By Tom Kando
Throughout its history, America has been the country of the future, a progressive and forward-looking country that planned ahead and had a vision. America was always gung-ho, always ready to go ahead, to show the world how to do it better, how to build it better.
The current high-speed train mess in California is a prototype of how far we have fallen as a people. While the governor and the legislature are still keeping the project (barely) alive, a majority of the public is now against it (aided and abetted by short-sighted opinion leaders like Sacramento Bee columnist Dan Walters).
I am not talking about the litigation morass into which the project is already falling, the conflicting interests, the poor planning, the inability to move forward, etc. I am talking about the fact that most people are basically opposed to the concept as a whole.
It’s cheap to rant and rave about “those damn politicians,” but here (as in many other cases), the real problem is ourselves, the public.
It seems that we, Americans, have lost our nerve. High-speed rail? Nah, too expensive. A waste of money.
Imagine if we had reacted the same way in the past?
When they were about to build the first transcontinental railroad (1863-1869), did people say, “What for? Why waste the money?”
When they started the land grant universities in the 19th century, did people react with the same negativity?
National Parks were created, starting with Yellowstone in 1872, and later, President Theodore Roosevelt was a major force behind this. Did people malign him and call him a socialist?
Did Americans feel that building the Panama Canal (primarily during the presidencies of Theodore Roosevelt and Taft in the early 20th century) was a waste?
Did they feel the same way in the 1930s, about the many vast public projects during President Franklin Roosevelt’s terms, the dozens of hydroelectric facilities of the Tennessee Valley Authority, Hoover Dam, the Golden Gate bridge and the Oakland Bay bridge?
What if a majority of Americans had rejected the entire New Deal, including Social Security?
...or the Manhattan Project to develop the atom bomb and win the war?
...or the Interstate Highway system, begun in 1956 under President Eisenhower’s watch?
...or President Kennedy’s Apollo Program in the 1960s, the moon landings and NASA?
What if Americans and the Supreme Court had voted down Medicare, when President Johnson introduced it in 1965?
America’s entire history has been the glorious partnership of the private and public sectors, as when the federal government assisted these vast projects with land grants, bonds and other resources.
Today, after the retirement of the space shuttle, America no longer has a space program. We rely on Russia to get to the space station. Meanwhile, China, Japan and the Europeans are launching rockets (Oh yes, we have some private companies trying their hand at it, too...)
Our infrastructure is beginning to resemble that of Third World countries. In my own neck of the woods, they have been retrofitting the Oakland Bay Bridge for 23 years (!) And it’s nowhere near done. You know how long it took to build the bridge? 3 years!
That’s what you get when you decide to become “Conservative.” The word’s meaning is clear: If you are conservative, it means that you want to stay in the past, not move into the future. It means that you oppose innovation. You oppose new and more efficient technologies (such as high-speed trains). You are a Luddite, like the folks who opposed new technology at the outset of the Industrial Revolution.
Bruce Maiman says it well, in a Sacramento Bee column on July 10: “ ”America used to build things...(but now) it seems that what we do best... is make excuses to justify not doing anything.”
And the excuses are always twofold: (1) We can’t afford it, and (2) it takes away our freedoms.
Both excuses are lame:
(1) We spend $5.3 billion a month in Afghanistan. The entire high-speed rail project in California would cost less than 11 more months of that idiotic war.
(2): This same old refrain is heard every time that society takes a step forward to improve the life of its citizens: Today’s arguments against Obamacare are identical to those made against Social Security before its introduction in 1935 and Medicare’s start in 1965: these programs were also said to be tools of government oppression, taking away our freedoms, blah blah. But within a few years, once those programs were up and running smoothly, 80% to 85% of the people came around to support them. This is exactly what will happen with Obamacare.
But the current widespread opposition to any farsighted projects and policies is a sure sign that Americans have stopped thinking about their future. Not good. leave comment here
16 comments:
Tom the facts do not support what you are saying. Californians voted to pay for high speed rail. They voted for a train from SF to LA. Of course, voters revolted when the project changed from inter-urban transit to something different. When I order trousers and am given a skirt, I do not accept the skirt.
"Initial funding for the project was approved by California voters on November 4, 2008, with the passage of Proposition 1A authorizing the issuance of US$9.95 billion in general obligation bonds for the project."
Thanks, Steve:
Disagreement is good; it’s democratic.
However:
Whereas you are right that the people of California initially approved high-speed rail, that was before they became pessimistic due to the never-ending recession.
I believe that - in addition to being turned off by the factors you suggest (changes of plans, the project’s incompetence, shenanigans, cost-overruns, etc.), there is also at play a general malaise across this country, an attitude which contrasts with the can-do attitude that’s been the hallmark of America in the past.
This is the more important point of my post.
I regret that some of my posts are aggravating. I am Cassandra (or Jeremiah).
But I also have a bit of good news (and a self-correction): NASA will soon launch its science rover “Curiosity” to Mars, in search of life on the red planet. So America is still in the space game.
You're right that people's economy-driven fears are a big factor in this project not going forward, but Steve is correct in saying that the main factor in this case is the "switching up" of what many of us previously approved. It's ridiculous that given the amount of time that has passed since the initial proposal, that the state cannot simply approve the building of a set of tracks that go from SF to LA, stopping in key areas like Fresno and Bakersfield. And, the griping about how Sacramento isn't included is also ridiculous. It would take about 45 minutes to take a train from Sac to SF.
Personally, I suspect that there may be other forces at work here, ie. Big Oil. They are behind our wars, behind the blockades that have been put up for alternative fuel and vehicle development, and I don't think it's too big a stretch to say that they probably really do not want to see the development of high-speed rail take flight.
I DO think it is correct to point a finger (you know which one, too) at the politicians and the lobbyists. During my time at the Chamber and while working for our state government, I had a front row seat to the display of how deeply in bed they are with private industry, including oil. Dragging this project out, and for that matter the Bay Bridge too, means job security and more perks for the politicians and lobbyists.
Dani
Dani:
This is an amazingly well done comment. Touches upon many main aspects.
Just some random thoughts:
1. The paralysis and gridlock you mention are precisely part of my argument. Which is that our society has - for many complex reasons - lost the ability to move forward effectively.
2. My main point is not just high-speed rail. It is the general decline of this country’s traditional can-do spirit. Granted, I may be distorted and nostalgic. Old-timers always romanticize the past.
3. When you mention vested interests, including Big Oil, you are diagnosing the ailment which I identify, the CAUSES of the paralysis. It is logical to assume, then, that special interests, money, lobbying and buying politicians have increased a lot since the “gold old days” of which I speak.
4. If I briefly turned my attention away from crooked politicians to a dumb electorate, it was only to remind you that in addition to crooked politicians, there are also an awful lot of people who are either ignorant and apathetic, or brainwashed. So there is plenty of blame for all (only 18% of eligible voters voted in the recent primary).
5. As far as the bullet train is concerned: Who gets included in the project - Sacramento, Fresno, Bakersfield, etc., or just the big coastal Kahunas (SF and LA) - here we have regional rivalry at play. On the one hand, it makes sense to build the system where most of the people are. On the other hand, others argue that the system can be built much more cheaply in the central valley, with way cheaper land, fewer problems of “abutment,” eminent domain, and other obstacles.
Does Europe offer a lesson? Hard to say. Talys and the TGV link up the major cities of course. But they traverse sparsely populated areas, too. Hey what do I know, I’m no expert...
Tom- There are a couple of other issues here. The America that differentiates us from other democratic systems had a lot of entrepreneurship. In many cases we devolved to social systems when we did not need to. Think back to the creation of the transcontinental rail road (where we used a modification of enterprise zones to create the use of private engineering to accomplish the task) or the Morrill Act (Land Grants again were created by offering land) and you see that these were unique public/private partnerships. The difference on Social Security and Medicare is the funding mechanism. Both were based on significantly faulty funding premises (that the next generation will always be larger than the previous one and that neither system will include significant amounts of rent seeking). Were we to build a system of old age pensions or medical care (including the significantly flawed assumptions in Obamacare) we might opt for systems which involved better financing assumptions - so for example instead of copying the bankrupt systems of Europe we might well adopt something like the ones adopted in a number of Central and South American countries where people actually own their retirement accounts. The point here is that a lot of the programs you support are based on sloppy financing and a default to not recognize the strength of individual initiative rightly understood. Which builds more jobs the Solyndra or the Staples model?
I thank Jonathan for persisting.
So we agree that the Intercontinental Railroad, the Morrill Act, etc. are examples of successful public/private partnerships. Precisely what I said.
Social Security and Medicare: The words “Pyramid” and “Ponzi scheme” sum up the widespread fear in recent years over these programs, which many people now viewed as unsustainable, for the reasons you mention.
I am sensitive to this argument, as I realize that there are limits to growth (see my July 4th post -
Growth Forever?)
(But of course, that’s not at all what you mean. I am sure that you are an ardent supporter of vigorous economic growth into the indefinite future...)
The panic over the unsustainability of those federal programs (plus all other public pensions) emanates from the Conservative wing. It is used to justify a cry for privatization.
But privatization is no solution at all. The solution consists of changing the terms of the equation - raising retirement age, raising mandatory contributions, moderating benefits, etc.
Like all American conservatives, you keep writing off the European welfare state as already bankrupt, washed up. I wouldn’t bet on it. This obituary is premature. I recommend that you visit places such as Germany, the Netherlands, Scandinavia. The next few years may have a nasty surprise in store for American conservatives: Lo and behold, the Europeans are doing better than we are!
Instead, you mention Central and South America as possible models for judicious social policy? This is a joke, isn’t it?
I propose instead to build a series of 100 basketball stadia across CA, in cities such as sacramento, Stockton, Redding, Bakersfield, Truckee, Santa rosa, etc, so that the Kings can tour and all californians can share in the delights :). My argument for this is as follows:
(Post "What Happened to You, America?" follows)
Thanks, Dwight:
I suppose your comment is a little bit funny.
I agree that we should not build 100 basketball stadia across California.
My argument? Hmm...
Tom-
A couple of comments. I look at the economic models in most European states (Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy are at the forefront but the rest are not far behind) and they are all tied to a model where debt to GDP is rising quickly. In the past the assumption was that new population (the next generation) would bail out this problem. The problem is that in most of Europe population is at below replacement levels. That is not the conservatives speaking it is most analysts who have looked at things dispassionately.
I think you make a couple of assumptions about my thoughts on Morrill and the railroads. First, the grant of land (which both schemes used) was possible because we had a lot of it then and people could see the utility of going forward. But until 1965 the Morrill act made no long term financial commitment to the Land Grants. In the case of the high speed rail, the financial commitment is huge and despite protestations of supporters - not well thought out.
Money does not spring out of rocks. Even with the higher rates of taxation in Europe - the debt:GDP ratios continue to climb. I start with a fundamental premise - if something is going to be done in the public sector it should be sustainable. But I start with a second assumption (which I am sure you disagree with), markets work. You don't decry the market for computers or autos or toothpaste but you seem to think that if you do things like allowing the private sector to have a significant role in things like saving for retirement that is magically bad.
One part of our history which you may not be aware of was the development of high speed river transportation in the early decades of the Nineteenth Century. A lot of governments sold lots of bonds to finance these projects. Trouble was, like high speed rail - the estimates of usage were horribly overblown. At the same time, the promoters did not anticipate a system of rail transportation. The result was some significant changes in the way bonds can be sold by governments, many of which carry over to today. But look at the vast majority of groups supporting the project - most all have a personal financial interest in the project - organized labor believes it will promote jobs, construction industry, thinks it will build their businesses. In any other example like that you would be the first to argue how improper that self interest is.
Ultimately, as one of Obama's chief braintrusters has suggested government can help with "nudges" - that is ultimately what happened with the railroads and even the Land Grants. It is certainly what should happen with high speed rail. IF there really is a market for high speed rail - then let it develop - with only minor government support. Right now high speed rail is a series of rent seekers trying to get me to pay for their experiment. I suspect now that a lot of Californians are beginning to realize that they will reject the first funding of the bonds. And they should.
Jonathan,
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. I too, have a couple of comments:
1. For one thing, the US debt to GDP ratio is much worse than Europe’s aggregate debt: about 100%. It’s not quite as bad as Greece’s but it is much worse than that of a majority of European countries - not just those with the strongest economies like Germany and Holland, but also countries such as France and many others.
I know, I know, There is not such thing as an “aggregate European” debt, and therein lies Europe’s much greater vulnerability to deficit spending.
But I’ll repeat: the US’ (dual) deficit (government debt and current account deficit) is larger than Europe’s. So much for whose economy is healthier or better managed!
2. There is only one way out the downward spiral of public debt: a combination of reduced spending and increased revenue. Whether this dual approach should be 50-50 or different proportions, is debatable. What is NOT debatable is the Republican intransigence which insists on a solution calling for 100% spending cuts and 0% revenue increase.
3. Private markets? Sure. But thousands of pages have been written about: (1) for which parts of the economy do they work best? and (2) to what extent do they work better when regulated AND ASSISTED by government? We can’t do justice to these questions here.
4. The viability of high-speed rail (and other technologies) : As of today (July 19, 2012), California is moving forward with the project, so I am happy about that.
What determines whether something succeeds or not? Supersonic commercial travel seemed promising, but Concord died... River transportation in the US is negligible, but in Europe, barges are part of the everyday landscape...
It’s a mistake to believe that there must FIRST exist an identifiable demand - a potential lucrative market - for a new product, before it should be produced. It’s almost ALWAYS the other way around. “If you build it they will come.” Just about every new product in history FIRST happened, and THEN people latched on (or not) - from cars to airplanes, from telephones to computers, from cinema to television.
High-speed rail is here to stay (overseas anyway). Dozens of countries enjoy its benefits. It’s the future. If we don’t build one, we’ll just stay behind, that’s all. We’ll live. The people of Angola and Uruguay don’t have high-speed trains either, but they are happy nevertheless...
Thank you Tom and Jonathon for the excellent discussion. Let me just put my spin on the subject as a conservative. I tend to judge governmental infrastructure investments by their contributions to 1) national defense and to 2) free market expansion/competition. As such, the 1950’s interstate highway development made sense for both criteria (facilitating military deployment and automobile manufacturer, oil distributor, and freight company expansion/competition); the Apollo program was closely allied with national defense; airport construction/improvement again is aligned with both criteria (military deployment and airliner and manufacturer competition), and going back in history the Panama Canal met both criteria. I just don’t see the California bullet train significantly contributing to either criteria; it will be like Amtrak: mediocre service and continuously seeking subsidies.
I thank anonymous for his comment.
We'll see whether or not the California’s high-speed train is economically viable or not (in many, many years from now).
But of course, many public services are not SUPPOSED to be profitable. That 's why they are public, and why they continue to require government subsidy - forever.
Such is the case with many excellent and indispensable train systems overseas such as France's SNCF, and I would submit also our Amtrak. Many people depend on Amtrak, so it cannot be discontinued, even if it isn’t profitable.
That’s how it is with most public services - the Post Office, public education, health care, public transportation, etc. They operate at a loss, but they are essential.
I would even add another candidate to this list: it has been said that since their very inception, airlines have NEVER shown long-term profit. Maybe airlines should also be nationalized, because they are inherently incapable of being profitable, yet they are essential to the nation.
Tom, I want to ask a bit about your statement that we need to "reduce spending" and increase revenue. In my view there are some ways to increase revenue, but many of the ways being proposed,for example corporate taxes, actually lead to less revenue. The US has the highest corporate tax in the world so there is little incentive for a corporation to operate in the US, hence reduced jobs and reduced revenue when taxes are raised. On the other hand, I would think that capital gains taken out by INDIVIDUALS could be progressively taxed. The US has a 39% corporation tax--Denmark 25%. The US has a 15% capital gains tax and Denmark 41%. Denmark is listed as one of the happiest countries. I wonder if this might be part of the reason.
Gordon,
there is a lot in your brief remark.
How heavily US corporations are taxed is debatable. Some data show that when considering all our loopholes, we are actually lower than many other countries.
On the issue of individual capital gains taxes, I couldn’t agree more.
There is also the following oft-heard and in my view very GOOD argument: Why on earth are people taxed more heavily for income earned from WORK than from income earned from stocks, bonds and other investments? If you just sit on your duff and rake in money from some paper accounts (which, by the way, are often inherited family wealth), you get taxed at a much lower rate than if you work at a grinding 9-to-5 job. A cruel and unusual system, in my view!
The argument for this made by Wall Street types is that this is how jobs are created (by “investors”), blah blah. I don’t buy it.
Tom, I totally agree that it is more moral to tax passive income earned off of other people's labor, than to tax the fruits of one's own labor.
As for corporation taxes, we should eliminate all loopholes, but because I work in business, I know that corporations would rather engage in paying high salaries to employees, lavish parties, superfluous advertising, and inventory reduction than paying taxes. In short, they often plan on ways to spend money to leave no profit. This means that corporation taxes in general are a perverse incentive and counterproductive. It is better to tax excessive salaries or luxuries, and create an environment in which corporation actually seek profit at the end of the day so that they will invest in jobs and equipment.
Thank you for your well explained argument favoring lower corporate taxes. Makes sense.
Post a Comment
Please limit your comment to 300 words at the most!