Certain Firms, Industries Got Last-Minute Gifts in Stimulus

[Crooked Moon]

Source: Washington Post

In rushing to pull together a landmark economic stimulus package last week, Democratic lawmakers and the White House added billions in new spending and tax breaks that will benefit a handful of specific companies and industries.

The final bill, approved by Congress on Friday, includes $8 billion in unplanned spending specifically requested by President Obama for regional high-speed rail projects, according to administration officials. New language sought by General Motors will save the beleaguered Detroit automaker from paying up to $10 billion in taxes related to its acceptance of federal bailout funds.

<snip>

The original House stimulus package, drafted with the guidance of the White House, had less than $10 billion for mass-transit systems -- a third as much as for roads and highways -- and about $1 billion for Amtrak upkeep, with no money for new high-speed rail. Pressed on this, White House advisers said major rail projects would take too long to get underway to justify them as short-term stimulus.

Then the $8 billion line materialized in conference committee negotiations. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel told reporters Friday that the item was added at the president's request because it met his criteria for stimulus spending. Emanuel did not explain why the item would now meet those criteria when it did not before.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/14/AR2009021401724_pf.html

[MidwestTransplant]

1. Short term stimulous or not, we need better rail in this country.

[Veruca Salt]

11. Damn right!

We need more of it and more efficient rail for cross country. Plus, it's such a relaxing way to travel. :)

[Robbien]

2. High speed rail is exactly what this spending should be about

and if we are saving banks, we should not be letting GM go under.

Both are much better than the tax cuts for the rich which eat up over a third of the stimulus bill.

[mopinko]

8. tax cuts does not equal gift to the rich.

i do not know, word for word, what is in that bill, i admit. but all the tax items i have seen have been for the poor and middle class. most at phased out at income of $150k. they are for things like solar energy tax credits, and iirc one was for veterans on disability.
so, can we please stop this meme from being spread around here? i admit again that i do not have the figures exactly. but these are not tax breaks for rich people. they are cuts for the middle class, just like he campaigned on. it is a clear part of his mandate and he intend to keep his word.
and tax cuts to the middle class DO stimulate the economy.

[Nevernose]

3. LA to Vegas is a definite

Thanks, Harry!

My personal dream for high speed rail:

Beginning on the Western seaboard, a high speed rail line connecting San Diego, LA, San Francisco, Portland, and Seattle. Spurs east: SD to Phoenix, LA to Las Vegas, San Francisco to Reno and Salt Lake City. It would be just like usingthe airport, except cheaper for the consumer, less of a hassle, better for the environment, and quite possibly quicker (no delayed flights, lost luggage, bad weather, etc.).

[relayerbob]

4. Um...

a - Given the enormous cost of a project of that size and the typical low ridership and no freight revenue, it would likely be far more expensive than air travel

b - While CO2 emissions would be lower, the impact to the land to construct and operate would be high, unless that were smart and made it as an elevated train over the freeway medians., which would cost even more and impact traffic patterns

c - Luggage losses, delays, weather, etc. would likely still have some impact. But I suspect there aren't many weather delays in the Southwest, the TSA would still want to inspect luggage, and you may or may not be likely to hand-carry all of your luggage.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for rail, I myself can't fly due to medical conditions, but it isn't a panacea, and it probably won't be cheaper to the consumer. It may end up far more expensive. Most rail systems are subsidized by the government now, due to their huge upkeep costs, and high speed rail is much more difficult to maintain. I just priced out a trip from Virginia to LA to see the difference for going home, and AMTRAC rail is much more expensive (depending on the service 2 to 3 times) and takes days, to say nothing of what to do about transport to the nearest rail hub. Connecting trains can be difficult too, sometimes requiring intermediate bus rides. Airports are far more numerous.

Small nations get by with it, because they are small, with much more concentrated populations. Japan is smaller in size than California, with four times the population, concentrated mostly along one major east coast corridor. They also don't have an existing road infrastructure that is a disincentive to mass transit acceptance, as we have here.

[Nevernose]

5. A coupleof points

A) IT would be more costly than air travel in the beginning, but only because the air travel infrastructure is already there. The price will come down.

B) The cost to build and maintain, especially in the city, would be high. But the same could be said for any infrastructure project. Any place you build a road in a city, you're going to have problems with building around freeways.

C) There just aren't a lot of weather delays anywhere for trains. And there won't be the issue of taxiing, getting stuck on the runway all the time, not being able to find a gate, a 30 or 40 minute boarding process. An HSR from LA to LV, for instance, is expected to go 150 mph and carry 1,000 people, far more efficient than air travel.

D) DO you have any idea how much government subsidizes our sir travel system? Far more than our rail system. Your city, county, state, and federal governments are all chipping in for the airports and the regional air traffic control, not to mention the safety inspections of 25,000 passenger planes in operation.

The road infrastructure argument is a good one. When gasoline gets too expensive, and there are too many cars on crumbling freeways, people will use it. Many people believe that the reason more trains aren't used isn't because of the excellent roadways, it's because of the lack of excellent trains.

Edited to add an interesting discussion of comparable population densities:
http://cahsr.blogspot.com/2009/02/spain-ave-steals-show.html

[JDPriestly]

6. It isn't cheap, but it may be possible to use electricity to run them

at some time in the future. That means they could eventually be run on solar energy, other types of alternative energy. They would be great for us in California because they could link our capital, Sacramento to the rest of the state.

The drive from Southern California to the northern part of the state is very slow so people fly --- and use jet fuel to do it. That's really bad for the environment.

So fast rail is an important part of protecting the environment.

[ljm2002]

9. Low ridership from LA to Vegas?

You're kidding, right?

[1776Forever]

7. Anything to get away from Gas price squeezes is great with me!

I am for it if it can keep us from becoming more depended on foreign oil!

[Mari333]

10. anyone have a link to when the car companies helped remove the raillines?

as I recall reading somewhere, the auto companies were intent on removing a lot of rail lines back in the 70s and 80s..anyway, when I was a kid I remember taking trains in between small towns, and the town I live in now used to have a railroad but it was torn out and made into a walking path..it used to adjoin all the small towns around here ...too bad they fucked up with that idea by taking out something we needed.