My question is regarding the California High Speed Rail Project.?
Why would you allocate 3.316 Billion taxpayer dollars to fund the beginning phase of a high speed railroad in California, which is expected to create 100,000 jobs over the next five years, and yet you turned down the opportunity to allow those same 100,000 jobs to be created by the Keystone XL Pipeline project. This project was even to be funded by private sector dollars, and not by the US taxpayers; therefore, would not have added to our already extreme deficit. The California rail project will only benefit those in California, but the entire country must pay for it, while the Keystone Pipeline project would benefit the entire country at no cost to the taxpayer. How can you say this decision was not based on partisan politics?
- Favorite Answer
Nice rant. This really should be in the politics section. But since we're here, I'll shoot down your points one by one.
The 3.3 billion is just the federal contribution to the HSR project. California voters have already voted to shell out $9.9 billion themselves. And while CAHSR might create 100,000 jobs (briefly), TransCanada only claims a maximum of 20,000 construction jobs for the Keystone, while the US Labor Department says the number is closer to 6,000, so your 100,000 claim is pure science fiction.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the cost to taxpayers at over $200 million for the Keystone project, including rerouting highways, rail lines, and power lines. And TransCanada has admitted that the cost will be passed on to consumers, which to me sounds like taxpayers.
And while you are complaining about the deficit, why aren't you mentioning the $5 trillion war in Iraq?
CAHSR will benefit the entire country in three ways: it will cause a drop in oil consumption due to fewer car and plane trips, pollution will be substantially reduced in the area, and the infrastructure and technology will be in place for future HSR lines along the Boston-Washington corridor, the Cleveland-Chicago-Minnesota corridor, and the Texas and Florida networks.
And while you claim the entire country would benefit from Keystone, TransCanada and their partners already have the worst record for oil spills in the world. That is the reason why the governors and legislatures from most of the states along the route have voiced strong opposition to the project.
The project would go through no fewer than 80 sets of federal and state parkland, protected areas and wildlife refuges. With TransCanada's record on oil spills, this sounds like a losing proposition.
Now go ahead and pick the best parrot for BA. Just remember that your claims have no basis in fact.
- terrellfastballLv 69 years ago
NIce job, Dances. I won't try to top that, but will point out that obviously the people behind the pipeline project didn't offer BHO enough in bribes like the Solendra folks did.
- 9 years ago
It's like this. My buddy Warren Buffett owns the BNSF Railway, which stands to profit immensely from carrying the traffic that would otherwise have gone to the pipeline.
Regarding the CHSRL, I like chasing pie-in-the-sky projects instead of things which people actually use.Source(s): The twisted mnind of Barack Hussein Obama
Depending on where you live the location of these jobs was a large factor on support of the two projects.