Governor snubs Amtrak and Stimulus $$$

[PetalumaLoco]

I would like to see it broken down by such stuff as how much is spent by the Corps on Mississippi River navigation works, which primarily benefits the barge companies who are just passing through.

That's an interesting topic to pursue. The Corps' purpose is not flood control, but to keep navigation open. But what happens if the levee breaks? Sure, the barges are prevented from running, but whole cities can be laid to waste.

 

[DET63]

If there was a (relatively) high-speed rail service between Baton Rouge and N'Ahrlins (or however the locals say it), would it be patronized by televangelist Jimmy Swaggart making trips to and from the "Big Easy" as he was noted for doing in the past—only this time by rail instead of in his own car?

I can't pass this one up The train would go right by Airline and Carrolton where Brother Jimmy found his honeys of the night. Don't forget~ Swaggert, Jerry Lee Lewis and Mickey Gilley are all cousins. Seems to run in the family :lol:

Keep those red lights burnin'!

 

[had8ley]

"Per dollar of federal tax collected in 2005, Louisiana citizens received approximately $1.78 in the way of federal spending. This ranks the state 4th highest nationally..." source Wikipedia Louisiana.

What is missing from this little sound bite is where it goes.

I would like to see it broken down by such stuff as how much is spent by the Corps on Mississippi River navigation works, which primarily benefits the barge companies who are just passing through.

Absolutely correct George. And as the second poorest state in the union millions are thrown into Medicaid, Food Stamps, WIC, etc. I believe the state is facing a billion dollar short fall for next year's budget.

 

[Guest]

"Per dollar of federal tax collected in 2005, Louisiana citizens received approximately $1.78 in the way of federal spending. This ranks the state 4th highest nationally..." source Wikipedia Louisiana.

What is missing from this little sound bite is where it goes.

I would like to see it broken down by such stuff as how much is spent by the Corps on Mississippi River navigation works, which primarily benefits the barge companies who are just passing through.

Absolutely correct George. And as the second poorest state in the union millions are thrown into Medicaid, Food Stamps, WIC, etc. I believe the state is facing a billion dollar short fall for next year's budget.

Maybe Gov. Booby needs to head for Vegas like Edwin used to do, double or nothing sir? Wonder who hell blame when the budget crisis hits, hes the one in charge???!!!

 

[Green Maned Lion]

We keep going into this. Doesn't anyone understand that what we are dealing with is the cardinal flaw in a representative democracy?

Theory: The people select a good man to go into office on their behalf, serving in their overall best interests, rather than meeting their current cravings.

Reality: The people select the kind of person who cares more about power than money (thats most of what runs) out a choice of two truly sorry excuses for human beings, selecting what is, atleast sometimes, the lesser of two evils. These power happy people don't care one whit about the people they are supposed to be serving, all they care about is making the people think they care, thus getting re-elected. They are not only different, they are often polar oppisites. The key to success is sincerety- learn to fake that and you've got it made.

Given truth:

More people get a lot more pissed when you take away something they have then they get impressed when you tell them how much money you have saved. Moreover, the people who don't use it aren't as impressed by the saved money than the people using it are pissed about it being taken away. Giving people something makes them happy. Taking it away makes them pissed. They don't care how much money you spend, so long as their taxes are low, relative to what they've been accustomed to paying.

Everyone, with a few exceptions, wants lower taxes. But different people individually care about different services. I know for some people on this board, McCain's stance on Amtrak was enough in and of itself not to vote for him. I'm not saying all of you, mind you. Now think of all the tiny little worthless special interest groups about all kinds of items, and how people would lose votes if they cut something that special interest group wants.

People don't really notice tiny increases in taxes over time, so people don't really get that upset about it.

Thus:

All elected officials spend their life creating programs to please their constituants while trying to find some financial trick that makes it so theat either thier consituents don't pay for it, or their constiuents at least THINK they don't pay for it. The party differences and stances, in general, are a matter of branding more than any real difference.

 

[volkris]

That's all well and good, but it doesn't change the fact that Jindal made the decision to not pursue the money for political reasons before the study was complete. Possibly the right decision, wrong reasoning.

Nonsense. It's not truer just because it's repeated.

The study was (supposedly) not complete before Jindal reiterated his position that the state shouldn't pursue the money... but so what? Do you think Jindal needed a study to tell him that it costs money to operate a train? The state was already in financial trouble and there was no legitimate funding on the table to pay the operating expenses, so the question wasn't whether the state could afford the service, but by how much it couldn't afford it.

The state had zero dollars to commit. Operation would have cost more than zero dollars. You don't need to know how much more than zero to determine that those numbers don't add up.

 

[George Harris]

We keep going into this. Doesn't anyone understand that what we are dealing with is the cardinal flaw in a representative democracy?
Theory: The people select a good man to go into office on their behalf, serving in their overall best interests, rather than meeting their current cravings.

How about this for a reality:

1. If I am running for office and have people running around saying I will pay you $10.00 to vote for me, that is ILLEGAL and will likely get me thrown off the ticket if not thrown in jail.

2. However, if I say, vote for me and I will develop programs that will give you enough money so that you do not have to work, that is perfectly legal and by some people encouraged.

Which one is worse, 1. or 2.?

We now have legislative bodies loaded with number 2 type promise makers, and we wonder why the governments are going broke.

 

[AlanB]

That's all well and good, but it doesn't change the fact that Jindal made the decision to not pursue the money for political reasons before the study was complete. Possibly the right decision, wrong reasoning.

Nonsense. It's not truer just because it's repeated.

The study was (supposedly) not complete before Jindal reiterated his position that the state shouldn't pursue the money... but so what? Do you think Jindal needed a study to tell him that it costs money to operate a train? The state was already in financial trouble and there was no legitimate funding on the table to pay the operating expenses, so the question wasn't whether the state could afford the service, but by how much it couldn't afford it.

The state had zero dollars to commit. Operation would have cost more than zero dollars. You don't need to know how much more than zero to determine that those numbers don't add up.

The problem with that theory is that the State of Louisana was indeed working hard on its application for federal funding, had been almost since the Stimulus monies were announced, even as the study was being prepared. Jindal should have pulled the plug on day one and shut down the application process, instead of wasting staffers time. Not to mention wasting the money for the study that he didn't need in order to know that it would cost the state money to run the train.

Instead, it wasn't until the day after the story broke that the state was seeking Stimulus funds for a RR, and was questioned as to how he wasn't being two faced after criticizing the Disneyland Express that was never part of the Stimulus package in the first place, that Jindal pulled the plug.

 

[volkris]

The problem with that theory is that the State of Louisana was indeed working hard on its application for federal funding,

Do you have a reputable link showing that Jindal was personally involved in that process and that the process was anything more than keeping the door open in case some reasonable way to fund the project was actually found? I've looked and haven't found it.

Governments, particularly Louisiana's, are big, sprawling entities with many subgroups doing things the head doesn't know about. I've seen quotes from the LA DOT head promoting the line emphatically while Jindal was critical, so it's entirely possible that this application was in progress at the behest of that LA DOT head, not Jindal.

If you can find a link showing that Jindal was ever excited about or promoting the service (aside from a reasonable "well, it's something to look into" attitude), then you may have a point about a political change of heart. Otherwise, this is easily chalked up to a routine case of the executive clarifying his orders to his branch.

 

[Bob Dylan]

:blink: A good chief executive knows whats going on in his outfit, and ultimately is responsible for what does or does not happen! I know the good people of Louisiana dont always make good choices in their leaders (Jimmy S. isnt the only one with a girl of the night problem and lots of them have gone to jail, Huey Long & Co. set the bar pretty high for sure!

Weve only seen him once (his infamous speech to the country after the prez spoke), seemed like hes a worse speaker than most and a very poor reader! If the good folks elected him they get what they deserve! He did tell stories about the train from Disneyland to Sin City that never existed which is typical of most so called right wing nuts seems like!

(dont confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up cause I heard Rush/Adolph Beck/Fixed noise say it, must be true!)

 

[volkris]

:blink: A good chief executive knows whats going on in his outfit, and ultimately is responsible for what does or does not happen!

No, an omnipotent chief executive knows what's going on in his outfit to this level of detail.

It is physically impossible for any mere mortal to know the entire workings of a modern bureaucracy bigger than that which exists in a small town; that's why a good chief executive delegates responsibility to those who can manage the parts of the system that he doesn't need immediate, day to day interaction with. The ultimate responsibility lies with the executive, sure, and that's why Jindal responsibly killed the effort. But responsibility's not what we're talking about here.

We're talking about the charge that Jindal personally changed his mind based on political considerations, but using as evidence an opinion that he didn't express, ascribing it to him simply because it was [supposedly] expressed by some in the organization he managed. That's pretty far from a smoking gun...

In my recollection Jindal has been consistently critical of the rail plan--I seem to recall his speaking out against it months ago--and the fact that some indirect underlings were working on an exploration of the matter doesn't change that.

But if your mind's made up...

 

[AlanB]

I have no direct proof or link that Jindal knew about the application before being confronted in the press.

But with such a project like this, I find it hard to believe that no one from his staff ever mentioned it to him. However, if no one did tell him and yet he picked someone to serve under him that would do something so contrary to his needs, wants, and desires; that's pretty scary too as it means that he's not surrounding himself with the right people.

The big issue in my mind, and one that I've seen expressed by many posters on various newspaper blogs, is why didn't he just wait for the report? The fact that he jumped the gun exactly one day after being confronted and pulled the trigger to kill the project, is the same type of reaction as a child who got caught with their hand in the cookie jar. Had he waited for the final report a month later, and then pulled the plug, he wouldn't be getting the flack and criticism that he is. He would have been on much firmer ground and forestalled much of the criticism currently being leveled against him.

 

[Rumpled]

That would be a good name for a singing group....."Mike Curb and the Supremes"

Well, Mike Curb is a songwriter and producer - not too far off.

 

[volkris]

But with such a project like this, I find it hard to believe that no one from his staff ever mentioned it to him. However, if no one did tell him and yet he picked someone to serve under him that would do something so contrary to his needs, wants, and desires; that's pretty scary too as it means that he's not surrounding himself with the right people.

Keep in mind that this was simply not a big deal. Without the charges of hypocrisy it would have hardly been a footnote in the history of trains in Louisiana.

As far as I can tell, some guys many steps removed from the executive, maybe five out of thousands at their level, were working on paperwork that by itself had no effect on anything. Did they start issuing contracts for construction? Did they start acquiring rights of way? Did they start rearranging state advertising budgets to advertise the new service? No. They were preparing an application.

The executive's attention was drawn to this insignificant effort that was out of step with the larger operation, and he told them to knock it off.

If there was politics involved it was a simple clarification to the public and critics that the state's policy was not to seek this funding. Again, insignificant.

Sure there's probably more to the story, but I can't find it. All I can find when I search for information on the subject is an echo chamber of people citing each other to agree that there was hypocrisy involved. Without solid information I see no reason to jump to that conclusion; this looks like a bureaucratic non-event blown into something bigger than even the proposed event justifies.

 

[AlanB]

Unless there is something unusual that I don't know about Louisiana's government, the head of the DOT reports directly to Jindal. He knew about the application. Therefore either Jindal knew, or Jindal selected the wrong person. Either is a failure.

Yes, there were low level people actually shuffling the papers, dotting the I's and crossing the T's. But people at the very top knew what was going on.

 

[volkris]

Unless there is something unusual that I don't know about Louisiana's government, the head of the DOT reports directly to Jindal. He knew about the application. Therefore either Jindal knew, or Jindal selected the wrong person. Either is a failure.
Yes, there were low level people actually shuffling the papers, dotting the I's and crossing the T's. But people at the very top knew what was going on.

What, exactly, are you calling a failure?

Certainly it's no failure for the executive and his subordinate not to see eye to eye on every issue, especially when they do very different jobs. I see statements from the DOT head showing that he was very much in favor of rail, but then his job is to promote transportation so it'd be weird for him not to be. Jindal, on the other hand, has to do things like promote a balanced budget and work with legislatures. It's his job to point out that the state can't afford ponies for every little girl, and it can't afford to pay for this service either.

There was a failure in message out of the government, but that's hardly a significant event. Two government officials giving conflicting statements? Say it ain't so! Anyway, Jindal's clarification that the state would not be seeking the money was actually a successful resolution to this failure.

And again, even if work was going on on this application, that's such a small deal that it would arguably be a failure if the DOT head DID bother the governor with it. Trains might be the center of the universe for many on this board, but governors have a little more to worry about. No failure there, and also no evidence that Jindal knew even if the DOT head did.

So it's back to the same thing: a big deal made out of nothing... and then blown up further.

There are plenty of things to hang Jindal with. This isn't one of them.

 

[volkris]

Another side of this is that the accusation of hypocrisy doesn't even meet the story concocted to go with it.

It wouldn't have been hypocritical or inconsistent for Jindal to speak against the federal government handing out money and then accept it when the government held out its hand. They're separate matters entirely!

It would be hypocritical for Jindal to accept the money while blasting other states for accepting it, or for him to allocate money to rail while lambasting all other rail spending, but he did neither.

If you really want to get down to it, had Jindal accepted the money it would have put him in the honest, honorable position: he would have advised the Federal government not to spend that money on the grounds of fiscal responsibility even though he stood to benefit from the mistake.

Instead he was called a hypocrite when there was no hypocrisy and then charged with changing his mind when there's nothing to say he ever believed differently. And all that over a completely insignificant bureaucratic function.

But then, that's about the quality of opinion that comes from Olberman. He likes his big words... it's just a shame he doesn't use them to describe the real world.

 

[AlanB]

If you're about to apply for Federal Funding for a project that commits the state to several guarantees, including having to repay that money to the Fed if you don't continue operations for a specified number of years or run X number of trains daily, and you haven't informed your boss the Governor that you are doing that, then that is a failure.

If he did inform Jindal, then the failure is Jindal's for not cancelling the project immediately if he knew that he couldn't find a way to pay for it. You don't waste the time and effort of several staffers to prepare all that paperwork for nothing. Additionally, if you are already positive that you can't afford it, then you don't allow your subordinate to commission and pay for a study to find out if the project will work and what it will cost to make it work. Instead he wasted precious tax payer dollars by allowing both things to continue, until confronted. That is a failure.

Then he made yet another mistake by not at least waiting for the study to be complete, before saying that the state couldn't afford it and was instead pulling the plug on the application. Instead he rushed to the microphone to protect his Presidential ambitions by squashing the project the very next day after the story broke.

 

[AlanB]

It would be hypocritical for Jindal to accept the money while blasting other states for accepting it, or for him to allocate money to rail while lambasting all other rail spending, but he did neither.

I guess you missed that speech where he blasted the rail spending in the Stimulus bill, and in particular the Las Vegas to California train.

 

[Ryan]

It wouldn't have been hypocritical or inconsistent for Jindal to speak against the federal government handing out money and then accept it when the government held out its hand. They're separate matters entirely!

It seems that your definition of "hypocrisy" is different than everyone else's (and about as wrong-headed as your definition of property rights). Can't say that I'm surprised.

Here in the real world, criticizing the feds for passing out stimulus money while flying around in his helicopter to pass out huge cardboard checks taking credit for the money is the very definition of the word.

 

[George Harris]

It would be hypocritical for Jindal to accept the money while blasting other states for accepting it, or for him to allocate money to rail while lambasting all other rail spending, but he did neither.

I guess you missed that speech where he blasted the rail spending in the Stimulus bill, and in particular the Las Vegas to California train.

Alot of people that are very pro-rail consider this one a boondoggle

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Alot of people that are very pro-rail consider this one a boondoggle

If you think its a boondoggle, far be it for me to argue with an expert on the construction and implementation of rail transit systems. However, just because it happens to have been a stupid plan does not change the fact that if Jindal was doing this only in response to being caught with his pants down blasting rail spending while his own administration prepared to partake in rail spending of its own, he was being a first class hypocrite.

I don't know if Jindal knew whether this was happening prior to being accosted with it. It is central to the issue, of course. But if he was aware of this, regardless of how stupid the line might have been, then he is not only a raging hypocrite, but a liar. Because if he knew about it, then he is lying. This is not the kind of person you want in office, especially not federally.

Truth be told, if Palin and Jindal are indicative of the calibre of people the Republican party is planning to field in the next presidential election, than Obama has nothing to worry about. Give McCain another shot, however... But if he was too old in 2008, than he'll be WAY too old in 2012.

 

[George Harris]

Alot of people that are very pro-rail consider this one a boondoggle

If you think its a boondoggle, far be it for me to argue with an expert on the construction and implementation of rail transit systems. However, just because it happens to have been a stupid plan does not change the fact that if Jindal . . .

GML: Read more carefully. The thing I was referring to as a boondoggle was the Kas Vegas scheme, which has appeared in multiple incarnations. The one thing they have in common is they are Harry Reid specials trying to make it easier for California money to end up in Nevada.

Truth be told, if Palin and Jindal are indicative of the calibre of people the Republican party is planning to field in the next presidential election, than Obama has nothing to worry about. Give McCain another shot, however... But if he was too old in 2008, than he'll be WAY too old in 2012.

Generally I try to avoid the politics here: However since you brought it up, my main dissapointment last time was seeing Condileeza Rice decline to run. Having seen how the media attacked Palin for everything imaginable, I do understand why. Beyond that I will make no comment about the national level Chicago sleaze politics we are currently enduring.

 

[AlanB]

It would be hypocritical for Jindal to accept the money while blasting other states for accepting it, or for him to allocate money to rail while lambasting all other rail spending, but he did neither.

I guess you missed that speech where he blasted the rail spending in the Stimulus bill, and in particular the Las Vegas to California train.

Alot of people that are very pro-rail consider this one a boondoggle

George,

I wouldn't argue that the particular run being discussed where the line terminates in Victorville is the wrong answer. Any train that doesn't go downtown, or at least reach the San Bernadino area, is not going to be sucessful. Especially not in the way they were talking that they would cover operating expenses, if not actually make a profit.

But Jindal was just holding that one line up as the shining example of how all rail is a waste, and he was busy trying to pin the whole thing onto a certain California Congressman, even though it was Obama who asked for the $8 Billion for high speed rail.

 

[Donctor]

Generally I try to avoid the politics here: However since you brought it up, my main dissapointment last time was seeing Condileeza Rice decline to run. Having seen how the media attacked Palin for everything imaginable, I do understand why. Beyond that I will make no comment about the national level Chicago sleaze politics we are currently enduring.

I completely disagree.