# Another Pasting by Robert Samuelson



## LA Resident (Feb 14, 2011)

This has to be the fourth column that Robert Samuelson of Newsweek and Washington Post has written in a continuing tirade against high-speed rail ideas.

Here's his latest opening from February 11:

Vice President Biden, an avowed friend of good government, is giving it a bad name. With great fanfare, he went to Philadelphia last week to announce that the Obama administration proposes spending $53 billion over six years to construct a "national high-speed rail system." Translation: The administration would pay states $53 billion to build rail networks that would then lose money - lots - thereby aggravating the budget squeezes of the states or federal government, depending on which covered the deficits.

full link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/13/AR2011021302203.html


----------



## George Harris (Feb 14, 2011)

This guy is as much wind up doll concerning rail as Wendell Cox is/was. Pull his string and he will come out with one of three or four pre-programmed negative statements about rail. The best way to deal with that, unless you have rational arguements that you can get into the press, is to quit listening to save yourself from high blood pressure and ulcers.


----------



## LA Resident (Feb 14, 2011)

George Harris said:


> This guy is as much wind up doll concerning rail as Wendell Cox is/was. Pull his string and he will come out with one of three or four pre-programmed negative statements about rail. The best way to deal with that, unless you have rational arguements that you can get into the press, is to quit listening to save yourself from high blood pressure and ulcers.


Amen to that. Still, he's widely syndicated and has a smooth style in which to arrange his selected "facts" for maximum persuasion. I wish there was someone in the media equally well-versed arguing for the side that every other developed nation seems to have followed.


----------



## jis (Feb 14, 2011)

I don't see him complaining about over a trillion that has been spent on highways which is now causing us to transfer over $10 billion per year (and getting progressively worse) from general funds to keep the behemoth afloat. Talk about losing money! In short he is as full of scatology as he has always been.


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Feb 14, 2011)

I'd like to see his portfolio, I'll bet it is heavy in oil, freight and auto related stocks :unsure:


----------



## PRR 60 (Feb 14, 2011)

George Harris said:


> This guy is as much wind up doll concerning rail as Wendell Cox is/was. Pull his string and he will come out with one of three or four pre-programmed negative statements about rail. The best way to deal with that, unless you have rational arguements that you can get into the press, is to quit listening to save yourself from high blood pressure and ulcers.


So, is there no one with rational arguments? A good rebuttal op-ed piece would be published. If Samuelson is wrong, someone should reply with facts. The Washington Post is hardly a tool of the far right. Name calling ("wind up doll") is not very persuasive.


----------



## Spokker (Feb 14, 2011)

Comparisons to Amtrak are flawed. The best strategy would be to attack specific flaws of specific projects. For example, design decisions are being made in the Bay Area Peninsula that will result in worse service for both Caltrain and HSR. HSR won't provide any additional utility for Caltrain and would actually make the service less appealing.

That sort of thing.


----------



## JJJ (Feb 15, 2011)

Whats interesting is that there is a small group of folks repeating the same things and all quoting themselves.

Samuelson says "Trains suck, as proven by Wendell Cox"

Cox says "Trains sucks, as presented by the Reason Foundation"

Reason Says "Trains suck, and a recent report by Samuelson proves it"

They're like internet trolls. Possibly the same person replying to themselves with different user names.


----------



## Tracktwentynine (Feb 15, 2011)

The Washington Post seems to have a bit of a blind spot when it comes to rail, in general (except Metro), for some reason. I addressed an earlier editorial on this issue a few weeks ago.

Anyway, the column is bogus for a variety of reasons, one of which is the use of misleading numbers. Let's take a quick example:



> Longtime critic Randal O'Toole of the Cato Institute recently planned a trip from Washington to New York. Noting that fares on Amtrak's high-speed Acela start at $139 one-way, he decided to take a private bus service. The roundtrip fare: $21.50.


Okay, so Mr. O'Toole looked at a high-speed business class ticket and compared it to taking a bus. That's not really a fair comparison. If one were to fly, for instance, the fare would be much higher than $21.50. In fact, planning a random trip from Washington-National to New York-LaGuardia in business class costs *$368*, and that's planning a trip months in advance.

Clearly, the fact that a bus company can sell tickets for less than business class on an airplane is evidence that the entire airline industry was a colossal waste of money, an example of socialist government intervention, and something that should be eliminated post haste.

Or, it would be "clear" if we used O'Toole and Samuelson's logic.

And lets consider that despite the price of that business class ticket on Acela, the Northeast Corridor has already attracted close to half of the Washington-New York travel market.

Besides, the intercity bus market in the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic is in a full-out price war right now. Bolt and Megabus sell tickets for as low as $1.50 between Washington and New York. It costs me that much to take the city bus from my apartment to the subway. There is no way that an intercity bus system can continue to survive while charging people pennies to ride. Over time, these price wars will clear out the playing field, and prices will rise.

Greyhound, senior member of the bus crowd, charges $38 for a bus fare from Washington to New York, and for that $38, you don't even get a guaranteed seat on your bus. If it's full, you might have to wait on the next one.

And all of Samuelson's consternation over subsidy is bunk. After all, without the public subsidy spent on those nice Interstates and other public roads, Mr. O'Toole's bus wouldn't even get out of the bus station.


----------



## SCrails (Feb 15, 2011)

On the comparison of passenger rail to highways (re: government funding), I saw an unusual argument recently. The online topic was public broadcasting, with one defending it and another saying government had no business in broadcasting and that if people want the content of public broadcasting, they need to pay for it in full themselves.

I commented, tongue-in-cheek, that likewise the government had no business building highways, that if people want paved roads they should pay to have them paved themselves. The other person replied that highways are for the national defense and therefore it's ok to spend federal funds on them; broadcasting isn't for defense, ergo no federal money.

I've never heard that particular defense of highway spending. Of course, I'm aware of the military roots of the interstate highway system, but I don't think they really qualify as a major item of national defense today, do they?


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Feb 15, 2011)

SCrails said:


> On the comparison of passenger rail to highways (re: government funding), I saw an unusual argument recently. The online topic was public broadcasting, with one defending it and another saying government had no business in broadcasting and that if people want the content of public broadcasting, they need to pay for it in full themselves.
> 
> I commented, tongue-in-cheek, that likewise the government had no business building highways, that if people want paved roads they should pay to have them paved themselves. The other person replied that highways are for the national defense and therefore it's ok to spend federal funds on them; broadcasting isn't for defense, ergo no federal money.
> 
> I've never heard that particular defense of highway spending. Of course, I'm aware of the military roots of the interstate highway system, but I don't think they really qualify as a major item of national defense today, do they?



Ahh, the times we live in. When it comes to "National Defense" the prevailing thought seems to be "spare no expense." When it comes to anything else, the attitude is "we are broke" - that is except when it comes to taxing the upper 5% income bracket. This same prevailing thought likes to wrap itself in the flag and conjure up the founding of this great country. What is sad is that they ignore the fact that The Founding Fathers did not believe in a "standing army" and thought that military spending should be kept at a minimum! :wacko: :wacko: Dwight D. Eisenhower, the great general of World War II, our 34th President and a Republican, who decided to build the Interstate Highway System over putting money into rail transportion, warned about the Military-Industrial Complex in his Farewell Address when leaving his second term in the Presidency. I can't help but wonder what he would think of where the Country is today. :help: :help:


----------



## PRR 60 (Feb 15, 2011)

Tracktwentynine said:


> The Washington Post seems to have a bit of a blind spot when it comes to rail, in general (except Metro), for some reason. I addressed an earlier editorial on this issue a few weeks ago.
> 
> Anyway, the column is bogus for a variety of reasons, one of which is the use of misleading numbers. Let's take a quick example:
> 
> ...


To be fair, Acela "Business Class" is business class in name only. It is a seat and nothing else: not even a 6 oz soft drink. It is, by any valid definition, coach.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Feb 15, 2011)

In summation: The average person gets to listen to the opinions of people not qualified to render them. Ipso facto, we are doomed.


----------



## LA Resident (Feb 16, 2011)

Green Maned Lion said:


> In summation: The average person gets to listen to the opinions of people not qualified to render them. Ipso facto, we are doomed.


Or as John Maynard Keynes put it, "In the long run we're all dead." Of course, in the meantime, it's the human burden to put up with all sorts of drivel passed off as wisdom. The anti-rail people are often akin to two bald guys arguing over a comb.


----------



## George Harris (Feb 22, 2011)

LA Resident said:


> Or as John Maynard Keynes put it, "In the long run we're all dead." Of course, in the meantime, it's the human burden to put up with all sorts of drivel passed off as wisdom. The anti-rail people are often akin to two bald guys arguing over a comb.


Which is much the same as saying, "All bleeding will eventually stop."


----------



## George Harris (Feb 22, 2011)

JJJ said:


> Whats interesting is that there is a small group of folks repeating the same things and all quoting themselves.
> Samuelson says "Trains suck, as proven by Wendell Cox"
> 
> Cox says "Trains sucks, as presented by the Reason Foundation"
> ...


If this sort of thing (circular referencing) were done to obtain credit, it would be a fraud.


----------

