The Florida Supreme Court ruled Monday that Gov. Rick Scott can reject $2.4 billion in federal money for high speed rail.
Scott refused the federal dollars saying he didn’t want the state left holding the bag if the project cost more than estimated.
“Our taxpayers aren’t going to take the risk of the cost overrun of building it,” Scott said.
He estimates the project will run somewhere in the neighborhood of $3 billion. And if we examine the history of virtually every other government funded project in the history of humankind, it would be a pretty safe wager to bet that it would cost even more than that.
The governor received assurances from high speed rail advocates that private money will cover cost overruns. Yeah. Right. After the private entities that will benefit from the project receive a barrel full of tax write-offs, kickbacks and backroom deals to their further benefit.
How about this: if the private sector wants high speed rail between Tampa and Orlando so bad, it ponies up and funds the entire thing itself.
I can tell you exactly why that won’t happen. It’s a money loser. Certain sectors of the economy, businesses and individuals would certainly benefit from high speed rail, but those folks aren’t stupid. They know the project will never turn a real profit. It’s too risky to take on. So they lobby and beg the government to subsidize it. That way, they receive the benefit without assuming the risk.
Crony capitalism at its best.
So, good for Gov. Scott for rejecting the money. He recognizes that high speed rail, while probably a “good” idea in some sense of the word good, isn’t the priority for his state right now. There exist other more pressing matters to deal with.
Scott’s move illustrates exactly what every state needs to do. Reject the carrot and stick routine the feds want to play. Federal funds always come at a price. Reject the carrot and you don’t have to worry about getting swatted with the stick.
Not that Scott is operating purely on principle. He wants federal money for ports.
But at least his stand against federal high speed rail funding proves that states can refuse to play the game.
Other states need to take note. Because we can never have a serious move toward reestablishing the proper balance of power between the state and federal governments until the states get their snouts out of the federal trough. Until they do, the feds will always hold the states under its thumb.
Never mind that the system you seem to advocate makes no sense economically speaking – why would anybody think it a good idea to send money 1,000 miles away to be processed through a bureaucracy and then sent back for a project that is admittedly "ugly"? You are missing the broader point. The federal government engages in a myriad of activities it has no constitutional authority to engage in – including funding an intrastate rail line in the state of Florida. If we are ever to restore the intended constitutional balance between the state and federal governments, states must learn to wean themselves from federal money. And it IS federal money once it's collected and put in the big pot in Washington D.C. If the feds fund a high speed rail line in Florida, then it's not just the citizens of Florida that pay for it, it's the citizens of Wisconsin, and New Hampshire and every other state in the Union. The system, as the framers envisioned it, was for the federal government only to tax and spend money that promotes the GENERAL welfare of the United States. Not some special interests in Florida. Not even the people of Florida. But to the benefit of the UNITED States. This means things like common defense and dealing with foreign powers. (And keep in mind, not just general welfare as any politician defines it, but constrained by the enumerated powers that follow). The bulk of the powers were left to the states – and the bulk of the spending and taxing should occur at the state level. If you folks down in the Sunshine State want a high speed rail between Tampa and Orlando, then you can send your dollars to Tallahassee and knock yourself out. "But we can't afford to do it without the federal funding, advocates protest." And this makes my point. You are relying on citizens of other states to fund your project.
Perhaps instead of supporting and perpetuating a system even you admit is broken, you'd be better served advocating limiting federal power so the feds don't have to collect large chunks of Floridian's income. We not only advocate state sovereignty because it is constitutional. We advocate state sovereignty because it decentralizes power, puts taxing and spending at a more local level, which is more accountable to the people and allows each state to prioritize according to the needs, wants and will of its own people.
Maybe it's Missouri's money you're sending to California.
Maybe it's Missouri's money your sending to California.
All socialist seek control of the economic space in society so forming an alliance with businesses so that they ultimately do the will of the state. Healthcare compaanies will provide the services that the state wants them to and is no different than a government run company except that it remains in private hands. I don't know if building interstate highways qualifies as crony capitalism but if a company wants a stadium, road, or whatever then let them use their own money to do it.
What Michael Maharrey calls "crony capitalism" really isn't capitalism at all. It's called fascism. When certain parts of industry ask government for special favors or preferential treatment, and when government willingly cooperates, the two form an unhealthy, fascist relationship. The result is that the disadvantaged businesses eventually go bankrupt and the favored businesses gain a monopoly. The rich get richer, free market capitalism goes out the window and consumers and society lose.