Republicans Willing To Rip Apart America To Deny President Obama Legitimacy As the Nation's Leader-- Take High Speed Rail

GOP Rep. Tom Reed thinks you should cut back so he can eat more

Everyone in Congress loves a good transportation bill, regardless of political party. It has always allowed Members to go home to their districts and brag, "Look what I've done for you," pointing to new highways or even just exit ramps, train stations, runways... When George W. Bush signed the bipartisan Passenger Rail Investment Act, the national consensus behind high speed rail had begun. Every Democrat and 158 Republicans voted for it. Only 38 die-hard reactionaries (all Republicans) voted no, the real bottom-feeders of right-wing psychosis like Virginia Foxx (NC), Paul Broun (GA), Marsha Blackburn (TN), Scott Garrett (NJ), Mike Pence (IN), Doug Lamborn (CO), Jeb Hensarling (TX), Joe Barton (TX), Steve King (IA), Wally Herger (CA) and Patrick McHenry (NC). Republican congressional leaders like Boehner, Cantor, Blunt, Ryan, McCarthy, Dreier were all aboard. Even far right kooks like Bachmann, Walberg, Gohmert, and Mean Jean Schmidt were socialists for a day on that one. Every single Republican from Florida-- salivating at the prospect of what high speed rail could do for their state's economy and economic future-- voted YES.

So what changed? The election of America's first African American president. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face! Suddenly all those Republicans-- or almost all-- who voted for high speed rail are hysterical in their opposition. Now it's not a bipartisan opportunity to move the country forward. Now it's a socialist conspiracy to make every Christian man in America marry a gay and turn over his gun to the UN. Al Cardenas, former chairman of the Florida Republican Party, is just the kind of lobbyist who revels in this kind of pork-laden legislation. Even as chairman of the American Conservative Union, he's still pushing for approval. But that's no longer a consensus position for a Republican-- or even an acceptable one. In Cardenas' case, his lobbying for high speed rail puts him at odds with Florida's ideologically over the cliff governor, Rick Scott who turned down $2.4 billion for a Tampa-Orlando high speed rail showcase both parties-- minus deranged teabaggers who have been brainwashed by Koch-funded propaganda on behalf of their oil and gas interests-- favored.

Partisan ideologues like the governors of Florida, Wisconsin and Ohio have turned down the funds for high speed rail, sacrificing the economic futures of their state's in order to follow the lead of Republican leaders like Mitch McConnell who say the #1 priority of the GOP should be to defeat Obama in 2012. But what about high speed rail itself? Can it survive despite the partisan backlash and Republican Party nihilism? Yesterday the Duluth News Tribune looked at the same question. Serving a community desperate for the jobs high speed rail will help to create, the paper offered a non-teabagger mainstream consensus view.

For a variety of reasons, including the recent financial crisis, the U.S. economy remains in a serious slump. High-speed rail spending could stimulate job growth and help jump start the economy.

These projects would, of course, add to the deficit, and concerns about its long-term growth, particularly that attributable to health care, are merited.

Looking back over the last three decades, however, Republicans’ interests in deficit reduction seems to have waxed and waned depending upon who occupied the White House.

The run-up in the debt under Bush was regrettable, but the time to cut government spending is when the economy is strong, not when it is weak.

If the country is going to incur new debt, it is better to do so to acquire well-chosen infrastructure and equipment than to fund consumption.

Would high-speed rail represent well-chosen infrastructure? In other words, would it help the U.S. “win the future”? This is a more complex question. It requires us to consider not simply whether such projects would help close the output gap, but whether and how effectively they would expand the potential output of the economy.

Here there are legitimate concerns about whether the U.S. has enough high density corridors-- such as that between Boston and Washington-- to yield large benefits.

...[S]tate and federal governments have a long and largely successful record of supporting infrastructure development, from the Erie Canal to regional and transcontinental railroads to the Interstate Highway System and, more recently, to the Internet.

The build-out of the surface road network during the Great Depression generated large private-sector benefits, contributing to very fast productivity growth in transportation.

High-speed rail projects could certainly create jobs and stimulate the economy in the short run. Whether they would generate benefits similar to those of other government funded infrastructure projects is uncertain. History suggests, however, that there’s a good chance they would.

But Republicans afraid of local teabaggers' deranged anti-Obama mania are determined to sacrifice high speed rail on the same pyre as healthcare. Upstate New York is another economically devastated area that could benefit greatly by high speed rail spending. But the two freshmen teabaggers, Tom Reed of Corning and Ann Marie Buerkle of Onondaga Hill, are adamantly opposed, no matter how much their opposition harms their own constituents. They sent a letter urging Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood to abandon plans for a high speed rail line in upstate New York.

"Constructing a high speed rail line across western and upstate New York is not practical," said Reed. "A true high speed rail line across this region would require its own dedicated track. Fulfilling this requirement would cost tens of billions of dollars. At a time when our roads, bridges and other transportation infrastructure are deteriorating, our tax dollars would be better spent elsewhere. We simply must make the tough choices necessary to prioritize our limited resources on projects that are essential and have the potential for long-term self-sufficiency.”

Shawn Hogan, mayor of Hornell and the Steuben County Democratic chair, was critical of Reed’s stance.

“To just blindly say no to any high speed rail system in this country is ludicrous and hypocritical,” said Hogan. “He does not represent his constituents. He has not cast one vote in Washington since he has been there, in my mind, to create any jobs. We have one of the highest unemployment rates in the state in Steuben County.

“For him to write a letter expressing this opinion with Anne Marie Buerkle, who's another person not very popular in her own district, in central New York, is a slap in the face to every person in the district. I don’t care if you are Democrat, Republican, Independent, whoever you are, you can not stop investing in the future of this country. Period.”

Most of New York's congressional delegation agrees with Mayor Hogan, not the 2 teabagger congressmen. Louise Slaughter, who represents most of Rochester, has been asking Obama to dedicate federal money for upstate high speed rail. "High-speed rail in Upstate New York is a vital component for economic revitalization in our region," Slaughter said. "The United States Conference of Mayors estimates at least 21,000 new jobs and $1.1 billion in new wages in New York alone from the realization of a high-speed rail network. Those who want to abandon high-speed rail in New York are also abandoning thousands of new jobs and economic opportunities for Upstate New Yorkers."

It's an argument going on all over the country. Forward-looking states like Massachusetts, California and Vermont are vying for the $2.4 billion Florida turned down. Backward reactionary bastions like Alabama, want nothing to do with anything that will bring prosperity to ordinary working families, worried it will help lift minorities and worried it will make Obama look good. It's a destructive mindset. Americans for Public Transportation President William Millar points out that “It’s fashionable today to take every issue and rip it apart in a partisan way. It’s a very difficult time to be a leader trying to lay out a great future for the country. I’m not trying to sound like a defender of the president, but just as an observer of politics, opponents of the president are going to use whatever they can... The era we live in, nothing is off limits. Republicans have a long history of supporting infrastructure projects. I hope that doesn’t change.” It has. Voters will make the decision in 2012 if this is what they want from their elected officials and if this is the kind of behavior they accept from their government.