High Speed Rail Affirmative 1ac – Energy Module (1/4)
Download 0.59 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- A/T: States CP – California Spending DA (1/2)
A/T: States CPNO LINK - States want high speed rail funding and have the final say so in HSR development. Eric C. Peterson, January 2012 [Consultant for American Public Transportation Association, Peterson has held significant leadership roles on Capitol Hill, with national and regional transportation associations, and within the U.S. Department of Transportation where he was the first Deputy Administrator of the Research and Innovative Technology Administration. He currently serves as a Research Associate for the Mineta Transportation Institute at San Jose State University. “An Inventory of the Criticisms of High Speed Rail with Suggested Responses and Counterpoints,” http://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/HSR-Defense.pdf] On February 14, 2011 Samuelson, again in the Washington Post, argued that: “Somehow, it’s become fashionable to think that high-speed trains . . . will help ‘save the planet.’ They won’t. They’re a perfect example of wasteful spending masquerading as a respectable social cause . . . . that there is something wildly irresponsible about the national government undermining states’ already poor long-term budget prospects by plying them with grants that provide short-term jobs.” As to the notion suggested by Mr. Samuelson that the states will be undermined, the initiative is totally state-driven. It is up to the states to decide for themselves whether they want their passenger rail systems improved. Judging by the number of states that made application for the various rounds of federal funding to date (38 and several of them multiple times), and the number of states that decided to return their grants to the federal government (originally three, but subsequently one of the three reapplied), it is safe to say that the states are not feeling victimized.[4] Federal oversight key to signaling and grade separations – states can’t solve NCI ‘3 [The National Corridors Initiative – “FORTY-SEVEN ORGANIZATIONS SIGN AGREEMENT TO PROMOTE FEDERAL INVESTMENT IN MODERN NATIONWIDE PASSENGER RAIL SYSTEM” http://www.nationalcorridors.org/papers/midwestpaper.shtml] The final statement in the American Passenger Rail Agreement calls upon Congress to provide full funding for Amtrak while a more advanced passenger rail system is being designed, so the national passenger rail operator can keep its nationwide fleet of trains operating and improve service levels. “Passenger trains represent the next great leap in American mobility, but they will need billions of dollars of new track, new grade separations, new stations and high-tech signaling to become effective. Only the federal government can provide that kind of oversight and funding,” said Joe Szabo of the United Transportation Union. A/T: States CP – California Spending DA (1/2)California can’t fund HSR – counterplan trades off with social services, especially universities Cox and Vranich ‘8 (Wendell Cox Principal of Demographia (St. Louis. Mo.), a public policy firm; and Joseph Vranich Consultnt @ National Journal. The California High Speed Rail Proposal: A Due Diligence Report http://reason.org/files/1b544eba6f1d5f9e8012a8c36676ea7e.pdf) As noted above, both the Phase I project and the complete project (including Phase I, Phase II and the Missing Phase) are far short of their financial requirements. The potential for private funding is limited and would become even more elusive as capital costs rise further and as financial losses become apparent. This leaves the taxpayers of California to pay for the large unfunded HSR capital deficit. The state Legislative Analyst’s Office determined the fiscal cost regarding the $9.95 billion HSR bond proposal. The costs of these bonds would depend on interest rates in effect at the time they are sold and the time period over which they are repaid. The state would make principal and interest payments from the state’s General Fund over a period of about 30 years. If the bonds are sold at an average interest rate of 5 percent, the cost would be about $19.4 billion to pay off both principal ($9.95 billion) and interest ($9.5 billion). The average repayment for principal and interest would be about $647 million per year. The state treasurer, in noting that budget deficits will continue to hamstring California, indicated that:519 So, while we might get to the point where we have issued more debt than we can “afford,” we will always pay our debt—on time every year. The ones who suffer will be the people of California, all of us who benefit from the myriad State programs—health, environmental, recreational, public safety and others— that our General Fund supports. The situation is so serious that the treasurer indicated it might be necessary to invoke strategies such as retiring some bonds with a new statewide property tax, taxes on the internet, higher state income taxes, sales tax on services, limiting the home mortgage deduction on state income tax returns, or eliminating state support for the University of California system.520 A further sobering factor is the strong out-migration that has occurred from California in recent years. Between 2000 and 2007, net domestic migration was a minus 1.2 million—equivalent to the population of the city of San Diego.521 It seems unlikely that the HSR will be built in any form materially similar to what has been promised the people of California. Even Phase I appears to be far short of the necessary funding, regardless of whether the state provides the proposed $9 billion in bonds (Part 8, If the CHSRA Runs Out of Money). The complete system appears virtually impossible to complete, simply because the funding is so far short and the state subsidy levels that would be required seem unattainable. Funding cuts to research universities guts competitiveness Chronicle of Higher Education ’12 (January 17, State Budget cuts to Research Universities Imperil Competitiveness, Study Says, by Emma Roller, Staff Writer; http://chronicle.com/article/State-Budget-Cuts-for-Research/130369/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en) Adjusted for inflation, the drop in state funds for the top 101 public research universities in the United States from 2002 to 2010 was 10 percent, with nearly three-quarters of the universities losing some state support. Despite those drops in state financing, enrollment at research institutions continued to grow. State funds per enrolled student dropped from $10,195 in 2002 to $8,157 in 2010, in constant dollars.
Directory: file -> view view -> Western Europe after wwii view -> Author study: paul fleischman view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy view -> Table of Contents Lesson # view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad Download 0.59 Mb. Share with your friends:
|