States cp ddi 2012
Every invasion of freedom must be rejected
Download 0.94 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- HSR triggers the link – spends 98 billion
- Funding for HSR has already been allocated – should have triggered the link.
Every invasion of freedom must be rejectedPetro 74 (Sylvester Petro, professor of law, Wake Forest University, TOLEDO LAW REVIEW, Spring, p. 480) However, one may still insist, echoing Ernest Hemingway – “I believe in only one thing: liberty.” And it is always well to bear in mind David Hume’s observation: “It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once.” Thus, it is unacceptable to say that the invasion of one aspect of freedom is of no import because there have been invasions of so many other aspects. That road leads to chaos, tyranny, despotism, and the end of all human aspiration. Ask Solzhenitsyn. Ask Milovan Djilas. In sum, if one believes in freedom as a supreme value, and the proper ordering principle for any society aiming to maximize spiritual and material welfare, then every invasion of freedom must be emphatically identified and resisted with undying spirit. Culture promotes federalism—sense of insecurity fuels shift Nagel 96 [Robert F. Nagel, Spring 1996, “The Future of Federalism”, HeinOnline, p.660, http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/cwrlrv46&div=25&g_sent=1&collection=journals] aw Still, perhaps, something about the culture has changed or is changing in a way that will promote significant decentralization. For what it is worth, my own observation is that the main change seems to be an increasing sense of personal isolation and insecuri- ty. If this is true, it could conceivably lead to a resurgence of local associations and local government. However, it could also lead to immature longings for reassurance of a sort that have sometimes inclined Americans to see their president as an intimate father- figure, their Congress as a bottomless guarantor of material wel- fare, and their Supreme Court as a church-like arbiter of moral truths. In short, if the culture is deteriorating, as many now be- lieve, pressures toward nationalization may well soon be on the increase. ***Federalism AFF non-uniqueness Existing HSR projects should have triggered the link. David C. Tyrell, mechanical engineer at the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, ’01, U.S. Dept. of Transportation, “U.S. Rail Equipment Crashworthiness Standards” Congress has long been interested in the potential benefits of high speed rail. It passed a high speed rail bill in 1965. That act contributed to the establishment of the nation’s fastest rail service,¶ the Metroliner on the Washington, DC, to New York City portion of the Northeast Corridor¶ (NEC), when that line was still operated by a private rail company. In the 1970s, ownership of the¶ NEC was transferred from the bankrupt Pennsylvania Central Railroad to Amtrak, and Congress¶ initiated the Northeast Corridor Improvement Program, which has provided billions of dollars¶ since the 1970s for improvements to the infrastructure of the Corridor and, in the late 1990s, for¶ purchase of new high speed trains (Amtrak’s Acela trains). Congress has also supported research into maglev and other high speed technologies.29 In the¶ 1980s, Congress funded studies of potential high speed corridors outside of the NEC. In addition to providing funding for planning studies, in the 1990s Congress created programs to promote the¶ development of maglev lines (none of which have yet advanced to the construction stage) and¶ conventional high speed rail lines (through eliminating at-grade highway crossings from existing¶ rail lines). The FRA has calculated that Congress provided a total of $4.17 billion to various high¶ speed rail projects during the 18 years between 1990 and 2007, an average of $232 million annually (not adjusted for inflation).30 Most of that money went to improvements on the NEC.31 HSR triggers the link – spends 98 billionMeuser (Candidate for the California State Senate, District 7) 7/16/12 (Mark, “Boondoggle: California High Speed Rail,” http://www.halfwaytoconcord.com/boondoggle-california-high-speed-rail/) The masterminds in Sacramento are at it again. This time, their utopian fantasy is California’s high-speed rail boondoggle. Surely, it’s time to get a dose of reality as to how damaging this fiasco in the making will be for our the Golden State. The biggest losers in this financial disaster will be taxpayers and K-12 Education. Here’s why. High-speed rail was sold to us on the notion that the private sector will pick up a big part of the funding, and yet so far, private sector funding is nonexistent. Originally, California High Speed Rail was supposed to cost $33 billion, but since government always underestimates costs, the real cost ballooned to $98 billion. Governor Brown reduced the cost to a more reasonable $68 billion. What’s worse, interest for the bonds will easily double the final price tag taxpayers will end up paying. The Contra Costa Times has reported that the date of completion has been delayed from 2020 to 2029. Ticket costs have swelled from $55 to $85. Many have reported that it is unlikely that the trip from San Francisco to Los Angeles can actually be completed in 2 hours and 40 minutes. It’s simply irresponsible for Governor Brown to say that deep cuts need to be made to education and Healthy Families and yet he seems to think we can afford this boondoggle! non-uniqueness Funding for HSR has already been allocated – should have triggered the link.GAO, audit, evaluation, and investigative organization of the US Congress,’09, Report to Congressional Requesters, http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=GoKmHiu35bQC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=federal+jurisdiction+high+speed+rail&ots=0dYUVm00Ih&sig=qjPuO0bNsLuHtwSWvVkqGgQjRkU#v=onepage&q=federal%20jurisdiction%20high%20speed%20rail&f=false As part of a larger effort to reexamine transportation funding and decision making in the United States, the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission and its Passenger Rail Working Group issued a report that laid out the potential for a new vision of intercity and high speed rail development in the United States, and that called for an initial investment of $5 billion per year. Moreover, in October 2008, Congress enacted the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PIMA), which establishes a program to develop high speed rail corridors—authorizing $1.5 billion in funding for project development.' The recently enacted American Recovery and Reinvestment of Act o12009 (ARRA) appropriated $8 billion for high speed rail and intercity passenger rail congestion and capital grants (the latter of which were authorized by the PRIIA), with priority given to projects that support the development, of high speed rail service. To better understand the role that high speed rail service could play in the U.S. transportation system, we were asked to assess (1) the factors affecting the economic viability of high speed rail projects—that is, whether a project's total social benefits offset or justify the total social costs—and difficulties in determining the economic viability of proposed projects (2) the challenges that U.S. project sponsors experience in developing and financing high speed mil projects; and (3) the federal role in the potential development of high speed rail systems Courts dislike decentralization – not valued Nagel 96 [Robert F. Nagel, Spring 1996, “The Future of Federalism”, HeinOnline, p.655, http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/cwrlrv46&div=25&g_sent=1&collection=journals] aw It seems doubtful to me that a majority of the Justices favor significant decentralization. Yes, it is true that a majority are Re- publican appointees and that augmenting state power is often asso- ciated with conservative politics. It is also true that at one time or another almost all the Justices have written warmly about the im- portance to our system of vigorous state governments. However, general inclinations and beliefs count only insofar as they are fo- cused and strong enough to influence case outcomes. By this mea- sure, I think the Court's record as a whole casts significant doubt on whether decentralization is highly valued by most members of the Court. Courts are against decentralization – deep rooted political pressure Nagel 96 [Robert F. Nagel, Spring 1996, “The Future of Federalism”, HeinOnline, p.655, http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/cwrlrv46&div=25&g_sent=1&collection=journals] aw Even if I am right that the instincts and beliefs of most of the Justices are unlikely to result in any important changes in the scope of national regulatory power, their preferences could be overborne by external political pressures nevertheless. It does seem to be true that sooner or later the Supreme Court goes along with the dominant trends of the time. On this possibility, like everyone else, I can only conjecture. My prediction is that current signs of dissatisfaction with the national government represent an epiphe- nomenon. In fact, many of the forces that at present appear to favor decentralization have attributes that could work out to en- courage further centralization, and the deeper political and cultural pressures are, I think, consistent with this outcome. non-uniqueness Public favors centralization—states rights activism ineffective Nagel 96 [Robert F. Nagel, Spring 1996, “The Future of Federalism”, HeinOnline, p.659, http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/cwrlrv46&div=25&g_sent=1&collection=journals] aw A significant segment of the public is, as I said at the outset, disaffected from the government in Washington, D.C.. But many of these people are bitter and cynical about all government. To the extent this is so, they may oppose responsible proposals, such as the Conference of the States, that might help to make decentraliza- tion respectable to mainstream voters.7 Even when angry groups support enhanced state authority, they may do so by supporting policies that continue the long association of "states' rights" with moral positions, like unrestricted gun ownership, that are not mor- ally attractive to many Americans. At the extreme, anti-government zealots might undertake-and to some extent already have under- taken-acts or threats of violence that are very likely to enhance specific powers of the central government and generally to discredit the states' rights movement. Federalism LOW Directory: files files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2 files -> Integer programming and game theory files -> 4 Integer Programming files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective files -> Pop Warner History files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations Download 0.94 Mb. Share with your friends:
|