting some 80 to 100 MPH routes going where existing travel patterns by other modes indicate that the rail service would be useful and attractive to the traveling public. While many whine that it will be just another big political waste of money, I prefer to hope that intelligent people will make rational decisions for the expenditures.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
BucyrusRailway Man Bucyrus I just heard it on the TV news tonight. I think it was ABC. I don’t recall it saying that 8-billion was the entire stimulus to go to rail or that it represented any kind of limit. It said 8-billion for a maglev line from Las Vegas to Disneyland as a pet project of Harry Reid. I don’t recall how it was worded, but there seemed to be an implication that it represented a disproportionate share being taken by the influence of Harry Reid. Here is something: http://senateconservatives.com/2009/02/12/harry-reids-high-speed-gambling-train/ OK, but where do I find Disneyland and maglev in the bill? Or Las Vegas? RWM My take on it is that the bill does not specify the project, but some kind of a consensus is that Harry Reid is going to hijack the funds that the bill offers. That is what the story on ABC sounded like. I don't think it's a done deal though.
Railway Man Bucyrus I just heard it on the TV news tonight. I think it was ABC. I don’t recall it saying that 8-billion was the entire stimulus to go to rail or that it represented any kind of limit. It said 8-billion for a maglev line from Las Vegas to Disneyland as a pet project of Harry Reid. I don’t recall how it was worded, but there seemed to be an implication that it represented a disproportionate share being taken by the influence of Harry Reid. Here is something: http://senateconservatives.com/2009/02/12/harry-reids-high-speed-gambling-train/ OK, but where do I find Disneyland and maglev in the bill? Or Las Vegas? RWM
Bucyrus I just heard it on the TV news tonight. I think it was ABC. I don’t recall it saying that 8-billion was the entire stimulus to go to rail or that it represented any kind of limit. It said 8-billion for a maglev line from Las Vegas to Disneyland as a pet project of Harry Reid. I don’t recall how it was worded, but there seemed to be an implication that it represented a disproportionate share being taken by the influence of Harry Reid. Here is something: http://senateconservatives.com/2009/02/12/harry-reids-high-speed-gambling-train/
I just heard it on the TV news tonight. I think it was ABC. I don’t recall it saying that 8-billion was the entire stimulus to go to rail or that it represented any kind of limit. It said 8-billion for a maglev line from Las Vegas to Disneyland as a pet project of Harry Reid. I don’t recall how it was worded, but there seemed to be an implication that it represented a disproportionate share being taken by the influence of Harry Reid.
Here is something: http://senateconservatives.com/2009/02/12/harry-reids-high-speed-gambling-train/
OK, but where do I find Disneyland and maglev in the bill? Or Las Vegas?
My take on it is that the bill does not specify the project, but some kind of a consensus is that Harry Reid is going to hijack the funds that the bill offers. That is what the story on ABC sounded like. I don't think it's a done deal though.
Who are the people in this consensus? How did ABC arrive at this conclusion, by a poll? Or do they have some sort of inside knowledge? What leads the people in this consensus to believe this will happen? This conclusion is in striking contrast to what I'm hearing and what we're discussing in the railroad industry.
This will lead to nothing, as all HSR bills of the past have lead to nothing. 8 Billion dollars will solve HSR in America, hardly, that might help fix the problems on the Northeast corridor. Maybe add a bit of capacity in the northeast, Joe Biden' teritory! But, as with most of this bill, the money won't even be seen for 3-4 years down the road, long after the recession will be over by what most economists believe.
If you want HSR service in your hometown, you should move to Europe, or Japan, as America will never have a truely functional High Speed Rail service except for some small pieces in very high population areas. If it can't pay its way, it will not be built in America, and even if they get some of it built it will never go far. Americans do not like pet projects, and monuments to their leaders!
BucyrusI just heard it on the TV news tonight. I think it was ABC. I don’t recall it saying that 8-billion was the entire stimulus to go to rail or that it represented any kind of limit. It said 8-billion for a maglev line from Las Vegas to Disneyland as a pet project of Harry Reid. I don’t recall how it was worded, but there seemed to be an implication that it represented a disproportionate share being taken by the influence of Harry Reid. Here is something: http://senateconservatives.com/2009/02/12/harry-reids-high-speed-gambling-train/
Like Carl, I also can't find anywhere in the bill any reference restricting the expenditure of the high-speed rail funding to Los Angeles-Las Vegas. My text search of the law failed to find the words "Las Vegas." A Google search of the Las Vegas and Reno newspapers failed to find any mention of it, either -- you'd think they'd pick up on it. A Google search for the key words "Las Vegas, high-speed rail, stimulus, $8 billion" only pointed to some members of the Republican Party and the news media making that claim without attribution of their sources.
Could someone point it out to me where in the law it makes this restriction.
Here's what appears to be the relevant section of the law appropriating funds for high-speed rail:
"FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATIONCAPITAL ASSISTANCE FOR HIGH SPEED RAIL CORRIDORSAND INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL SERVICEFor an additional amount for section 501 of Public Law 110-432 and discretionary grants to States to pay for the cost of projects described in paragraphs (2)(A) and (2)(B) of section 24401 of title 49, United States Code, subsection (b) of section 24105 of such title, $8,000,000,000, to remain available through September 30, 2012: Provided, That the Secretary of Transportation shall give priority to projects that support the development of intercity high speed rail service: Provided further, That within 60 days of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a strategic plan that describes how the Secretary will use the funding provided under this heading to improve and deploy high speed passenger rail systems: Provided further, That within 120 days of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue interim guidance to applicants covering grant terms, conditions, and procedures until final regulations are issued: Provided further, That such interim guidance shall provide separate instructions for the high speed rail corridor program, capital assistance for intercity passenger rail service grants, and congestion grants: Provided further, That the Secretary shall waive the requirement that a project conducted using funds provided under this heading be in a State rail plan developed under chapter 227 of title 49, United States Code: Provided further, That the Federal share payable of the costs for which a grant is made under this heading shall be, at the option of the recipient, up to 100 percent: Provided further, That projects conducted using funds provided under this heading must comply with the requirements of subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 40, United States Code: Provided further, That section 24405 of title 49, United States Code, shall apply to funds provided under this heading: Provided further, That the Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration may retain up to one quarter of 1 percent of the funds provided under this heading to fund the award and oversight by the Administrator of grants made under this heading, and funds retained for said purposes shall remain available through September 30,2014."
I read in the newspaper it may go to the High-speed train from Dallas-Austin-San Antonio.
dehusman Don't hold your breath. $8 billion of the stimulus goes to fund "hi-speed rail" between LA and Las Vegas. They don't have a route, they don't have RoW purchased, they have no grading done, they have no materials ordered. So the "improvements to infrastructure" really is not going to build a railroad, its going to fund planning on how to spend more billions of dollars decades from now to build a railroad (maybe). The major beneficiary is not the traveling public, it is Senator Harry Reid, the Senate majority Leader and Senator from the great state of Nevada. Your choice of which part of the pig this $8 billion piece of pork comes from.
Don't hold your breath.
$8 billion of the stimulus goes to fund "hi-speed rail" between LA and Las Vegas. They don't have a route, they don't have RoW purchased, they have no grading done, they have no materials ordered.
So the "improvements to infrastructure" really is not going to build a railroad, its going to fund planning on how to spend more billions of dollars decades from now to build a railroad (maybe).
The major beneficiary is not the traveling public, it is Senator Harry Reid, the Senate majority Leader and Senator from the great state of Nevada. Your choice of which part of the pig this $8 billion piece of pork comes from.
I heard it is going to be maglev. How far is it from LA to LV? Eight billion sounds like it would be good for about 40 miles.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
rrnut282 I thought since Obama was from ILLINOIS, the High Speed Rail funded in this bill would have been the network around CHICAGO.
I thought since Obama was from ILLINOIS, the High Speed Rail funded in this bill would have been the network around CHICAGO.
I'm sure that in the end, it will benefit Chicago more than else where in the state. That's just the way things are done here.
inch
http://www.trainboard.com/railimages/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/4309
Yahoo!!!!! Finaly someone in politics recognises the railroad!
The road to to success is always under construction. _____________________________________________________________________________ When the going gets tough, the tough use duct tape.
The $787.2 billion economic recovery bill — to be signed by President Obama on Tuesday — dedicates $8 billion to high-speed rail, most of which was added in the final closed-door bargaining at the instigation of White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.
It's a sum that far surpasses anything before attempted in the United States — and more is coming. Administration officials told Politico that when Obama outlines his 2010 budget next week, it will ask for $1 billion more for high-speed rail in each of the next five years.
As a candidate for president, Obama spoke of high-speed rail as part of his vision of rebuilding America. Campaigning in Indiana, he talked of revitalizing the Midwest by connecting cities with faster rail service to relieve congestion and improve energy conservation.
The time is right now for us to start thinking about high-speed rail as an alternative to air transportation connecting all these cities, he said. And think about what a great project that would be in terms of rebuilding America.
But the administration never emphasized high-speed rail when the House Appropriations Committee was writing its bill in January, so no money was included. The first real request came only days before the Senate Appropriations panel marked up, and the committee had to scramble to find room for $2 billion — in part by cutting other Obama priorities.
Last week, Emanuel greatly upped the ante, asking House-Senate negotiators for $10 billion for high-speed rail — far more than either bill provided.
"I put it in there for the president", Emanuel said in an interview. "The president wanted to have a signature issue in the bill, his commitment for the future".
Emanuel himself was excited by the idea, but the decision to wager so much on high-speed rail reflected the fact that other candidates for a signature Obama issue were fading.
Moderate Senate Republicans, whose votes were needed, were resisting the president's school construction initiative. Modernizing the nation's electric grid, another White House favorite, seemed to have lost some of its cachet.
High-speed rail sailed through with surprisingly little attention paid to the president's role.
The same Maine and Pennsylvania Republican moderates who had criticized Obama's school construction initiative were more accepting of the rail funds, since the Northeast corridor has a major stake in more improvements. To help pay for the added cost, a business tax break — providing a five-year carry back for net operating losses — was narrowed to keep the focus more on smaller firms with receipts of less than $15 million.
At the same time, conservative Republicans seemed almost blind to Obama's role. Instead, in their campaign to find pork barrel projects in the stimulus bill, they painted the whole funding as a scheme by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on behalf of Las Vegas interests seeking a rail link to Los Angeles. "Sin City to Tomorrow Land" was one description.
Here is Rep. Candice Miller, R-Mich., explaining her vote against the bill Friday despite the benefits to her home state: "Michigan is a state of about 10 million people, and we are the hardest hit, as I said, by this economy. And yet we are expected to get approximately $7 billion from this bill. And apparently the Senate majority leader has earmarked $8 billion for a rail system from Las Vegas to Los Angeles? You have got to be kidding. You have got to be kidding."
In fact, there's little evidence that Reid had a decisive role, although he was happy to see his name mentioned for the sake of voters at home.
"It's amazing. I'm stunned," he said in an interview Friday, hours before the bill passed Congress. "I'm glad I get the credit in Nevada, but this is Obama's No. 1 priority. This is his legacy issue out of this bill, because we need these high-speed corridors. ... I'll take credit but frankly didn't have much to do with it other than carry forward with what Obama wanted."
Big hurdles remain. Critics already argue that the money is misplaced in a stimulus bill since it will be hard to spend quickly. Much depends on winning the cooperation of Class 1 freight lines that control many of the rights of way outside the Northeast.
But it is a landmark transportation investment with regional effects in almost every corner of the nation. Just last October, former President George W. Bush signed a bill authorizing up to $1.5 billion for high-speed rail through 2013. Obama's commitment in the same period will be eight times that.
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood is given 60 days to come up with a strategic plan for the funds. The combination of large capital upfront — followed by annual appropriations — fits the prototype for the infrastructure bank once considered for, but never included in, the recovery bill.
"High-speed rail is the infrastructure bank," said Emanuel, "and the legislation gives LaHood discretion to assign priority to projects that support the development of intercity high-speed rail service."
There is some precedent. At the height of the New Deal, FDR's Public Works Administration played a role in persuading the Pennsylvania Railroad to complete the electrification of its Washington-New York line and finish Philadelphia's 30th Street Station. Today, the government could make capital investments that both benefit freight operations and facilitate high-speed passenger service. With the drop in freight traffic, the railroads might be more cooperative, although they are sure to want some liability protection for accidents.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-02-17-obama-railroads_N.htm?csp=15
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.