The debate over passenger rail between Ohio's three Cs (Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati) began as a reasonable conversation that deteriorated, in the aftermath of election-year politics, into a train wreck. Former governor Ted Strickland, organized labor, Keynesian economists, and a wide range of other parties all championed the idea, managing to secure a $400 million federal pledge to make it so.
Governor Kasich ridiculed the plan, as did anti-tax, anti-spend Republicans. In November, Kasich wrote to President Obama, requesting permission to redirect the funds toward other state infrastructure projects, or toward reducing the federal deficit (see the text of Kasich’s letter, which is surprisingly terse and devoid of any true counter-proposal, here). Kasich received a reply the next day from Ray LaHood, Obama’s Secretary of Transportation (click here for LaHood's reply).
In the letter, LaHood, a former Republican congressman from Illinois, asserted that “This rail program will create thousands of jobs and spur economic development - a shot in the arm that Ohio could well use.” That communication was dated November 9; as far as I know, Ohio’s newest Governor has not yet replied to Secretary LaHood’s request, at the close of the letter, for more dialogue.
It seems to me - a casual but not disinterested observer - that there are sensible points on both sides of the great train debate. While on the one hand we urgently need public projects that will rekindle industry and put people back to work, it is also fair to ask if this is the right project, and whether possible flaws (such as the train’s average speed or schedules) have the potential to hobble the project’s success. Like him or not (I voted for the other guy), Kasich gets points for raising, in the din of Keynesian spending, the issue of deficits once again. It's a specter we liberals tend to casually and unwisely disregard.
That said, I think Kasich’s stance will count, in the future’s past, as an egregious blunder. For beyond the debates about the many details of the proposed 3C passenger rail system, there are two overarching considerations that have too often been neglected. Article continues on page two.
On January 19th, 2011 @ 10:35:pm, Susan borison quipped:
Great overview of the issue. Hopefully Kasich has a plan that has not yet been revealed.
On January 20th, 2011 @ 12:40:pm, Beth Noren remarked:
This was outstanding. I am going to use this article in my economics course if you don't mind. You delineate the limitations of Keyesian economics but counter these limitations with the reality of what occurs when nothing is offered by the opposition as an alternative. When I teach the New Deal I explain that the WPA and CCC projects were not just about putting people to work. It was about giving them a sense of purpose or a sense of worth. Must this sense of worth be reserved for only future generations? Must the future's prosperity come on the backs and misery of prior generations? There is something poetic in Lennon's words when he speaks of life is what happens when you are making other plans. And should we plan for our future? Absolutely but our future can prosper if we model behavior now that our future citizens can use. The arguments I see coming from the right in regards to this project are that once the project is completed those jobs go away. This is the same argument opponents to the New Deal said in regards to FDR's deficit spending projects. Once the roads were built, the dams were sealed, and parks landscaped everyone was out of work again. But that is not entirely true, they also acquired a sense of being along with those laboring skills. A sense of value or self worth went to not only the country's belief in the Protestant work ethic but it was the attributes that Winthrop espoused when he spoke of the New World being a beacon, or rather, a city upon a hill, an example for all the world to see and to want to emulate. (And no Sarah Palin - Ronald Reagan wasn't the one that coined this phrase though you will prostitute it for your own agenda.) But alas I think our beacon has dimmed as of late. How can we be the city upon the hill when we are willing to throw our own people off the cliff?
On January 24th, 2011 @ 10:30:am, kelly flamos stated:
just started reading jane jacob's "death and life of great american cities" and while transportation infrastructure is just a part of what makes a city thrive (or fail), it's a vital component. ohio isn't the only state that is missing out on an opportunity to rethink and refashion the way its people move within and between urban centers. this rail project could've spurred urban public transportation development too. but instead, we'll get more highway, more sprawl, more cars, more big box stores, more suburban isolation, and more of the same. thanks for writing about this.