Obama Fussbudget Over Timid FY 2012 Proposal

The White House submitted its 2012 Fiscal Year Budget proposal to Capitol Hill.  The $3.75 Trillion budget proposal ignores the $4 trillion of recommended cuts contained in the bipartisan Debt Commission report that the Obama Administration received in December.

The Lamestream Media lauds that deficit hawk Obama Administration is cutting $1.1 Trillion over 10 years.  But when you take off the emerald colored glasses when looking at the Emerald City, it turns out that this is only $775 million in FY 2012.  Putting that into perspective, that is less than 1/10 of one percent of the federal budget.  Oh, but the big savings would occur after Obama’s re-election.  How convenient!

And the left is in an uproar because the cuts detailed are slated to hit the working poor, home heating assistance programs and graduate education programs.  The dirty little secret is that these proposed hard nosed cuts would never survive the scrutiny of Congressional forces seeking re-election by supplying the income redistribution gravy train.

When President Obama gave his 2011 State of the Union Address, he sought to win the future by reinventing himself as a fiscal hawk.  Two weeks ago, President Obama proposed a five year across the board domestic spending freeze, that supposedly would save $400 Billion.  Of course, this does not consider all of the pork and budgetary increases that were baked into federal agencies over the last couple of years.  Moreover, congressional budget hawks allege that it fails to account for dubious domestic spending that was surreptitiously included in Department of Defense spending (Climate Change, children’s health etc.).

But the freeze in domestic spending did not last very long. The budget calls for a $22 Billion increase in discretionary spending over FY 2010 levels.  And last week, the Obama Administration was publicizing its proposal to spend an additional $53 Billion on American Passenger Rail infrastructure “investments”.

Despite the cut in graduate education grants, the Obama budget is asking for $4.3 Billion for teacher improvement, $900 million for the “Race for the Top”, $350 million for early learning increases and a “paltry” $80 million to push for more math and science teachers.  So for a period of alleged fiscal austerity, the Obama Administration wants to increase federal education spending by 38%.  While this proposed 38% increase in federal education spending, Obama’s OMB should allocate re-education resources on vocabulary lessons and basic math.  Austerity does not belong with funding increases. Freezes in domestic spending does not equal a 38% raise in the DOE budget.

The Obama OMB dream machine tries to pay for this budget not only with phantom cuts but also with tax increases that Congress has rejected since 2006.  Obama’s budget includes tax increases for oil, gas and coal producers, at a time when conventional energy sources are at risk.  The budget anticipates letting the Bush era tax rates expire after 2012.  Moreover, the wealthy would have their deductions slashed.  The Americans for Tax Reform estimates that such changes would cost 4 million taxpayers $26,000 per annum.  In less than a day, wonks have identified 15 “hidden” tax increases that could total up to $1.5 trillion over 10 years.

Even moderate Democrats like Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) are bristling over the partisanship of the Obama Budget proposal and the belief that real cuts are necessary.  But Conrad is not running for re-election so he can afford to be real.  It seems that the Obama Administration fussed over the small stuff which in the end won’t matter and fudged the important stuff.  For those of us who plan to remain Between the Beltways, we must take off our emerald glasses and stop treating the Capital as Fantasyland on the Potomac and do some plain talking to achieve real results to save us from drowning in debt.

Making Sense of 2011 CPAC

Lamestream Media reports about the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) centered on either unsubstantiated rumors of former Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) snubbing CPAC keynote speech with prejudice or the anomaly of libertarian Republican Ron Paul again winning the CPAC straw poll.  Even sympathetic established media sources keyed in on supposed rifts between conservatives at CPAC.

Gov. Palin had never attended CPAC and did not speak ill of the event.  Considering the Lamestream media’s creative quotations of Palin regarding the Super Bowl Star Spangled Banner, Lamestream sources should be seen skeptically with their current bête noir of Sarah Palin.

One of the sponsored of the 2011 CPAC was GoProud, a Gay Conservative Group. Prior to the meeting, there was some press about objecting to this outreach.  When entering the conference hall, an activist handed literature which protested this sponsorship, but this propaganda was quickly deposited in the circular file.  I would characterize it as a difference of opinion with some social conservatives, but a rift seems like an overstatement to attract headlines.  Another friction of factions was regarding groups and individuals who had ties to Muslim Brotherhood affiliated groups.  A couple of the think tanks which are held in high esteem by most CPAC participants, namely Center for Security Policy and the Foundation for the Defense of Democracy ran programs which may stick in their craws.  This difference between factions does not threaten to tear CPAC apart.

As for the straw poll results, a lesson in politics and polling quickly dispels any illusions about the results that elated the Paulistinians (sic).  There were 11,000 registered participants at CPAC but there were only 3,000 votes in the straw poll.  About 1,000 students were recruited as volunteers and Ron Paul’s organization recruited and possibly rewarded participating students in the Campaign for Liberty.   Strangely enough, one third of the voters may have been students and Ron Paul took 37% of the straw poll votes.  Coincidence?

These young activists would certainly be more open to Libertarian notions, particularly the platform of legalizing drugs.  So such partisans would get hopped up to make a point and grab a headline.  What should give a clue of the phantom force of the libertarians is the high placement of former Gov. Gary Johnson (R-NM) in the straw poll.  Johnson is famous for boosting for marijuana decriminalization during his second term as governor.   What reveals the skewing of the straw poll by libertarians was by cross-tabulating the first and second place votes for Ron Paul and Gary Johnson.   Both candidates scored about 30 percent of the straw vote, which is greatly over-represents the Libertarian faction in the Republican party.

On the hustings, Ron Paul never comes close to winning any contested primary elections.  So a great way to garner great press and give the illusion of strong support is to win a straw poll, which has more to do with organization of activists and allocation of campaign resources.  Former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) came in second place this year, but he “won” the CPAC straw polls from 2006-2008 by expending lots of “resources” to get the straw poll title.  To Mitt’s chagrin, those victories did not necessarily translate to primary victories in early contests in 2008.

CPAC is a rare opportunity for right minded individuals to gather Between the Beltways.  But some impressions are deceiving.  I am not just skeptical about straw poll results.  There can be an aura of political rock star around some of the attendees.  Gov. Mitch Daniels (R-IN) reportedly gave a great speech, but does that vault him to the front tier of undeclared Republican candidates?  Newt and his wife Callista seemed ever present with their education efforts on Thursday, but was that to lay the base for a White House run or to stoke the intellectual fires of CPAC attendees?  Does Sarah Palin’s low polling in the straw poll show weak support amongst activists or was it a situation of “Out of sight, out of mind”?

The one conclusion that I have discerned from CPAC is the importance of plain talk.  Not like Senator McCain’s ersatz “Straight Talk Express” bus rides with jocular media “supporters”. But recognizing the real problems which America faces.  From former Ambassador John Bolton and Saturday Keynote Speaker freshman Rep. Allen West (R-FL 22nd) to Gov. Daniels, right leaning activists respond enthusiastically to plain talk about problems.  That mirrors the results stemming from Frank Luntz’ State of the Union Hawkeye focus group.

Personally, I'm still listening electively.  But I can safely say that one should not expect a soft focus gauzy “It’s Morning in America” style of campaigning of 1984 during the 2012 Presidential Campaign.  As unstylish and wonky as it may be, my impression of CPAC is that a 1992 Perot styled “Let’s pull up the hood and look at the engine” style of campaigning.  So much for hopey-changey hustings.

Movie Review: Iranium

I was able to see a screening of Iranium at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), although I became aware of the Clarion Fund production through a Facebook posting.

This hour long documentary from first time director Alex Trainman explores the ramifications of the Iranian Revolution in 1978-79 and the Iranian nuclear program.

The United States under the leadership of President Jimmy Carter stood by and did not help its erstwhile ally the Shah of Iran.  After a brief interim where outsiders hoped for more democracy, a national referendum ushered in the Islamic Revolutionary government led by the Ayatollah Khomeni.  In November 1979, a group of revolutionary Iranian students seized the American Embassy in Tehran taking 66 hostages.  In the end, the 52 American hostages were held for 444 days, until President Ronald Reagan was sworn into office.

Director Alex Trainmen adeptly interspersed archival footage from American television with Mid Eastern media to show how naive Western preconceptions about secularism and democracy downplayed the significance of the Iranian Islamic Revolution.  When events were unfolding, the Ayatollah Khomeni was considered in the west just to be a Muslim Holy Man as opposed to the catalyst for an Islamic Revolution.

Iranium details the revolutionary aspects of the Iranian Republic are clearly embedded within the new Iranian Constitution.  The revolutionary fervor was bolstered by paramilitaries who independently instigated the Iranian Hostage crisis.  The Iranian regime also established the Iranian Revolutionary Guards who became the bulwark of the radical government and one of the most powerful institutions in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

By piecing together interviews with right thinking scholars, Iranium illustrates how the Iranian government has been covertly engaging in war since its inception, particularly through proxy fights in the 1983 Beirut embassy bombing, the army compound bombing in Beirut in 1984, the Khobar Tower bombing in Saudi Arabia in 1996, supporting the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in 2000, as well as aiding insurgents in Iraq.

The second half of the film focuses on the Iranian nuclear program.  Iranium uses history to show how the aftermath of the Iran/Iraq war of the 1980s combined with the ascension of the brutal Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei led it on the path to seek nuclear weapons as another front to spread the Islamic Revolution and perhaps Persian power throughout the world. The film makes the connections with the Axis of Evil, showing how Iran followed North Korea’s lessons in burying the covert military oriented labs underground.  Iranium also makes the connection with how Pakistan’s A.Q. Khan helped proliferate much of the nuclear technical know how.

Perhaps for the general audience the prolonged chronological history was necessary. But since many of the scholars from the Center for Security Policy and the Foundation for the Defense of Democracy that were interviewed for the film were familiar to foreign policy wonks like me, the history seemed more extensive than necessary.  I was hoping for more concentration of the Iranian nuclear program and the pusillaniousness of Western powers to respond to a clear and immanent threat.

Although  the narrative of the film was thorough and cohesive, some of the cinematic quality of Iranium did not present well on the big screen.  The American news footage which was used in Iranium looked fuzzy, particularly for President Reagan’s inauguration. But it was not confined to archival footage.  Some of the coverage from five years ago had video distortion while other sources (like CNN) had no flaws. Oddly, the Mid-Eastern news sources did not have these quality challenges.  This made me wonder if the filmmakers had difficulty procuring rights to rebroadcast, but director Trainmen attributes the problem to rushing to circulate the film.   Perhaps the video quality will appear less jarring on a smaller screen.

Iranium generated some controversy during its roll out.  A showing at the Library and Archives of Canada was cancelled on January 18th 2011 after protests from the Iranian government.  But Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore insisted that "The Iranian Embassy will not dictate to the Government of Canada which films will or will not be shown in Canada,” and the film was shown a fortnight later.   A reviewer in  The Vancouver Sun  opined "It would be tempting to dismiss as a right-wing fantasy if only someone hadn't gone to such steps to keep it from being shown."

Ironically, as I was attending the screenings, there were premature reports that Egyptian strongman President Hosni Mubarak had ceded power. I thought about the chaos and American ambivalence to the Iranian Revolution and made me wonder if history could be repeating itself.

Iranium was about the right length for a policy oriented documentary.  It did convey a convincing point of view.  It is well worth watching.  

To get the message out, the producers of Iranium are allowing people to watch the film while streaming online.  Carpe diem.

New Nutmeg Senator Caught Self Aggrandizing Again

Yid with Lid reports that freshman Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) has another problem with correlating his personal story with the truth.

During the 2010 senatorial primary campaign, when Blumenthal was speaking before a group of veterans, Blumenthal was caught upgrading his Vietnam “era” service thus implying that he served overseas when he had only served stateside.  Blumenthal had done this on more than one occasion, but  he only regrets uttering a few misplaced words about the matter.  Apparently, the voters of Connecticut overlooked this gilding of the lily and elected him to replace Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT).

Now Senator Blumenthal was at an Abortion Rights news conference where he wanted to show his bone fides to the cause of women being able to kill the unborn foetuses which they are carrying. So Blumenthal asserted:

I’m new to the Senate but I’m not new to this battle. Since the days of Roe v. Wade, when I clerked for Justice Blackman, as a state legislator, as attorney general, I have fought this battle.

There is a slight problem with this ingraciating but gratuitous remark.  Blumenthal clerked for Justice Blackman in 1974.  Roe v. Wade was handed down on January 22, 1973.  This was the time when Bloomenthal was in his Vietnam “Era” service.  Oops.

Ty Matsdorf, Blumenthal’s press spokesman, insists that the Supreme Court had many ancillary petitions to handle in the wake of the decision that followed up on the case.  Really.  A year after the highest court in the land that is an Appellate Court needs to handle follow up petitions once the majority of justices have passed their judgment.  Blumenthal’s P.R. flack continued:

It's not like there was just in 1973 this decision that was issued and it stopped...This was a fundamental case that shifted U.S. law... It continued to ripple through the judicial system and the nation. We're still feeling the effects of it today. For him to say 'during the days', he's talking about all the follow-up legal action.

That is a pretty convoluted way to justify your bosses words.

It would have been a non-story if the Senator’s overstatements were quietly clarified rather than doubling down on an exaggeration.  To compound matters, Senator Bloomenthal’s Chief of Staff Laurie Rubiner, Blumenthal's chief of staff warned against writing such an incendiary story by saying "This is a very unfair route you are going down," she said. "We'll remember this."

This shows a disturbing patterns of behavior by Senator Blumanthal’s office.  Firstly, the tendency to engage in needless aggrandizement to identify with an audience.  Then the harsh reactions when people question the association shows some pretty thin political skin.

Supposedly, ingesting nutmeg in sufficient quantities can be hallucinogenic.  It would seem like Gingerbread Frappuccinos will be missing the spicy toppings in Connecticut for a while.

H/T  Yid with Lid

Movie Review: MacGillvray's Arabia in IMAX 3-D

I had the privilege of attending a preview screening of MacGillvray's Arabia in IMAX 3-D, which will begin its Between the Beltways run at the Smithsonian Natural History Museum.

Hamzah Jamjoom, the 22 year old Saudi filmmaker who was the "star" of the documentary was there to introduce the film and to effuse enthusiasm for a dynamic presentation of his homeland. Jamjoom noted that this was the first American film to have been made in what the DePaul University Film Graduate joked is “the world’s largest oven”.  Special cooling units needed to be used to protect the fragile High Definition Cameras and the crews in the oppressive 120 F heat.

The film surprisingly starts out on a coral reef, which is counter to most peoples conception of Arabia as a huge natural sandbox. The film acts as somewhat of a travelogue as it shows the vast desert and the heroic legacy of the Bedouin culture along with the mountains and valleys of Arabia and even alludes to volcanic activity.

The documentary tries to show a more modern side of the Saudi Kingdom with the skyscraper of the Capital Riyadh and the more cosmopolitan coastal city of Jeddah. One of the leitmotifs of the Arabia documentary is trying to show the challenges for a young country to embrace aspects of modernity while respecting their ancient tribal culture.  The film captured a rare glimpse of a casual portrayal of Jamjoom’s family in Jeddah, which is much less reserved and conservative than a Saudi on the street.

The film’s thesis is that Arabia had two Golden Ages.  The first flourishing of civilization in Arabia was with Nabateans, who grew wealthy on trading Frankincense with the polytheistic Roman Empire.  The second glory days were during the rise of Islam.  The documentary glosses over the bloody conquests necessary for an Islamic empire spanning from Andalucia, Spain to India. The film, however, emphasizes the virtues of the quest for learning of the scholars of Arabia, especially in science.  It was as if the Obama NASA Administrator was on a mission to the Middle East.   But this proud scientific history was a strong segue for promoting its presumed legacy at the King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, which has the world’s 6th largest endowment.

For an IMAX documentary, it has a directed point of view and its script is not as hokey as Legends of Flight or other early IMAX films. To convey some historical elements of the script, director Greg MacGillvray resorted to using brief segments of CGI, in which the human figures seemed somewhat plastic on the really big screen.

Those CGI shortcomings aside, there were a few scenes that truly took one’s breath away in IMAX.

 Seeing the many of the 3 million faithful circle the Kabbah seven times in Mecca during the Hajj was amazing.






The classic vista of a Bedouin riding a camel in the desert at sunset was stunning.






 I was also impressed with the twilight shot of the Prophet’s Mosque in Medina.







The 3-D elements of the film were not constant but were wisely used.  The coral reef segments did grip ones attention and make one open to a non-cliched visual experience of Arabia.  When showing some of the historic Nebatean ruins, the boulder in the foreground gave the visual experience depth.  

Perhaps I have spent too long Between the Beltways, but I sensed streams of Saudi propaganda.  The uniting of the young Kingdom was understandable.  But the way King Abdullah University was portrayed, it seemed aimed at presenting a “modern” Islamic culture where men and woman can work together yet keep Koranic proprieties.  The linkage between the scholarship of Islam’s Golden Age and the King Abdullah University endowment offered Jamjoom an opportunity of irrational exuberance to proclaim a third Golden Age.

While it will never be a Hollywood Blockbuster, Arabia 3-D is a worthy experience that might spark an intellectual curiosity about the Kingdom of the House of Saud.

No Lee-way for Craigslist Cheating Congressman

Second term Congressman Christopher Lee (R-NY 26th) resigned immediately after it became public that he was exchanging flirtatious e-mails with a woman under a fictitious identity on Craigslist. Now there will have to be a special election for New York 26th Congressional District.

According to Gawker, Rep. Lee answered an Women Seeking Men ad on the Washington edition of Craigslist.  The plucky ad copy seeks a photo exchange to ensure that she would not be kissing a toad in her old age.  He replied indicating that he was a classy 39 year old divorced lobbyist, while in actuality Chris Lee is a married 46 year old now former Congressman.

Within four hours, Rep. Chris Lee went from hints of denial to pledging to work it out with his wife, while vacating his seat.  Since Lee resigned almost immediately upon publication, it is currently unclear if Lee ever engaged in a dangerous liaison with his phantom flame. But what is clear is that ex-Congressman Chris Lee imprudently sent his cyber interlocutor a shirtless pose without his face obscured.

Democrat hacks have been circulating stories for months about Speaker Boehner having exposure in a sex scandal.  It is ironic that these are the same partisans who argued that President Clinton’s peccadillos were just about (extramarital) sex.  Considering the rapidity of Lee’s departure, if there is something to the whispers about the Speaker, these wagging tongues had better bring it quickly to build on the bandwagon.

Since Chris Lee resigned his seat so swiftly after this news broke, the Republican caucus probably exerted strong pressure for Lee to retreat from Capitol Hill so that the wound does not fester.  It seems that Republicans refuse to be tarred by sexual aspersions that would poison public perception and prevent detract the new Majority from governing.  The strategy seems to have worked as neither the national media nor broadcasts Between the Beltways mentioned the alleged affair and aftermath later that evening.

So expect that Republican caucus will not give any leeway to scandal, unlike former Speaker Pelosi who promised to have the most ethical Congress ever, but who certainly did not deliver.

Webb of Prospective Defeat (sic)

On his 65th birthday, first term Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) announced that he did not want to spend his whole life in politics announced that he was returning to the private sector by not seeking re-election in 2012.  Well, that’s quite a tale for Webb to spin, especially as it ignores history.

Webb ran for the Senate in 2006, which was a mini-wave election for Democrats in the wake of corruption scandals of Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-CA 50th ) Rep. Bob Nye (R-OH 18th) and the Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL 16th) sexual follies.  Moreover, the conservative vote in the 2006 Virginia Senate race was split between the incumbent Senator George Allen (R-VA) and by the fringe Independence Green Party candidacy of Gail Parker. The fiscally conservative and socially green Parker won by garnered 26,102 votes (1.1%). The margin between Webb and Allen was 0.5%, so “Gail for Rail” almost certainly swung the Virginia Senate seat, as well as control of the Senate to the Democrats.  If that was not enough extenuating circumstances for Webb, the Washington Post had a two month barrage of negative stories against Sen. Allen’s “Macaca” moment.

Many political observers were not surprised by Webb’s announcement.  He had not been fundraising and there was the prevailing impression that Webb did not enjoy being a Senator. Although Webb’s announcement of his retirement from the Senate pats himself on the back for:

[Giving] our Post- 9/11 veterans the best GI Bill since World War Two; we have taken the lead in reforming our criminal justice system; we have led the way toward stronger relations in East and Southeast Asia; and we have been a strong voice in calling on China to act more responsibly in the world community.

What most wags will remember about Sen. Webb’s tenure was for the gun rap that Phillip Thomas, his Executive Assistant, took for trying to sneak Senator Webb’s loaded pistol into the Russell Senate Office Building in 2007.  Charges against the aide were dismissed after prosecutors concluded it could not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Thompson was aware that the gun and ammunition were in the briefcase.  But this afforded Senator Webb an opportunity to re-iterate his support for gun owners rights, even though it appeared as if  he did not respect DC law on the matter.

Psephologists will recognize that the 2012 Election Cycle is going to be challenging for Senate Democrats structurally. Democrats will need to defend 22 of 33 seats, if you include Socialist Senator Sanders (I-VT). Election landscapes can change, but it does not look like it will be a robust economic environment to run.  Combine those sobering facts with the razor thin margin by which he won in 2006, no wonder why Webb years for “retirement” from the Senate.

Speculation on Webb’s replacement has been for former Virginia Governor Tim Kaine (D-VA), who was term limited in 2009.  But Governor Bob McDonnell’s (R-VA) 18 point election margin in 2009 might indicate that the Commonwealth is returning to the more solidly Red State map.  Granted, 2010 was a Teanami Election Year for Conservatives. But Gov. Kaine was the DNC leader.  In national office, it is rare that failed candidates get a second chance.  This may extend to party leadership.

In 2006 election cycle, DNC Chairman Howard Dean recruited a gaggle of moderate sounding candidates like Sen. Webb, Senator Casey (D-PA) and Sen. Claire Mc Caskill (D-MO) who actually won their races. However,  after experiencing the soft shoe duplicity from Democrat moderates who talk moderately on the campaign hustings but vote with the Liberal leadership once in office, it is likely that voters won’t get fooled again.

Once again, it looks like Blue Dogs are going the way of the Dodo Bird or maybe the liberal Republican.

Railroading Cronyism and Corruption

The proposal by the Obama Administration to spend an additional $53 billion over the next six years on passenger rail improvements has already been scrutinized on the rail fundings dubious merits.  But during the photo op at Philadelphia’s 30th Street Statement to announce the initiative, Vice President Joe Biden half joked “I’m like the omnibudman for Amtrak”.  Biden’s half witticism was not far from the truth.

When Biden first ran for President in 1987, he staged a Biden Express Whistle Stop campaign, which Biden plagiarized from Harry Truman’s famous 1948 Presidential campaign.  During the 2008 general election campaign, Biden had a press availability on an Amtrak train to highlight the 7,900 round trips over thirty years that he made commuting between Wilmington, Delaware and Washington, DC for his tenure in the United States Senate.  At that time, Biden promised that the Obama administration would be the most  ``train-friendly administration in history.” Based on the $10.5 billion already allocated and the $53 billion proposed, that was a promise made and promise kept.

The commuting costs for riding on the Amtrak Acela would be beyond the pocketbook of most consumers, but there is some question as to whether Biden’s ticket to ride was at a special rate. Others in the pajamahadeen have uncovered other deep discounts for federal officials taking “joy rides” on Amtrak. I doubt that the Lamestream Media will investigate this. But after all, it is a government business and Amtrak ought to threat its owners well.

Alas, Amtrak’s issues are not just limited to just federal free loaders.  Michelle Malkin has been tenacious at uncovering cronyism working on the railroad, and noting how that threatens both out pocketbooks and our national security.  In 2009 , an independent audit from the Wilkie Farr and Gallagher law firm concluded in a damning 94 page report that the independence and the effectiveness Amtrak’s Inspector General’s office had been “substantially impaired”.

This independent audit of Amtrak was triggered after the sudden “retirement” of veteran Amtrak Inspector General Fred Weiderhold in June, 2009. Weiderhold was the whisteblower who publicized the Amtrak Law Departments intrusions on the IG’s investigation of $1.3 billion in rail stimulus funds and how the Amtrak GC spent $5 million in federal stimulus money to hamstring his probes.  This helps Senator Grassley (R-IA), Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA 49th), Rep. Bill Schuster (R-PA 9th)  and Rep. John Mica's (R-FL 7th) skepticism about lavishing such expenditures on the federal passenger rail system as it is currently organized.

Coincidentally, the head of Amtrak’s General Counsel is Eleanor Acheson, a close friend of Vice President Biden.  Acheson hired Jonathan Meyers, a former Biden Senate aide, as her Deputy General Counsel, which she just considers a “happy coincidence” And Vice President Biden’s son Hunter is on the Amtrak Board of Directors.  Quasi-governmental  institutions are officially prohibited from lobbying Congress, yet Hunter Biden is recognized as “an effective advocate from the government railroad system” by Politico. Curiouser and curiouser.

This serendipitous coincidence of cronyism is not confinded to Amtrak management.  General Electric was a top Obama campaign supporter which also owned MSNBC and devoted lots of positive media to green technology stands to greatly benefit from the expansive railroad initiatives. GE Transportation is the leading manufacturer of diesel-locomotive engines.  And former G.E. C.E.O. Jeffery Immelt has recently been named to head the new White House Jobs Counsel.  The White House promotes their lavish spending on railroads as keeping America on track for economic opportunity and job creation.  Isn’t that convenient?

This record of Amtrak mismanagement was not confined to the Obama Administration’s tenure. The George W. Bush Administration attempted to zero out Amtrak funding due to mismanagement in 2005 but that privatization plan was sidetracked. As a Senator, Joe Biden was  was the Amtrak designated Champion of the Rails who lobbied to keep funding for a perennial money losing government funded Amtrak operations.  In fact, Biden co-sponsored re-authorization of Amtrack in 2008 when President George W. Bush doubled Amtrak funding to $13 billon over 5 years.   The Obama administration wants to quadruple that amount in a self proclaimed era of economic austerity.

Aside from being a sop to Unions and continuing to grow government to be a Leviathan, Amtrak is an example of another government sponsored enterprise which allows Democrat politicians to featherbed for their cronies as well as to ensure cheap commuting costs for our elected and appointed elites.  Think of it as Fanny Mae with choo-choo trains.

H/T Michelle Malkin

TRAIN-ing Wheeling and Dealing

During a speech at Philadelphia’s 30th  Street Station, Vice President Joe Biden announced that the Obama Administration plans to spend $53 Billion over the next six years to upgrade and expand inter-city rail networks.  The Transportation Administration hopes that 80% of all Americans will have access to rail travel within 25 years.  These proposals keep Biden’s campaign promise that this would be the most train friendly administration ever.

The Porkulus legislation earmarked $8 billion in seed money to play with passenger trains and the FY 2010 budget included another $2.5 billion to railroad development.  But only $3.5 billion is going towards true high speed rail projects.  Instead The bulk of these funds have been directed to railroad projects in Central Florida and in California in order to have a ribbon cutting early in President Obama’s prospective second term.

Biden’s experience of taking over 7,900 round trips commuting on Amtrak between Capitol Hill and his home in Wilmington, Delaware apparently makes him an expert on railroads. Even though taxpayers take an estimated $50 loss on each Amtrak ticket sold, I doubt that many Americans who can not expense their quotidian commute to their Senatorial office can afford the $195 round trip on Acela or the $90 for the regional passenger service.

Either it is extraordinary forward vision or tunnel vision to keep touting the Supertrain. Amtrak only currently serves 78,000 passengers daily and has cost American taxpayers $35 billion since the government takeover in 1971.

The Orlando to Tampa leg of the Florida High Speed Rail System might be capable of traveling at 168 miles per hour.  But due to the number of stops along the 84 mile route, the “Supertrain” would only beat a car trip on a congested I-4 by a half an hour. This innovation comes at an estimated cost of $2.7 billion, but such government run infrastructure projects inevitably have severe cost overruns.  In two years, the cost estimates for California’s Bullet Trains have risen by a third to $43 billion.  For the High Speed Rail System which the Obama Department of Transportation envisions, it would cost $100 billion.  For true high speed trains, CNN estimates the cost of the system at $500 billion in 2009 dollars.

Train enthusiasts insist that investing in passenger rail improvements will alleviate road congestions.  Reason TV rightly points out that intercity passenger rail does nothing to alleviate rush hour traffic jams. And many of those metropolitan areas already have commuter rail services.  Based on overseas examples, these high speed rail projects are a money pit as only two bullet train projects have ever re-cooperated their infrastructure costs.

Naive observers may wonder why the Obama Administration seems almost as obsessed on trains as the Simpson’s Springfield was smitten with Monorails?  I believe that there is a sincere impetus to improve our nation’s intermodal infrastructure with a bias that a bigger government can do a better job.  But there is certainly some TRAIN-ing (sic) wheeling and dealing.  First off, to quote our National Treasure Joe Biden “[A]s Barack says, a three-letter word: jobs. J-O-B-S, jobs.”  Union jobs in particular. When these projects receive such massive federal funding, they will be obliged to follow federal rules, which have a strong bias towards hiring union workers.  After the ribbon cutting, who will need to staff the rails? Union workers of course.  Once the systems are operational, they will continue to require massive government subsidies. And unless we risk being paralyzed by a intercity rail strike, it is necessary to appease the rail unions.

There is the notion of political payoff.  When newly elected Governors John Kasich (R-OH) and Scott Walker(R-WI) decided to opt for a political train derailment of this high speed rail folly, the Obama Administration withdrew those allocated transportation funds with prejudice. When New Jersey Governor Chris Christie (R-NJ) opted not to proceed with the $9 billion Hudson train tunnel to Macy’s, the Federal government sued to get the planning seed money back.  Is it any coincidence that whenever Republican Governors try to derail the Obama Administration's obsession with trains on behalf of their constituents that these red states are figuratively thrown from the train and they lose the intermodal transportation funds that they richly deserve?

I fully appreciate House Transportation Committee Chairman John Mica (R-FL 7th) cynicism regarding the latest push to spend lots of money on a train folly.  Mica asserted that the Federal Railway Administration should not be giving grants or selecting projects.  Moreover, Mica recognized that Amtrak highjacked 72 of 78 projects, that were mostly costly and many had already been rejected by state agencies.  Mica inveighed that “Amtrak's Soviet-style train system is not the way to provide modern and efficient passenger rail service."  To make a point, Mica analogized this rail proposal as: “This is like giving Bernie Madoff another chance at handling your investment portfolio.”

Notwithstanding this skepticism of the merits of improving the intercity passenger rail system in intermodal transporation, the expensive earmark makes a mockery of President Obama’s State of the Union show, where he promised that there would be a five year across the board freeze on federal spending.