You’re welcome, America: California’s high-speed rail will need a federal bailout


**Posted by Phineas

"Train wreck"

“Train wreck”

I just knew it would come to this:

When California finishes tapping out the taxpayers in its state to pay for its nonsensical high speed rail, it will ask the taxpayers of other states to chip in, according to a new Government Accountability Office report requested by House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-CA). The GAO report found that the federal government will have to give California an astonishing $38.7 billion in order for the state to complete the idiotic project, footing more than half of the total cost.

Not that California will ever see much, if any, of that money; with Republicans controlling the House and the public increasingly concerned over ludicrous levels of federal spending (and borrowing), there’s going to be heavy pressure not to give Sacramento a dime.

And I call that a good thing.

My fellow Californians passed Prop 1A in a fit of bong-born enthusiasm in 2008, but, since then, public opinion has soured to the point that a majority would just cancel it, largely due to skyrocketing costs. Here are five good reasons this boondoggle should be tossed in dumpster, including the fact that rider numbers –and thus the ticket sales needed to pay off the debt we’re incurring– will never match projections.

(Which is surprising. You’d think millions would flock to ride that opening stretch from Bakersfield to Madera.)

Thankfully, Representative McCarthy and his Republican colleagues are working to block any federal aid to this folly. It’s sad when a federal representative has to work against his state government, but, in this case, call it “tough love.” If Governor Brown and the dreamland progressives in the legislature can’t see the need to kill this lunatic project, someone will have to do it for them. Sadly, my guess is this will only happen after we’ve taken on tons more debt pursuing it.

Why is the left so obsessed with fixed rail? Or does “progressive” really mean “the future as seen from the 1930s?”

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

VIDEO: FL #PPact lobbyist shockingly neutral on how to treat live botched-abortion baby


Weekly Standard’s John McCormack has the transcript (hat tip):

Florida legislators considering a bill to require abortionists to provide medical care to an infant who survives an abortion were shocked during a committee hearing this week when a Planned Parenthood official endorsed a right to post-birth abortion.

Alisa LaPolt Snow, the lobbyist representing the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, testified that her organization believes the decision to kill an infant who survives a failed abortion should be left up to the woman seeking an abortion and her abortion doctor.

“So, um, it is just really hard for me to even ask you this question because I’m almost in disbelief,” said Rep. Jim Boyd. “If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?”

“We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician,” said Planned Parenthood lobbyist Snow.

Rep. Daniel Davis then asked Snow, “What happens in a situation where a baby is alive, breathing on a table, moving. What do your physicians do at that point?”

“I do not have that information,” Snow replied. “I am not a physician, I am not an abortion provider. So I do not have that information.”

And the video:

Of course, as many of you probably already know, this is entirely consistent with the position of our celebrity President, who – while running for President – outright lied about his deplorable, inhumane position on infants born alive after an attempt at partial birth abortion. The mainstream media mostly gave him a pass on it, of course (goes without saying, I know).

David Steinberg at the PJ Tatler nails the moral depravity of people who defend this reprehensible belief system:

A Florida Planned Parenthood official just stood in front of the Florida legislature to advance the argument that perhaps some life is at the whim of the living — “legitimate life,” for a perfectly representative description of her argument; there is no daylight between her testimony and an advocacy of decriminalizing murder.

If a child brought into the world under such circumstances is unworthy of life via the intentions of the mother, logic dictates that the child would be placed in such limbo indefinitely, until such time as the mother chooses to kill it. Two minutes later, twenty-five years later: if this monstrous woman could shape a society according to her testimony, then the mother would necessarily have a permanent right to slaughter her child.

Further: changing her mind, at any point, would change nothing.

If the mother decided she no longer wished the child to be dead, the logic of this “Legitimate Life” testimony — that some life is at the whim of the living — requires that the mother could always change her mind once again.

Which brings us to this: a government-funded organization just sent a representative to testify that she is not entirely sure a mother does not have an inalienable right to murderthe president whose administration funds her organization has expressed the exact same sentiments, and in fact voted on them — several times.

Indeed. But please move along here, as there is nothing to see. It’s conservatives who are the hateful ones who lack compassion for our fellow human beings, remember? /sarc o=>