Does High-Speed Rail Equal Green Jobs?

This is the first installment of my opinion on the building of the high-speed rail network in the USA. The benefits that I will discuss here are from www.ushsr.com/benefits.html web site. I recommend you poke around the site a little and also do a search on "high-speed rail".  Some very interesting information out there for you to review.

1. Creates millions of “green jobs” nationwide building the new rail infrastructure and manufacturing the rail cars.

  --Greens Jobs/Infrastructure construction? Would this be like the “green jobs” successes of Spain over the past couple of years? For every green job created in Spain, over two private sector jobs were lost. This is a proven fact (facts are stubborn things). And where do “they” come up with “millions” of jobs? I am sure that once construction is underway, there will be jobs o-plenty. But millions? I don’t think so, unless each projected corridor was started at the same time. These are construction jobs and by their very nature are temporary. Once the line is built, the jobs are gone. There won’t be enough jobs actually working for the completed high-speed rail line (station attendants, conductors, engineers, right-of-way maintenance) to cover the losses once construction closed down. Would these people move from job to job? Once the California corridor is complete, would they move to NC to start on the NC to AL line? If all lines were built simultaneously then no, they wouldn’t move to the next job? If built in phases (as planned), millions of jobs would not be created.  1000’s and even perhaps 100,000’s but certainly not millions.

Another point to consider when counting the number of jobs the construction is supposed to create. This isn’t the 1870’s when 1000’s of workers were building our trans-continental railroads. Laying track and all the sub-structure the rails sit on is fairly automated. Certainly worker must attend to the machinery and do the prep work, but track isn’t laid by hand anymore.

  --Rail cars? I’d bet my last paycheck that these won’t be American made. If I am not mistaken, the ACELA isn’t built here. Would we start a whole new industry in the USA to build these rail cars or would we just go overseas to where to experts and experience is located? I seem to recall that when all of these solar panels and wind turbines were going to be installed, the greenies talked about all of the green jobs that would be created by building these panels and turbines.  But that has not happened. This equipment is being built elsewhere. The construction money and jobs is going overseas.

Update on 10 Dec 2010.  Prince Harry Reid has helped a Chinese company secure $450M in stimulus money to build wind turbines in west Texas.  This is same company that built a wind farm southeast of Las Vegas using a different chunk of stimulus money.  The company is headquartered in China, the wind turbines were built in China, and the eventual profits go to China. I am not being xenophobic; I am just trying to state the obvious: If the stimulus money was to get the US economy going once again with “shovel ready” projects, why was $450M dollars sent to a Chinese company to construct wind turbines in China?

Bush Tax Cuts

Well, it looks like Obama has finally caved to the demands of the American people. It’s about dang time. For a little while, it looked like he was going to go against the will of Americans once again, like he did with Health Care, Stimulus, and Wall Street bailouts. And now that the compromise has been reached, the progressives are up in arms. Facts just don’t seem to get through to these people, or at least they don’t care about the facts. Economic prosperity has almost always followed big tax breaks. We had growing economies after the Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush tax cuts. And hard times follows tax increases. If you look at the trend of the Great Depression you should note the country was coming out of the troubles and then FDR passed what was then the largest tax increase and our economic trend plummeted. Taking money away from the people who spend it is not the path to economic growth. The government cannot spend money as efficiently as individuals. When you and I spend money, we have the ability to stretch the dollar further and across a wider scope. The government is utterly inefficient at spending money so it doesn’t go as far and doesn’t have the same impact as an individual spending the money.

On the downside (sort of) is the extension of the unemployment benefits.  As someone who is currently unemployed, but not receving benefits, I sort of understand why these are being extended. But I can't overcome this feeling that we are forcing people to look for work. I have too many anecdotal stories about people getting benefits and either not looking for work or working under the table. This bothers me a great deal.  BTW: I don't receive any benefits because my military retirement check is too big. My expenses have barely changed, but my income has been reduced by almost two-thirds.  I am about ready to go work at McDonalds just to have some additional income.

Some Bad News

Sunday night our family received some bad news.  One of my Aunts passed away at the age of 85+. This woman was an original and a real piece of work. She raised three boys (one passed away back in the 70’s due to cancer), was a nurse in the USAF, and just one of the strongest ladies I have ever met. Back in the early ’60 she was stationed at a base that I wound up at during the late ‘80s. Based on some of the things she told me about the place, it hadn’t change much in the 25 years between her assignment there and my time. She lived on her own and wanted it that way.  According to my mom, she and my aunt had a discussion a few months ago about her age and living alone. My Aunt basically said she wanted to be taken from her home feet first. Not too long ago, she had moved to one of those assisted living facilities for independent older adults.  She didn’t stay there too long because, in her words, there were too many old people there.  It had been a couple of years since I last saw her, and I sure wish I could have seen her again. I consider it an absolute honor to have known her and to call her my Aunt.

College Football (Ducks Rock Yet Again)

Several pieces of good news over the past week for Oregon Duck football.  Most importantly, they will be playing Auburn in Glendale, Arizona for all the marbles on 10 Jan 2011. This is the first time that a major university from Oregon will be playing for the National Championship of college football.  There have been a couple of close opportunities over the years, mostly notably in 2001 when they should have played Miami at the Rose Bowl rather than Nebraska.  A couple of years later, they were cruising along, undefeated, when Dennis Dixon, Heisman front-runner, went down with a knee injury and his backup was also hurt during a previous game.  Oregon State also wound up #2 in the nation in 2000 after defeating Notre Dame in the Fiesta Bowl.

Second piece of good news was that LaMichael James was named First Team, All-American. As college football’s leading rusher (overall and yards per game) along with being tops in points scored it is a well deserved accolade. He was also named as a Heisman finalist, although his chances rank close to the survival of a snowball in hot place to Cam Newton. Newton has certainly put up the numbers and probably deserves his “favorite” status. But the eligibility issues do cloud things a bit.

As mentioned previously and above, OU football has been at the cusp of greatness for the past 10 years or so, they just needed a couple of breaks to go their way.  In 2001, if Nebraska had won against Colorado and won the Big 12 Championship, there wouldn’t be any controversy. But Nebraska didn’t win the game and only reached the Championship Game because they defeated a team that beat TCU, boosting their strength of schedule enough to push them past Oregon. Fortunately, the BCS did tweak the ranking structure that said a team must be their conference’s champion to play for the National Championship. There are many that have said Miami would have beaten OU also, since Miami had many first- and second-round draft picks on their team. But OU smashed Colorado by 20 points. With the Dixon issue, if he hadn’t gotten hurt who knows what might have happened. One can really only speculate at how the rest of the season would have unfolded, but with Dixon at the helm OU was cruising.

Speaking of Nebraska, man did they throw away chances in the Big 12 Championship game. Martinez certainly showed his inexperience in the way he was unable to move the team. He is only a true freshman (I think) so he has time to grow. But Nebraska does lose numbers next year on the defensive side of the ball. It will be interesting to see how Nebraska does in the Big 10 next year. I think they will be able to compete. At the very least, they should be in the same category as Ohio State and Wisconsin.

In a previous post I mentioned that my dad, who is an Oregon State Grad, was going to have hard time rooting for OU, even though the win against OSU would put them in the big game. Got a note from him last night and he said that once the game was on the tube, he just couldn’t root for OU over OSU.  So obviously he is disappointed with the outcome. But he is glad that an Oregon team is getting a chance.

Pearl Harbor

69 Years ago today, the Hawaiian Islands suffered through a sneak attack unleased by the Japanese Imperial Navy. The attack was quite desvastating as you are all aware, and it drug us into WWII. On a personal note, I had an uncle who was at Scofield Barracks during the attack, he survived. My previous job (USAF , Ret) required me to travel to Hawaii a couple of times a year to visit personnel that worked for me (also had people in Alaska and Japan).  The building in which these people worked out of was near the runway and it still had bullet holes.

If you see a WWII vet and especially a Pearl Harbor survivor, please thank them while you can.  We are losing these people and once they are gone, we lose something.  they we and still are our "greatest generation"

Bush Isn't the President

It’s been a while since I have posted a “you didn’t get mad” segment.  This post has to do with the 2000 elections and all the hub-bub about how Bush finally defeated Gore.

If you recall, a few weeks ago I posted some comments from a reader off of a Yahoo news post regarding issues between Sarah Palin and Alaska Sen Murkowski (aka; Sore Loser). There was a particular comment posted (titled: you didn’t get mad) and I thought I would respond to each of “line items” in his comment.  And as I have previously posted, if you are a liberal troll and make a comment, please refrain from attacking me personally. It doesn’t bother me all that much, I do have thick skin, but it really doesn’t further the conversation if all you can do is attack me personally and not try to refute my responses.

The comment:

You didn't get mad when the Supreme Court stopped a legal recount and appointed a President.

My response:

  Another area where you might want to do a little research since you most likely believe that Bush stole the election.  While it is true that Gore won the popular election (most votes nationwide) we don’t live in a straight democracy (thank God!!), but in a republic.  And because of this it is possible that an individual can be elected President without getting the most votes.  Blame how the electoral college “hands out” the delegates.  Winner take all, rather than base on a percentage of votes in each state.  But back on point:  Several studies done after the election found that in the counties that Gore requested a recount, Bush would have won anyway.  Some other studies point to other counties where there were confusing ballots and people might have punched the incorrect tab and those might have made the difference in the election.  It is possible those ballots might have made a difference, but how can someone account for the minds of people unless you speak to each and every person that casted a confused ballot.  Elections are not a raising of the hands, but counting of actual ballots.

When I think about the consequences if Gore had been elected President it really scares the snot out of me.  While it is quite true that President Obama has a very radical vision for our country, Gore might have actually done more harm to our country if he had been elected President.  When you think about Gore and all the Global Warming/Climate Change/Whatever you call it today, and without the subsequent reaction/conservative movement, the changes could have been quite catastrophic. We would be under all kinds of CO2 emission rules, industries would have been destroyed, and the economic growth experienced in the early part of the decade would not have happened.

Divorce Agreement

Over the past few years as I cruise web site and get e-mails I save some of the articles I find interesting.  Here is one of those articles. I can’t remember if I found it on a web site of if someone sent it to me.  I do believe that I have given credit to the author at the end of this post.  I f this in incorrect, please let me know soonest so I can either give proper credit or delete it if I needed.

Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al:

We have stuck together since the late 1950's for the sake of the kids, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce.... I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has clearly run its course.

Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right for us all, so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.

Here is a model separation agreement:

Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a similar portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.

We don't like redistributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU. Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military. We'll take the nasty, smelly oil industry and you can go with wind, solar and biodiesel. You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell (You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them).

We'll keep capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street. You can have your beloved lifelong welfare dwellers, food stamps, homeless, homeboys, hippies, druggies and illegal aliens. We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's and rednecks. We'll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood.

You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us. You can have the peaceniks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide them security.

We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism, political correctness and Shirley McClain. You can also have the U.N., but we will no longer be paying the bill.

We'll keep the SUV's, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Subaru station wagon you can find.

You can give everyone health care if you can find any practicing doctors. We'll continue to believe health care is a luxury and not a right. We'll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the National Anthem. I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute Imagine, I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing, Kum Ba Ya or We Are the World.

We'll practice trickle down economics and you can continue to give trickle up poverty your best shot.

Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name and our flag.

Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you Answer which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.

Sincerely,

John J. Wall

Law Student and an American

P.S. Also, please take Ted Turner, Sean Penn, Martin Sheen, Barbara Streisand, & Jane Fonda with you.

P.S.S. And you won't have to press 1 for English when you call our country.

Blogger's Post-Script: If you don't mind too much, I'd like to keep the Pacific Northwest.  We'll allow you to visit and even use the ports in Portland and Seattle, but I really like the green trees, clean air, and fresh water.

High-Speed Rail

High Speed rail

Sorry about the lack of post recently.  I've been busy with life over the past few days.  I have also been gathering information on some upcoming posts and want to make the background information I use in my opinion pieces is accurate.

For some reason, the high-speed rail has caught my interest over he past few days.  I have been aware of the desire of the Obama administration to push for high-speed rail and recently, there seems to be a bit more of a push, at least in the news media.

 Several corridors are being looked at as possible sites for the initial construction of a US version of the Shinkansen (Japan’s “Bullet Train”). Among those are routes between Sacramento-Bay Area-San Diego; Seattle, WA to Eugene, OR; Houston-Dallas-San Antonio, TX; Charlotte, NC to Birmingham AL; NYC to DC, and the upper Midwest centered on Chicago.  Eventually the plans are to have it cover nearly all of the “Lower 48” except the Dakotas, Wyoming, and Montana (Max Bacus, where are you?)

 Initial planning budget calls for $10B for feasibility studies, all taxpayer funded. And based on what is coming out of the current Democrat-control Congress and the Obama Administration the “feasibility” of high-speed rail isn’t what is being studied, but rather site placement and other ways to spend this money.  The Obama Administration has made it clear that High-Speed rail is something that is going to happen come heck or high water.

 But let’s do a little more digging into the cost of this whole project. The California corridor is currently one of two at the head of the line for start of construction. It is estimated that the California Corridor could cost in the neighborhood of $33.0B. For the sake of argument we’ll not discuss or include in the figures the expected cost overruns (hey, it is a government funded project), or any inflation. It looks like there will be somewhere in the neighborhood of 36 separate high-speed rail corridors developed. This estimate is probably conservative since many of the later projects are extensions of “existing” high speed corridors.  Using the $33B from the California project as a base line and the rough estimate of 36 different corridors an initial figure of $1.2T to build this project is seen. Doing some research, not all of this money would come from the federal government. California expects about 30% ($10B) to come from private and local (state funds?) sources.  If this line holds true, the American taxpayer will still foot a bill for the high-speed rail somewhere close to $840B. To repeat, this does not include cost overruns and inflation. That is a tax bill of $2,333.00 for each man, woman, and child in the USA (pop=360M)

 Let’s take a look at the feasibility of building this and, more importantly, having it used as intended. When I was station in Japan a few years back travel was not measured in distance but in the time it took to reach a destination. Roads were overcrowded and poorly built. Too many cars for the roads. Most of the expressways into downtown Tokyo (world’s largest city) were two lanes each direction. Surface streets, for the most part, were narrow, crowded with pedestrian and bikes, and way too many traffic lights for smooth flow. Long distance travel between cities wasn’t much better with the heavy tolls charges every time you exited the expressway.  The trains, both local and Shinkansen, were used heavily. It was just easier and more cost effective to use the rails then to use the car in a lot of instances. We used the train and subway system to get downtown often for these reasons.

 Because we don’t have these same issues, I really don’t believe we’ll use the high-speed rail the way some people envision. And since we most likely won’t used the system as envisioned will it be self sustaining and not require continuous federal subsidies like AmTrak? Some will point to the ACELA that runs the Boston to DC corridor as an example of high-speed rail success, and I won’t argue that point.  It does appear to be successful with heavy ridership and appears to be self-sustaining. But I think I should point out something that often gets overlooked when making the ACELA argument. The Boston to DC corridor is much like Japan. The ACELA owes its success mostly due to the over-saturated transportation venues in the Northeast. The roads are seem to be constantly at gridlock. The airlines probably couldn’t get another aircraft into the pattern even if they wanted to.

 Out west, we don’t seem to have the same depth to the transportation issue the Northeast does. Our roads are more wide open and less crowded. There are notable exceptions in Seattle, LA and the Bay Area but these exceptions are limited to the locations themselves. Moving between LA and San Fran is fairly easy, moving along at 70-80MPH except for during the busiest 3-4 weekends each year (Thanksgiving, Memorial Day, Labor Day, Christmas). Seattle proper is horrible also, but once clear of Tacoma and the Fort Lewis area, traffic moves along pretty well even during the weekends. Would the cost of high-speed rail be justified to help alleviate traffic on those four weekends?

 Would people choose to give up the freedom of their personal vehicle to ride the train from LA to the Bay Area? I really don’t think so unless it became so costly to drive that it forces one to move to the train. And that raises some interesting questions. Would the Obama administration put policies in place that would make driving one’s personal vehicle cost prohibitive that it forces people who wished to go see grandma in San Fran to travel via the high-speed rails? Would they add a fuel tax that raises the cost of gasoline 2-3 bucks a gallon to pay for the high-speed rail and to force people onto the trains? Would they regulate CO2 to the point as to make purchasing a car that meets pollution mandates so costly that it would be out of reach for the most of the American public? Would tolls charges on I-5 be so high that people couldn’t afford to drive from LA to San Fran? What other policies could be enacted that force a migration from the personal vehicle to mass transportation?

 High-speed rail does have some merits, especially if it is located properly. Could the Northeast use more? Quite possibly. What about another line between NYC and DC? Even the LA to Vegas has potential since people who go to Vegas tend to stay downtown and not venture beyond the shadows of the casinos.

But what about the corridor between Minneapolis, NM and Milwaukie, WI with a primary stop in Madison?  Already, the newly-elected Governor of WI is talking about using the $800M designated for the Madison to Milwaukie route for repair work on the bridges and highways in WI. The Federal Transportation Dept has told WI this money is for the high-speed rail project and nothing else.

There is a very nicely designed website done by the US High-Speed Rail Association that anyone interested in the subject should cruise through, bearing in mind the intent behind the web site is support for high-speed rail.  Most interesting to me is the web page that highlights the proposed routes to be built over the next 20 years or so.

On the US High Speed Rail Association web site they cite numerous benefits of a high-speed rail network.  Over the course of the next week or so, I am going to post these benefits and make some points against these benefits.  If the benefits have merit, I will also point those out.

Here are the benefits from the US High Speed Rail Association.

1. Creates millions of “green jobs” nationwide building the new rail infrastructure and manufacturing the rail cars.

2. Pays for itself by significantly reducing our $700B and year oil purchase trade deficits.

3. Offers and convenient, comfortable way to travel without hassles or delays.

4. A Major step toward solving global warming by reducing our oil consumption and emissions

5. Drastically reduces our oil addiction and lowers our risk from the coming oil peak crises.

6. Lowers our dependence on costly military operations securing oil flow from around the world.

7. Lowers our national security risk, and ends wars for oil.

8. Freedom from Oil – Powered by clean electricity from renewable energy sources: wind, solar, geothermal, ocean/tidal.

9. Safe, affordable, green transportation for everyone.

10. Saves lives (43,000 Americans die each year in car accidents).

11. Provides efficient mobility that moves people and goods without delay and waste.

So please come back every so often to follow up on my posts.

New Pastor

Well, I did a little praying about whether the interim Pastor should continue as our head Pastor and I do believe that God put it in my heart to vote Yes to bring him on board as the full time Pastor. The vote was close. So close that I might have been the deciding factor. We almost didn't go to Sunday evening services. It was a crazy weekend. The furnace went out, went to Portland for Thanksgiving, and few other issues sprang up this weekend. But we knew we needed to be there. He needed 75% of the ballots cast and my vote put him over the number needed.

It was close but I wasn't as surprised as I thought I would be. The previous Pastors had been long time men of God, in their late 50's when they come to the church with years of experience prior to arriving. Our new Pastor hasn't yet reached 30 and this will be his first church as the head Pastor. So there was some concern about his age. There was also concern that the new Pastor is married to the daughter of one of the congregation’s most prominent members. They met in college and moved to the Eastern USA after they got married. Some felt this member might have undue influence over the Pastor. As a side note, I am honored to call both of them my friends.

I really hope this will not cause a division within the church. We are there to worship God and give Him glory, not to get all caught up in petty church politics.

FYI: the furnace issue wasn't that big of a deal. The condensation pan needed to be dried. Once my oldest son and I took care of that, the furnace worked like a champ. But it was cold in the house for several hours after being out for nearly three days and the weather was the coldest so far this year.

Gov't Take Over

I don't really consider myself a conspiracy theorist, but are some things happening now-a-days that are really starting to concern me. Over the past couple of years I have seen the Federal Government begin to take over or severely regulate sectors of our economy and our lives that give me a moment’s pause. It makes me stop and ask myself, "what are the goals of these efforts to regulate and control?"

The beginning of the end of truly free markets and limited government began with the New Deal under FDR (Some would say it really started with W. Wilson). I am over simplifying things a bit but when the feds decided that individuals couldn't grow their own food without congressional say-so, that really took a bite out of our freedoms and the decline started. And it has been going downhill ever since. There have been a few, if narrowly focused, attempts to change things around such as Reagan's repeal of the so-called fairness doctrine. But the loss of freedom has been mostly by little steps (FDA, Dept Edu, etc) and a few big ones (Great Society, Health Care reform)

Here are a few of the areas the federal government has decided are too important to allow the free market and already existing regulations to control:

1. Wall Street Reform. We were told this bill needed to be passed so that the collapse of Wall Street wouldn't happen again. We are told this bill will protect us and keep us from harm. I think if you look a little closer at the bill and ask yourself, "why would the Wall Street giants support this bill?", I think you'll discover this bill isn't so good for you and me

2. Health Care Reform (Obama Care). What a SNAFU this is turning out to be.  Remember when Nancy Pelosi said "we have to pass the bill so you can find out what’s in it"?  Well, we're beginning to find out what is in the bill and more and more people do not like it one bit. I think at last count 21 states have filed suit arguing the constitutionality of the bill

3. Government Motors (GM). Does anyone really think that the US government won't still be in the car business two years from now even though efforts are being made to sell stocks? And does anyone really think that Obama isn't going to use GM to further his green economy at tax payer expense? And does anyone think the individual investors in GM will ever get their money back? The purchase of GM was a cluster-grope from the word "go".

4. Student Loans. By removing the middle man Obama and company completely destroyed an entire industry.  Was this a proving ground for his desire to destroy the coal industry? A little off topic so I'll save it for another post, but this is just another example where liberals who are in love with government control think that the government can do something better than the private sector. I don't think it will take long for us to discover how false this is. Unless corruption and waste is the goal, and there isn't a private industry that hold a candle to the feds when it comes to wasteful spending

5. Mortgage business. Another example of an industry wiped out by federal intrusion and the desire to control a sector of the economy. If you just look at the surface numbers, mortgage businesses going out of business might not seem like much. Not a whole lot of people were impacted and the job losses probably didn't even cause a blip on the unemployment rate.  But it goes deeper. Up until a few years ago, buying a house was considered the best investment someone could make. People bought a home to lay the foundation for a retirement nest egg, as collateral for a college education, and other things. A lot of money and individual freedoms were tied up in home ownership. What economy-controlling and individual liberties-hating liberal wouldn't see this as a chance to further intrude and control the individual? It was just too much for them to pass up.

6. The soon to be passed "Food Bill". Health care, college education, home ownership, your investments, and now your food. Do you see a pattern here? Gain control, dictate how, what, where, when. Freedom lost. While I have not read through the entire bill (too much lawyer-speak), I have picked up on how Congress and the FDA want to control food production and processing down to the individual.  Home gardens will be regulated.

Over the next few days and weeks I will attempt to cover some of this from my perspective. I will be doing some more research. I will do my absolute best to avoid this but I will probably inadvertently quote someone without credit.

I truly hope the Rep control House will be enough of a bulwark against this tide until 2012 when the conservative movement is able to gain control of the Senate and the WH.