McClatchy: Rail haters should take a hint from Warren Buffett

[marmar]

Commentary: Rail haters should take a hint from Warren Buffett
By Curtis Tate | McClatchy Newspapers


It's been a good year so far for rail haters.

New governors in Wisconsin and Ohio made good on their campaign promise to kill passenger train projects in their states. Florida's new governor soon followed.

In the wake of the deepest recession since the Great Depression, all three governors rejected billions of dollars in federal funding that would have created thousands of new jobs building, operating and maintaining high-speed trains.

Not everyone scoffs at rail investment, though. .............(more)

The complete piece: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/03/07/109709/commentary-rail-haters-should.html#ixzz1G77xfGgC

[nykym]

1. Maybe those governors

See rail projects as another foothold for the unions.

[WatsonT]

2. They're probably concerned about getting stuck with funding it

after the billions are gone.

And in light of the amount that Amtrak must be subsidized that is not an unreasonable fear for many debt riddled states.

Mass transit is a good thing . . . in some places. It doesn't work universally.

[marmar]

3. High speed rail won't be applied universally, just in corridors where it would work.

nt

[WatsonT]

4. I believe that exact same thing was said about Amtrak

saying something *ought* to be self-sufficient and actually having it be self-sufficient are not the same thing.

[marmar]

5. There's nothing wrong with subsidizing an important public service, IMHO.

They seemed to have figured this out in Europe and the Pacific Rim, n'est-ce pas?

[WatsonT]

7. Ah so it would require subsidies now?

Well part of this handout from the federal government requires that the costs for maintaining such a venture will fall on the states after the initial funding is gone.

So for a state already in the red this isn't exactly a great deal. It's a handout . . . . with substantial future obligations.

If they can't afford to maintain their budgets right now how do you suppose they will manage with another few billion added on?

It's like offering to cover the downpayment on a house for a poor person, with the understanding that after that they will have to take over paying the monthly mortgage.

Seems like a nice handout, but it will ultimately be unsustainable for the person receiving this 'gift'.

[marmar]

9. A 'handout'? ...... Umm, okay.

nt

[WatsonT]

10. Def:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/handout

You also failed to refute or even address my point.

Adding a substantial future financial burden doesn't make sense to states dealing with their current debt.

[phleshdef]

6. Yea, just like they hate being "stuck" with funding pensions and healthcare for public workers.

Friggin spare me.

Republic Governors: OMGZ WE MIGHT HAVE TO PAY FOR SOMETHINGZ. THEY GON MAKE US DO MATH! WE FEEX! KILL IT!! KILL IT!!!

[WatsonT]

8. Typically the prospect of adding more spending

on top of debt doesn't appeal to people.

[Vinnie From Indy]

11. Well gee, maybe you are right!

Maybe states should begin to opt out of the federal highway system as well.

[WatsonT]

12. Already funded

and covered in states budgets.

There is a big difference in cutting existing expenses to reduce debt and being less than eager to *add* new expenses while facing debt.

Consider: you have major credit card debt. Do you sell your car to cover it? Maybe yes, maybe no, have to think about that one. Do you go out and buy a new jetski? Hell no. No debate on that one.