Hillary Clinton is claiming that she lost the election because FBI Director Comey re-opened the investigation of her criminal e-mail activities days before the election. In reality, her speculation and that of many others claiming a single reason for her loss, or for that matter a loss in any close presidential race, is simply silly. It was a close contest and the loser was the loser for many, many reasons. Yes, changing one or two choices the candidate made might have made the difference and brought victory instead of defeat. But, almost always there are many choices any one of which might have changed the outcome of the election.
Broadly speaking, Hillary might have had a more positive attitude toward allowing businesses to grow, and she would have won the election. In fact, she might well have won the election had she simply not been a threat to those who earn a living in whole or in part due to the coal industry and due to the fracking of oil and gas. She very barely lost Pennsylvania with its 20 electoral votes and while she lost Ohio rather more decisively, it was still an obtainable state. Hillary especially lost votes in western PA and in eastern and southern OH, relative to Obama's results. See the US map on the front page of The Wall Street Journal of 10 November 2016, which color codes the degree of the Democrat vote loss relative to the 2012 election. These are areas in which coal was long a mainstay to the economy and in which the recent booms due to oil and gas from fracking operations have produced an economic revival.
So, did Hillary lose the 38 electoral votes of OH and PA because she was threatening the fossil fuels and all the service providers of these areas? Had she won those votes and still lost Michigan, she would have had 270 electoral college votes to Trump's 268 electoral votes, assuming his win in MI holds up. Her completely bogus and irrational vendetta against these industries may well have cost her the election. Irrational choices often have direful consequences. As hard as I have fought to argue against the false catastrophic man-made global warming hypothesis and such additional bogus claims such as measurable harm from mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants, Hillary's loss of the election due to her desire to destroy the fossil fuel industries is sweet indeed.
Of course, Obama had himself threatened the coal industry, but many people did not take that so seriously back then. Whatever his predilections, they may have thought that Congress would keep him from destroying the industry. As it happened, Obama used the regulatory agencies to do that destruction, so a Hillary following him and using the same strategies had to be taken as a more serious threat in this election. In addition, the growth of the oil and gas production in eastern and southern Ohio and in western Pennsylvania was remarkable in the four years straddling Obama's re-election, with the realization of the importance of fracking to the benefiting areas of OH and PA taking some time to occur to much of the population in those areas. Try as hard as Obama's EPA did to find an excuse to attack the fracking practice, they had limited success in doing so, though pressure among the "environmental" Democrats continues to mount for doing so. Some unnecessary and wrongheaded regulations based on the catastrophic man-made global warming fraud are in the pipeline now.
Some Democrats like to make a big deal about Hillary Clinton winning the popular vote by about 798,000 votes. Of course the rules are that one has to win the electoral vote, which requires the candidates to try to appeal to people across the nation. This requirement helps to minimize factions in politics, which we surely have more than enough of as it is. It helps to keep candidates from just favoring those who live in high population density areas. It helps to keep them from stomping on the interests of those who live in low cost of living areas too much. In other words, it penalizes those who want to exterminate the industries that some people depend upon for a living if they do not live in those high population areas. It means that if you promote a minimum wage of $15 an hour for the entire nation, you might incur a political cost for the concerns that many people living in low cost of living areas, almost always outside high population density areas, will have about losing their jobs or their businesses. It even serves as a bit of protection against those who would discriminate against people based on their ethnicity, since ethnicity is not evenly distributed across the country or between low and high population density areas.
Hillary needs to grow up and realize that she lost the election according to its rules. Of course, it is too late for her to ever grow up. But others may still have that within their grasp. The claim that those extra 798,000 votes mean much is diminished by a number of additional factors. For one, the Democrats rack up a few hundred thousand illegal votes in presidential elections. In addition, because the most populous state of California, which is heavily Democratic, had a Senate election in which both candidates on the ballot were very leftist Democrats, the Republicans of that state had much less incentive to go to the polls than did Democrats. As a result, Trump did not get many votes in California that he would have had if a Republican had been allowed on the ballot in that Senate seat contest. The Democrats of California have found an interesting way to diminish the meaning of the popular vote for the presidential elections.
It is interesting to note that Republicans in the elections for the House of Representatives received 3.1 million more votes than did the Democrats running for House seats. The Republicans won 238 House seats to the Democrats 193 seats. Republicans won 22 Senate seats (counting LA which is not technically decided until December) and the Democrats won only 12. Trump won 30 (counting MI) of the 50 state popular vote contests. Even with a Republican presidential candidate who was not all that popular, the Republicans trounced the Democrats. Nonetheless, such a beating can be reversed in the next election cycle if the Republicans do not keep enough of their promises, such as finally repealing ObamaCare and allowing the economy to grow.
Showing posts with label Ohio. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ohio. Show all posts
15 November 2016
05 March 2016
Why Some U.S. Companies are Fleeing to Mexico and Trump Cannot Negotiate Us Out of this Mess
In my recent 1 March post Making America Great and Donald Trump, I said
The Wall St. Journal response to that is:
Nabisco is hardly alone in abandoning Chicago or Illinois. In 2015, Illinois bucked the increase in manufacturing jobs in other nearby states by losing 56 jobs a working day. Meanwhile, Michigan gained 74 manufacturing jobs a working day, Ohio gained 58, Indiana gained 20, and Wisconsin gained 18 manufacturing jobs a day. The unfriendly business climate in Illinois has dire consequences.
Both Ford and General Motors are doubling their production in Mexico by 2018. Ford is building two engine and transmission plants in Mexico and will manufacture small cars and hybrids required to meet the federally imposed fuel standard fleet requirements on all Ford vehicles manufactured. These required small cars are money losers, so it is particularly hard to manufacture them in the U.S.
The United Auto Workers Union has won an agreement that will raise the hourly cost of wages and benefits for its members to $60, from the already very high cost of $57/hour cost for Ford and a $55/hour cost for GM. In comparison, foreign-owned automakers in the U.S. have labor costs of about $50/hour.
In addition to lower labor costs, Mexico has free-trade agreements with 45 countries, while the U.S. has free-trade agreements with only 20 countries. Trump clearly wants to reduce our free-trade agreements, hurting the U.S. still further in this competitive advantage. He will drive still more plants to Mexico following his trade-war policies.
The Wall St. Journal says the way to make the U.S. economy great is to
the primary reason the opening of new trade markets around the world has not led to the growth of the American economy is because the American government does not allow American businesses to be competitive. He notes the importance of corporate tax reductions, but only after implying that bad trade negotiations caused job loses in America. The job losses in America are due to excessive taxes, paperwork, and regulations that American businesses are hobbled with, thanks to Washington. Business expenses are very high in America compared to many other countries in the world. To compete, we need to be free to take full advantage of our design and innovation capabilities, while shedding governmental burdens that provide no or insufficient benefits. We should be taking advantage of our abundance of inexpensive and reliable energy, not trying to make it more expensive as Obama has done. We should be taking advantage of our great banking and financial companies, not smothering most of them in disabling requirements under Dodd-Frank so-called reform. We should not be raising the cost of business with governmental dictates of minimum wages, paid leave benefits, the highest corporate and personal taxes in most of the developed nations, ObamaCare, NLRB rulings favoring forced unionization, and EPA regulations based on exaggerated claims of mercury or catastrophic man-made global warming.The lead Opinion article in the 4 March Wall St. Journal was titled Trump on Ford and Nabisco. Trump has been claiming that Mexico hijacked both Ford and Nabisco plants resulting in plant closings in the U.S. Trump says this is why he "Does not mind trade wars."
The Wall St. Journal response to that is:
That's one way of looking at it. Another way is that both companies made rational decisions to move some of their operations to Mexico because the tax and regulatory climate in the U.S. under President Obama has become increasingly hostile to business. Before picking destructive trade fights with the world, maybe the next President could work to make America great for doing business again.Nine production lines at the largest bakery in the world, in Chicago, are to be closed by Nabisco to build a higher technology plant in Salinas, Mexico. Nabisco will save $46 million a year with the new plant. Nabisco gave the labor union at the Chicago plant the opportunity to match that annual savings. The labor union brought in a Bernie Sanders campaign official to help them. Operating a business in Chicago is especially tough. Illinois has unusually high corporate taxes and property taxes, not to mention very high worker's compensation expenses. Underfunded city employee pensions are forcing taxes upward rapidly.
Nabisco is hardly alone in abandoning Chicago or Illinois. In 2015, Illinois bucked the increase in manufacturing jobs in other nearby states by losing 56 jobs a working day. Meanwhile, Michigan gained 74 manufacturing jobs a working day, Ohio gained 58, Indiana gained 20, and Wisconsin gained 18 manufacturing jobs a day. The unfriendly business climate in Illinois has dire consequences.
Both Ford and General Motors are doubling their production in Mexico by 2018. Ford is building two engine and transmission plants in Mexico and will manufacture small cars and hybrids required to meet the federally imposed fuel standard fleet requirements on all Ford vehicles manufactured. These required small cars are money losers, so it is particularly hard to manufacture them in the U.S.
The United Auto Workers Union has won an agreement that will raise the hourly cost of wages and benefits for its members to $60, from the already very high cost of $57/hour cost for Ford and a $55/hour cost for GM. In comparison, foreign-owned automakers in the U.S. have labor costs of about $50/hour.
In addition to lower labor costs, Mexico has free-trade agreements with 45 countries, while the U.S. has free-trade agreements with only 20 countries. Trump clearly wants to reduce our free-trade agreements, hurting the U.S. still further in this competitive advantage. He will drive still more plants to Mexico following his trade-war policies.
The Wall St. Journal says the way to make the U.S. economy great is to
- lower corporate and marginal tax rates
- reform pensions and entitlements
- institute right-to-work laws
- repeal ObamaCare
19 October 2012
Creating a Republican Senate
As a libertarian, albeit one often in disagreement with the defense policy of the Libertarian Party, I am well aware that the best check on the growth of the federal government has been to have a Republican President and a Congress with one house in the control of each party. In the upcoming election, the House of Representatives will remain solidly Republican. My prediction that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan will replace Obama and Biden because the American people would finally get over the celebrity status of Obama and see him and Biden as the empty socialist suits they are is finally clearly happening. In ordinary times, it might be best that the Democrats retain a narrow control of the Senate, but this is not an ordinary time.
It is absolutely essential that ObamaCare, really the ObamaUncaringTax, be repealed. It is also very important to repeal the Dodd-Frank Too-Big-to-Fail Crony Mercantilism Act. It is essential to reform and control the EPA and finally kill the myth of catastrophic man-made global warming. We must free business to develop our huge oil and gas deposits and to make use of our rich supply of coal. We must end the waste of taxpayer dollars fed into uneconomic green energy companies with no viable markets and the electricity mandates for green energy that are driving up our electric bills and making our electricity supply unreliable. We also need to push back the government employee unions, the abuses of the Obama National Labor Relations Board (NRLB), and try to provide national Right to Work legislation. We need the opportunity to replace one or more of the five Supreme Court Justices who so falsely read the Constitution that they could vote to uphold ObamaCare. To accomplish this critical mission, we have to have a Republican Senate for the next two years.
According to the present Rasmussen Reports on the state of the Senate contests in the November 2012 election, the situation is:
Held by Republicans, not up for re-election, 37
Safe Republicans, up for election, 6
Leaning Republican, 4
Toss-ups, 5
Leaning Democrat, 6
Safe Democrat, 12
Held by Democrats, not up for re-election, 30
If all of the safe and leaning Senate races go as Rasmussen predicts, then the Republicans will have 47 seats and the Democrats will have 48 seats in the Senate. Consequently, the Republicans have to win 3 of the 5 toss-up seats for there to be a 50-50 split of the Senate, with tie votes to be decided by Paul Ryan. Of course, it would be much better for the Republicans to win at least four of the five toss-up races. These toss-up races are:
Massachusetts, Scott Brown (R) v. Elizabeth Warren (D)
Montana, Denny Rehberg (R) v. Jon Tester (D)
Ohio, Josh Mandel (R) v. Sherrod Brown (D)
Virginia, George Allen (R) v. Tim Kaine (D)
Wisconsin, Tommy Thompson (R) v. Tammy Baldwin (D)
Scott Brown (R) and Elizabeth Warren (D) have generally been running a very close race for the Massachusetts Senate seat for a long time. She is an ultra-socialist who likes to say to small business owners that they did not create and build their businesses, the government and maybe the community did. She is mad to redistribute as much income as she can. Of course, she is determined to keep Americans from developing the new riches in oil and gas deposits that fracking has opened up. She is also aligned with Obama in determination to kill the coal industry. If she wins, she will be developed as a likely 2016 presidential candidate. So, though Scott Brown is a moderate Republican who is often a friend of big government, she is a much greater danger as a friend of huge government. This is an election contest which the Republicans can win. Please support Scott Brown with a strategic contribution.
The Montana Senate seat race has incumbent Jon Tester (D) against Denny Rehberg (R), with the momentum in Rehberg's favor. Rehberg is a rancher and small businessman who has long served as Montana's soul member of the House of Representatives. In the 2011 Club for Growth Ratings of the financial responsibility of House members, Rehberg's rating was a rather low one for Republicans at 58%. However, almost no Democrats scored more than 20% and not one came close to getting a 58% rating. In the Club for Growth Senate Ratings, Jon Tester had a 17% score. Denny Rehberg would be a decided upgrade and he is needed badly to repeal ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank, and to reset the EPA and the NRLB. A donation to his campaign would be a wise and strategic investment in America.
The Ohio Senate race features Josh Mandel (R) running against incumbent Sherrod Brown (D), who is commonly called the most socialist Senator, now that Obama is no longer the most socialist Senator. Supporting Josh Mandel has the effect of also adding to ads and get out the vote efforts that will help push Romney over the top in this critical swing state. Josh is all about good government. Please read his bio, which is a hard-nosed description of what he has done as Treasurer of the state of Ohio and when he was in the Ohio House. This is not a fluff politician. He won his election as Treasurer as the biggest vote-getter in the state, winning 80 of 88 counties in Ohio. Standard and Poor rated his $4 billion government investment fund with its highest rating. His General Obligation bond fund has Fitch's highest rating. He expanded the Ohio liquidity portfolio by $2.3 billion since he took office. Josh is pro-free enterprise and a strong supporter of the Constitution. He has the strongest possible endorsement from the Club for Growth. Josh Mandel will be a super good Senator. In comparison, Sherrod Brown had a 2011 Senate Club for Growth rating of 0%. Donating to the campaign of Josh Mandel is a super strategic investment in good government!
In Virginia, George Allen (R) is pitted against Tim Kaine (D), a former spend-thrift governor who left the finances of the state of Virginia in disarray. Virginia is a swing state, so supporting Allen will tend to also support Romney. George Allen is not the strongest Republican candidate, but the election is starting to swing in his direction. The people of the state of Virginia are beginning to wake up to the sad state of the Obama economy, though their very highly populated northern Virginia Washington suburbs have benefited greatly from the mindless federal government spending under Obama. They are beginning to also learn that the Defense sequestration of budgeted funds to run DoD and the armed forces looming to take effect in January is going to shatter defense contractors and leave DoD employees without pay for about two months. Government spending reductions by all other government agencies are being spread out over a period of time to minimize the impact of the upcoming spending reductions, but DoD has been told by Obama that it has to continue spending its allocations of funding at the originally specified rate and take all of the hit in January on the sequestration. In other words, DoD is to take a nose-dive over the cliff onto the rocks below at Obama's command. Since deployed armed forces cannot be stood down, this means that incredibly drastic cuts in money going out to contractors and to civilian DoD employees has to occur. This will shatter the economies of Northern Virginia, Norfolk, Virginia Beach, and Hampton Roads. In addition, Obama has ordered the defense contractors, who are required by law to notify employees 60 days prior to termination, to ignore the law. The termination notices are due the week before the election. The government has promised to pay the fines that the companies will be subjected to for ignoring the law. This is completely lawless behavior by Obama to help his re-election chances. Tim Kaine is very supportive of Obama in this dastardly and destructive plan. George Allen, for all his limitations, will be much the better Senator and he is critically needed to repeal ObamaCare and the other accumulated mischief of the Democrats over the four years from 2007 through 2010 when they controlled both houses of Congress. Again, please make a strategic donation to George Allen.
The Wisconsin Senate race features Tommy Thompson (R) against Tammy Baldwin (D). Tommy Thompson was a former Wisconsin governor and cut income and property taxes and eliminated the inheritance tax. Tammy Baldwin is a Madison liberal who serves in the House of Representatives. Her Club for Growth rating in 2011 was a miserable 9%. Giving Tammy Baldwin one of the contested Senate seats would be an unmitigated disaster. Making a donation to Tommy Thompson is another strategic investment toward turning the ship of state enough to avoid an imminent crash upon the socialist rocks.
Despite my materials analysis laboratory small business being in the fourth year of greatly reduced company earnings due to the never-ending Great Socialist Recession, I have just made donations to each of the Republican Senate candidates above in these toss-up races. I hope that the recent rise in the polls of Romney and the rise of a number of these Republican candidates in their states, will result in the combination of Senate control with a Republican President needed to undo most of the damage done by a Democrat Congress for four years, followed by a Democrat Senate with four years of a Democrat President. May the healing begin.
It is absolutely essential that ObamaCare, really the ObamaUncaringTax, be repealed. It is also very important to repeal the Dodd-Frank Too-Big-to-Fail Crony Mercantilism Act. It is essential to reform and control the EPA and finally kill the myth of catastrophic man-made global warming. We must free business to develop our huge oil and gas deposits and to make use of our rich supply of coal. We must end the waste of taxpayer dollars fed into uneconomic green energy companies with no viable markets and the electricity mandates for green energy that are driving up our electric bills and making our electricity supply unreliable. We also need to push back the government employee unions, the abuses of the Obama National Labor Relations Board (NRLB), and try to provide national Right to Work legislation. We need the opportunity to replace one or more of the five Supreme Court Justices who so falsely read the Constitution that they could vote to uphold ObamaCare. To accomplish this critical mission, we have to have a Republican Senate for the next two years.
According to the present Rasmussen Reports on the state of the Senate contests in the November 2012 election, the situation is:
Held by Republicans, not up for re-election, 37
Safe Republicans, up for election, 6
Leaning Republican, 4
Toss-ups, 5
Leaning Democrat, 6
Safe Democrat, 12
Held by Democrats, not up for re-election, 30
If all of the safe and leaning Senate races go as Rasmussen predicts, then the Republicans will have 47 seats and the Democrats will have 48 seats in the Senate. Consequently, the Republicans have to win 3 of the 5 toss-up seats for there to be a 50-50 split of the Senate, with tie votes to be decided by Paul Ryan. Of course, it would be much better for the Republicans to win at least four of the five toss-up races. These toss-up races are:
Massachusetts, Scott Brown (R) v. Elizabeth Warren (D)
Montana, Denny Rehberg (R) v. Jon Tester (D)
Ohio, Josh Mandel (R) v. Sherrod Brown (D)
Virginia, George Allen (R) v. Tim Kaine (D)
Wisconsin, Tommy Thompson (R) v. Tammy Baldwin (D)
Scott Brown (R) and Elizabeth Warren (D) have generally been running a very close race for the Massachusetts Senate seat for a long time. She is an ultra-socialist who likes to say to small business owners that they did not create and build their businesses, the government and maybe the community did. She is mad to redistribute as much income as she can. Of course, she is determined to keep Americans from developing the new riches in oil and gas deposits that fracking has opened up. She is also aligned with Obama in determination to kill the coal industry. If she wins, she will be developed as a likely 2016 presidential candidate. So, though Scott Brown is a moderate Republican who is often a friend of big government, she is a much greater danger as a friend of huge government. This is an election contest which the Republicans can win. Please support Scott Brown with a strategic contribution.
The Montana Senate seat race has incumbent Jon Tester (D) against Denny Rehberg (R), with the momentum in Rehberg's favor. Rehberg is a rancher and small businessman who has long served as Montana's soul member of the House of Representatives. In the 2011 Club for Growth Ratings of the financial responsibility of House members, Rehberg's rating was a rather low one for Republicans at 58%. However, almost no Democrats scored more than 20% and not one came close to getting a 58% rating. In the Club for Growth Senate Ratings, Jon Tester had a 17% score. Denny Rehberg would be a decided upgrade and he is needed badly to repeal ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank, and to reset the EPA and the NRLB. A donation to his campaign would be a wise and strategic investment in America.
The Ohio Senate race features Josh Mandel (R) running against incumbent Sherrod Brown (D), who is commonly called the most socialist Senator, now that Obama is no longer the most socialist Senator. Supporting Josh Mandel has the effect of also adding to ads and get out the vote efforts that will help push Romney over the top in this critical swing state. Josh is all about good government. Please read his bio, which is a hard-nosed description of what he has done as Treasurer of the state of Ohio and when he was in the Ohio House. This is not a fluff politician. He won his election as Treasurer as the biggest vote-getter in the state, winning 80 of 88 counties in Ohio. Standard and Poor rated his $4 billion government investment fund with its highest rating. His General Obligation bond fund has Fitch's highest rating. He expanded the Ohio liquidity portfolio by $2.3 billion since he took office. Josh is pro-free enterprise and a strong supporter of the Constitution. He has the strongest possible endorsement from the Club for Growth. Josh Mandel will be a super good Senator. In comparison, Sherrod Brown had a 2011 Senate Club for Growth rating of 0%. Donating to the campaign of Josh Mandel is a super strategic investment in good government!
In Virginia, George Allen (R) is pitted against Tim Kaine (D), a former spend-thrift governor who left the finances of the state of Virginia in disarray. Virginia is a swing state, so supporting Allen will tend to also support Romney. George Allen is not the strongest Republican candidate, but the election is starting to swing in his direction. The people of the state of Virginia are beginning to wake up to the sad state of the Obama economy, though their very highly populated northern Virginia Washington suburbs have benefited greatly from the mindless federal government spending under Obama. They are beginning to also learn that the Defense sequestration of budgeted funds to run DoD and the armed forces looming to take effect in January is going to shatter defense contractors and leave DoD employees without pay for about two months. Government spending reductions by all other government agencies are being spread out over a period of time to minimize the impact of the upcoming spending reductions, but DoD has been told by Obama that it has to continue spending its allocations of funding at the originally specified rate and take all of the hit in January on the sequestration. In other words, DoD is to take a nose-dive over the cliff onto the rocks below at Obama's command. Since deployed armed forces cannot be stood down, this means that incredibly drastic cuts in money going out to contractors and to civilian DoD employees has to occur. This will shatter the economies of Northern Virginia, Norfolk, Virginia Beach, and Hampton Roads. In addition, Obama has ordered the defense contractors, who are required by law to notify employees 60 days prior to termination, to ignore the law. The termination notices are due the week before the election. The government has promised to pay the fines that the companies will be subjected to for ignoring the law. This is completely lawless behavior by Obama to help his re-election chances. Tim Kaine is very supportive of Obama in this dastardly and destructive plan. George Allen, for all his limitations, will be much the better Senator and he is critically needed to repeal ObamaCare and the other accumulated mischief of the Democrats over the four years from 2007 through 2010 when they controlled both houses of Congress. Again, please make a strategic donation to George Allen.
The Wisconsin Senate race features Tommy Thompson (R) against Tammy Baldwin (D). Tommy Thompson was a former Wisconsin governor and cut income and property taxes and eliminated the inheritance tax. Tammy Baldwin is a Madison liberal who serves in the House of Representatives. Her Club for Growth rating in 2011 was a miserable 9%. Giving Tammy Baldwin one of the contested Senate seats would be an unmitigated disaster. Making a donation to Tommy Thompson is another strategic investment toward turning the ship of state enough to avoid an imminent crash upon the socialist rocks.
Despite my materials analysis laboratory small business being in the fourth year of greatly reduced company earnings due to the never-ending Great Socialist Recession, I have just made donations to each of the Republican Senate candidates above in these toss-up races. I hope that the recent rise in the polls of Romney and the rise of a number of these Republican candidates in their states, will result in the combination of Senate control with a Republican President needed to undo most of the damage done by a Democrat Congress for four years, followed by a Democrat Senate with four years of a Democrat President. May the healing begin.
12 December 2010
Building the Progressive Socialist Train from Nowhere to Nowhere
California has long wanted to build a 500-mile long high speed passenger train, a so-called bullet train, from San Francisco to Los Angeles, through the Central Valley. California voters approved a bond ballot measure for $9.95 billion in 2008 for the project, ten years in the planning, which they were told would:
With the Republicans about to take over the money appropriations control in the House of Representatives, there will be no more federal tax money going to this project for quite some time. I think we can be sure there will be no more for at least the next 6 years, if not for the next 10 years. The short segment of the rail to be built will not be operated until more is built. This is likely to help guarantee that if a bullet train is ever built from San Francisco to Los Angeles, the short segment will be obsolete and the route may well be changed. It will be better if it were never built even in part. It will be good if it is abandoned even after this segment from nowhere to nowhere is built. The California authority that planned this line and two years ago made the claims above before the voters approved the bond measure, now says in the best bait and switch fashion:
Meanwhile, the Central Valley of California has suffered from severe water shortages for the last several years. Central planners have a lot to do with this problem also. California has two major water projects controlled by central planners. The Central Valley Project of 1933 is a creature of Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal. The State Water Project of 1960 began under Democrat Gov. Pat Brown. These two programs caused agricultural land use to increase from 4.9 to 8.6 million acres. This huge increase in agricultural water use was based on water subsidies, water user fees rather than prices that fluctuate with supply and demand, water monopolies by the government, and a lack of water property rights. All of these factors cause the uneconomical use of water. This generally means that water will of course be used carelessly and wasted. The effect is not unlike the use of the hard-earned money of California and American taxpayers to pay for a short bullet train track segment from Nowhere to Nowhere which will never be used.
Meanwhile, it is worth our noting that the newly elected Republican governors of Ohio and Wisconsin, have announced that they were returning the high speed train grants given to their states by the Progressive Socialists. The returned Wisconsin money was for a train route from Milwaukee to Madison and the Ohio line was to go from Cleveland to Columbus to Cincinnati. Secretary of Transportation LaHood has given the returned $1.2 billion to 13 states that want to build these taxpayer blood-sucking high speed trains. John Kasich and Scott Walker have no doubt saved the states of Ohio and Wisconsin a fortune in wasted capital expense and subsequent train subsidies.
The returned money is going to the Democrat states of California, Illinois, New York, Washington, Vermont, Maine, Massachusetts, Oregon, North Carolina, and Iowa. The toss-up states of Florida, Missouri, and Indiana are also getting money. It is really hard to imagine how Maine, Oregon, North Carolina, Iowa, Missouri, and Indiana will find areas with dense enough populations to make their high speed trains pay. The otherworldly winner of this nonsense has to be Vermont. Its high speed train will go from St. Albans in the northwest corner of the state to Vernon in the southeast corner of the state. St. Albans has a population of 7200 and Vernon's population is 2,000. The biggest city in Vermont is Burlington, with a population of about 39,000. Yes, this is the state that gave us Howard Dean and Bernie Sanders. What can you expect. The 13 states taking the high speed train money will rue the day they did. No, not the damn politicians, it is the weary and overloaded taxpayer mules who will do the ruing. At least most of these non-ruminating mules are Democrat asses.
- Cost $40 billion.
- Have a ticket cost of $55 to travel from San Francisco to Los Angeles.
- Transport 94 million passengers a year.
- The time of travel would be 2.5 hours.
- The rail line would operate with a surplus and no subsidies would be needed.
- 450,000 sustainable jobs would be created.
With the Republicans about to take over the money appropriations control in the House of Representatives, there will be no more federal tax money going to this project for quite some time. I think we can be sure there will be no more for at least the next 6 years, if not for the next 10 years. The short segment of the rail to be built will not be operated until more is built. This is likely to help guarantee that if a bullet train is ever built from San Francisco to Los Angeles, the short segment will be obsolete and the route may well be changed. It will be better if it were never built even in part. It will be good if it is abandoned even after this segment from nowhere to nowhere is built. The California authority that planned this line and two years ago made the claims above before the voters approved the bond measure, now says in the best bait and switch fashion:
- The cost will be $42.6 billion.
- The one-way ticket cost has increased to $105.
- The construction cost will be somewhere between $62 billion and $213 billion.
- The one-way ticket cost will be about $190.
- At least $19 billion of federal money will have to be provided if there is to be any hope that the train will not have to be subsidized by California taxpayers, even though the authorizing legislation forbids that.
- The 450,000 sustainable job workers are twice as many as the California government's active work force. How realistic is it that so many jobs might be created by this rail line?
Meanwhile, the Central Valley of California has suffered from severe water shortages for the last several years. Central planners have a lot to do with this problem also. California has two major water projects controlled by central planners. The Central Valley Project of 1933 is a creature of Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal. The State Water Project of 1960 began under Democrat Gov. Pat Brown. These two programs caused agricultural land use to increase from 4.9 to 8.6 million acres. This huge increase in agricultural water use was based on water subsidies, water user fees rather than prices that fluctuate with supply and demand, water monopolies by the government, and a lack of water property rights. All of these factors cause the uneconomical use of water. This generally means that water will of course be used carelessly and wasted. The effect is not unlike the use of the hard-earned money of California and American taxpayers to pay for a short bullet train track segment from Nowhere to Nowhere which will never be used.
Meanwhile, it is worth our noting that the newly elected Republican governors of Ohio and Wisconsin, have announced that they were returning the high speed train grants given to their states by the Progressive Socialists. The returned Wisconsin money was for a train route from Milwaukee to Madison and the Ohio line was to go from Cleveland to Columbus to Cincinnati. Secretary of Transportation LaHood has given the returned $1.2 billion to 13 states that want to build these taxpayer blood-sucking high speed trains. John Kasich and Scott Walker have no doubt saved the states of Ohio and Wisconsin a fortune in wasted capital expense and subsequent train subsidies.
The returned money is going to the Democrat states of California, Illinois, New York, Washington, Vermont, Maine, Massachusetts, Oregon, North Carolina, and Iowa. The toss-up states of Florida, Missouri, and Indiana are also getting money. It is really hard to imagine how Maine, Oregon, North Carolina, Iowa, Missouri, and Indiana will find areas with dense enough populations to make their high speed trains pay. The otherworldly winner of this nonsense has to be Vermont. Its high speed train will go from St. Albans in the northwest corner of the state to Vernon in the southeast corner of the state. St. Albans has a population of 7200 and Vernon's population is 2,000. The biggest city in Vermont is Burlington, with a population of about 39,000. Yes, this is the state that gave us Howard Dean and Bernie Sanders. What can you expect. The 13 states taking the high speed train money will rue the day they did. No, not the damn politicians, it is the weary and overloaded taxpayer mules who will do the ruing. At least most of these non-ruminating mules are Democrat asses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
