California Assembly approves high-speed rail

SACRAMENTO -- The California Assembly on Thursday approved legislation that would authorize the state to begin selling about $4.5 billion in state bonds for the nation's first high-speed rail system, taking an initial step toward the ambitious $68 billion project that Gov. Jerry Brown hopes will be a part of his legacy.

The bill paves the way for California to begin selling $2.6 billion in voter-approved bonds and allocates another $1.9 billion for regional rail improvements in Northern and Southern California, and allows the state to tap $3.2 billion in federal grants to start construction of the first segment in the Central Valley.

Republicans called the project a boondoggle the state cannot afford in the midst of a serious budget crisis and high unemployment. Assemblyman Jim Nielsen, R-Gerber, said lawmakers were relinquishing control over future spending to an authority that has already come under heavy criticism for flawed plans.

The overall cost of the project from Los Angeles to San Francisco is estimated at $68 billion, after it was scaled back from a $98 billion proposal, but authorities have yet to identify where most of the remaining financing will come from.

Lawmakers are under pressure from labor groups that say the project is sorely needed because it will bring jobs, particularly to a region with higher-than-average unemployment. The Obama administration has threatened to rescind federal grants if the Legislature doesn't appropriate California's share of funding in the Central Valley.

The governor is counting on those federal funds and state bonds for a total of roughly $6 billion to build the first segment. California was able to secure more than expected after Florida, Ohio and Wisconsin turned down federal money.

I thought I'd read that California was already suffering from crushing debt and high taxes. And now they want to do this? Will US taxpayers wind up funding this project, or will it be funded solely by California taxpayers? Do liberals know the meaning of the phrase 'being frugal'? Seems the answer to all their problems is to throw someone else's money at it.

Dennis324 wrote:
I thought I'd read that California was already suffering from crushing debt and high taxes. And now they want to do this? Will US taxpayers wind up funding this project, or will it be funded solely by California taxpayers? Do liberals know the meaning of the phrase 'being frugal'? Seems the answer to all their problems is to throw someone else's money at it.

Well, I don't know enough about these plans, but the way I look at it is that if done properly, it is the sort of infrastructure project that will create jobs in the construction phase and afterwards, and it'll save people money in the long run by giving people a viable affordable alternative to driving or flying. And employing someone in a construction job like this is the type of "trickle-down economics" that actually works: if you take a whole bunch of newly-hired construction workers spending their earnings in the local economy, it gives the local shops a business boost that allows them to start expanding (or at least to break even/stop contracting).

Having said that, the "if done properly" bit there is the kicker....

Dennis324 wrote:SACRAMENTO -- The California Assembly on Thursday approved legislation that would authorize the state to begin selling about $4.5 billion in state bonds for the nation's first high-speed rail system, taking an initial step toward the ambitious $68 billion project that Gov. Jerry Brown hopes will be a part of his legacy.

The bill paves the way for California to begin selling $2.6 billion in voter-approved bonds and allocates another $1.9 billion for regional rail improvements in Northern and Southern California, and allows the state to tap $3.2 billion in federal grants to start construction of the first segment in the Central Valley.

Republicans called the project a boondoggle the state cannot afford in the midst of a serious budget crisis and high unemployment. Assemblyman Jim Nielsen, R-Gerber, said lawmakers were relinquishing control over future spending to an authority that has already come under heavy criticism for flawed plans.

The overall cost of the project from Los Angeles to San Francisco is estimated at $68 billion, after it was scaled back from a $98 billion proposal, but authorities have yet to identify where most of the remaining financing will come from.

Lawmakers are under pressure from labor groups that say the project is sorely needed because it will bring jobs, particularly to a region with higher-than-average unemployment. The Obama administration has threatened to rescind federal grants if the Legislature doesn't appropriate California's share of funding in the Central Valley.

The governor is counting on those federal funds and state bonds for a total of roughly $6 billion to build the first segment. California was able to secure more than expected after Florida, Ohio and Wisconsin turned down federal money.

I thought I'd read that California was already suffering from crushing debt and high taxes. And now they want to do this? Will US taxpayers wind up funding this project, or will it be funded solely by California taxpayers? Do liberals know the meaning of the phrase 'being frugal'? Seems the answer to all their problems is to throw someone else's money at it.

I'm glad the Assembly approved it. This is a much needed project that will bring jobs to Fresno (the main maintenance facility will be built here, as well as the temporary construction jobs), decrease travel times and costs (anywhere worth going is at least three hours from Fresno by freeway), increase commerce (there would be more people traveling between cities, especially Fresno and LA/Bay Area), and help combat the Valley's atrocious air quality by reducing Californian's reliance on cars (Bakersfield has some of the worst air quality in the US, and Fresno is only a little better).

California's taxes aren't that high. Heck, California's debt issue stems directly from the fact that Californian's like their government providing a slew of services but don't want to (and haven't been) pay for them. That and the fact that we have a troubling number of people in prison (the state spends more on housing inmates than it does on education). As for us "throw[ing] someone else's money at it," I'd like to remind you that for every $1 Californian's pay in Federal taxes, we see a $0.75 return in Federal spending in the US's third largest and most populous state. That compared to Alabama, which takes in $1.66 for every $1.00 they pay. Also note that use of the trains after the project is complete wont be free, ticket sales will help pay back some of the construction expenses.

I got no problem with this other than, it should have been one of the items in the stimulus. Much of that money went overseas and should have stayed here.

Look at it this way Dennis. High speed monorails are more efficient than regular trains. They are the future and we are the last to get aboard. As a nation that is looked at in many ways of being a leader, we shouldn't have waited this long.

Also Miles is right. This will help the economy more than hurt it and they sold California bonds to help pay for it (the Fed gives each state road and infrastructure money anyway). Sure it will mean additional debt, but like a toll road.....it will more than pay for itself over its lifespan.

Bryant, what you should watch out for is whether they use California labor or if they do what they did with the FiOS lines and bring in out of state workers (the oil field is guilty of that as well as I and many more here are proof of).

Also Bryant, I could link you with a good article that talks about taxes paid/money received by each state. We were just discussing it on another forum. It explains quite a bit. Of course, I am still on the Crackberry and will be for a few more days. Hopefully I will remember to start a topic on it when I get to land Wed. Internet out here is HughesNet and it is worse than dial-up so I use cell service when I am out here.

Taxes not high?

California companies fleeing the Golden State

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Buffeted by high taxes, strict regulations and uncertain state budgets, a growing number of California companies are seeking friendlier business environments outside of the Golden State.

I willsay this however. I'm all for programs that will create jobs. And if the taxpayers of California wish to fund this, cool. And if California gets its act together and becomes more frugal with the way it spends money, I wouldnt mind federal funds going to help out.

But its my understanding that some 40% of all workers in la county (la county has 10.2 million people) are working for cash and not paying taxes. this is because they are predominantly illegal immigrants working without a green card.

California spends between 10 and 15 billion a year just on welfare benefits to illegal aliens. US Government Info

There are many things to love about California. But California politics has practically ruined the state. They defiantly ignore Federal law, provide sanctuary cities, waste tons of taxpayers money on social programs and save the (insert species here) projects. And I fear it will drag the rest of us down with its out of control spending.