You are viewing content at the Tufts Roundtable. All opinions of writers, bloggers, or contributors reflect the views of the those individuals and not of the Tufts Roundtable or its staff.
21st Century Saga's is certainly no fan of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. Appointed by former President George W. Bush, Alito has become part of the conservative majority that has come to dominate the court on a wide range of issues, including gun rights and the campaign finance reform.
Despite this, the hoopla surrounding the Alito's mouthed response to President Obama's speech is simply ridiculous. Unlike infamous South Carolina representative Joe Wilson, Alito was not rude or disrespectful to the President; he simply mouthed a response to a critique by the president under his breadth. Had the camera not been focusing on him, it's unlikely this would have become an issue. Despite this, our drama-orientated media has gone running with this story, and the White House certainly hasn't helped (see video below)
In truth, people talk all the time during the state of the union; the president is after all speaking to a crowd of more than 700 people. They whisper, clap, and yes, sometimes they yell. In fact, Alito's mutterings were probably were some of the more polite words that were uttered that night.
The idea that all members of congress should be completely silent while listening to the President is offensive not only to common sense, but also to the principles of the founding fathers. When the presidency was first conceived, the founding fathers were very nervous about creating a new "King," subservient to the legislature, the President's duty was to carry out laws. When addressing congress, the idea of forcing complete and utter silence upon the chamber strikes me as rather silly. The president is important, be he is still a citizen. People should be respectful when listening to him, as they would respect any other important figure. The White House needs to stop making mountains out of molehills.
Over in the White House, Rahm Emanuel and President Obama have begun to watch the budget like hawks. Politico has more:
Obama, who on Monday presents his budget proposals for the fiscal year starting October 1, has promised to tackle record deficits by initiating a spending freeze on some domestic programs and eliminating programs that are redundant.
The White House gave a preview of some of those cuts in a statement published on its blog on Saturday.
One of the proposals would eliminate the "Advanced Earned Income Tax Credit," which allows eligible taxpayers with children to get a portion of the a tax credit paid out in their paychecks throughout the year.
The White House said only 514,000 people -- 3 percent of those eligible -- claimed the credit and the error rate for the program was high, with 80 percent of recipients not complying with one or more of the program's requirements.
"This ineffective and prone-to-error program should be eliminated," White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer said in the statement.
Other changes would include consolidating 38 programs at the Department of Education into 11 to clamp down on inefficiencies and demand greater accountability from states and school districts on grant programs.---Politico
After his Clintonesqe defeat retreat on health care, this is a classic, but necessary move for the Obama administration. With polls showing that voters are most concerned about the economy and deficit, the President has got to quickly show that his administration is in control of the-budget issue, and this is a great way to do it.
Of course 20 billion is just a drop in the bucket, and of course the problem of government waste is far more systemic than just a few cuts, but in the DC political game, this is a slam-dunk. After a year of proposing new sources of government spending, the Obama administration is finally showing that it can see both sides of the ball.
Check out this cool video from the California High Speed Rail Authority. It's complete with spanking visuals, showing many of the planned routes, and a breathtaking soundtrack that will certainly lull the even the most ardent NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) to sleepy support for this revolutionary plan.
Unfortunately however, this video does not address some of the controversies that have been swirling around the project as of late. Aside from the recession, the questions about public-private partnerships, and the dismal situation of California's finances at the moment, there are questions that surround the operating model of the entire system once it is built.
Most of the controversy is centered on the pricing model for the high-speed train service itself. When originally planned, the tickets on high speed trains were to sell at 50 percent of airfare (fares between Los Angeles and San Fransisco can cost about 85 dollars). Effectively, this would mean that rail tickets between the two cities fall into the $40-$50 dollar price range, not to bad at all considering the fact that the high speed trains leave directly from downtowns, without the need for expensive taxi cabs, or long traffic rides into the city. In their revised business model however, the California High Speed Rail Authority upped it's proposed pricing structure to about 83% airfare. In context, this would mean that instead of $55 dollars, the average price would for a trip between Los Angeles would be about $104. In a statement on the agencies blog, the California Rail Authority said:
The 83 percent level is in the middle of a wide range of experience in similar-length markets outside of California, based on prices examined in 2007. At the top end, weekend Acela fares in the New York to Washington market were higher than air fares, and on the Japanese Shinkansen fares were 108 percent of air fares for Tokyo- Osaka (322 miles) and 114 percent Tokyo-Hakata (722 miles). London - Paris Eurostar HST fares were 80 percent of air fares, both peak and off- peak. Madrid - Sevilla (333 miles) AVE fares were 71 percent of air, and Paris Lyon (244 miles) 71 percent of air. In the Paris Brussels market (191 miles) where HST has 95 percent of the air/rail market, and airlines are primarily connecting to long-distance flights, (similar to Central Valley service to San Francisco or San Diego-Los Angeles flights) air fares are very high, and HST fares were only 39 percent of air fares.
The source of contention behind the agencies move will be the corresponding loss in ridership that will follow steeper prices. According to the California High Speed Rail Authority, the new pricing model will attract 41 million annual riders by 2035, as opposed to the lower fare's projected tally of 55 million by 2030. These projections shouldn't be surprising, every dollar increase weeds out more and more potential riders. Despite this, the rail authority is confident that it can generate more revenue using a model with more expensive ticket prices, and they're probably right.
To answer this question, we should first examine the purpose of the American High Speed Rail movement. In the United States, traffic congestion on the roads and in the air, has caused billions of dollars in delays, not to mention irreparable damage to the local environment. Adding another source of transit will provide a third, speedy method of transportation between cities, one that will have the potential to be far more efficient than either the roads or the skies. In short, the purpose of high-speed rail is to alleviate stress on current, overtaxed transportation systems, and provide Americans with a third, viable, environmentally friendly method of transport.
A system that focuses on profitability or bringing in revenue simply does not do justice to the High Speed Rail concept. If the goal is to reduce stress on current transportation systems, and convince people to leave their cars and take the train, expensive ticket prices will do little to help. Although revenue is important, the tangible benefits of public transit aren't intended to be seen in the form of profits, but improvements in the economic and social lives of the citizens to which the system serves.
It would be sheer folly to expect roads, bridges and airports, systems that are all operated by the government to completely pay for themselves. In New York City for example, public transit riders only contribute about 43 percent of the total operating costs of their subways and busses, and that's on the high end! In fact, in most systems, fares only account for between 20 and 30 percent of operating costs. Why? Well, because municipal public transit systems aren't judged by the amount of money the make, but by the amount of people they serve everyday. To smart policymakers, these are the real statistics that really matter.
If we are to continue to build and operate successful mass transit systems, Americans have to get past the flawed pricing model that we have for long distance mass transit. Mass transit tends to pay for itself in the long term in the form of economic development. Thus forcing prices up to make public transit more profitable is simply sheer folly.
Additionally, there is also something truly offensive about taxpayer dollars going towards subsidizing a system for the wealthy. A California high-speed rail system priced at 83% airfare would be expensive and inaccessible to a large percentage of taxpayers. Is it ethical to ask citizens to fork over billions to support a public transit system that will only serve the rich and privileged?
In the end, if California does the right thing and builds a high speed rail system that is affordably priced, the system will pay for itself within a generation, just like our interstate highway system, if not, then expect the new California system to be nothing more than a quagmire, an expensive diversion from the real game in town- roads and planes.
